A bone to pick: Missing link is evolutionists' weakest

Houston Chronical via WorldNetDaily ^ | July 26 | Jeff Farmer

[Gumlegs]

I cribbed it from f.Christian's post 801. (It's at the bottom -- last fragment).

[Junior]

Shhh! He didn't notice either one of us. That can't be a bad thing.

[PatrickHenry]

You guys are just jealous that I get double billing in one of the whacko wino's posts.

He senses my power.
</gen. ripper mode>

[gore3000]

Let's see you back up your statement with real evidence.

BWAAAAAAHAHAHA. You mean like you do? BWAAAAAAAAHAHA!

I knew you could not back it up. I knew you would insult instead of respond to the challenge. Evolutionists love to throw dirt up on the wall see if it sticks and when caught they insult. Nothing new.

[gore3000]

No, I don't, you liar.

Another typical evolutionist 'refutation', no facts, just insults.

[gore3000]

And RightWingNilla proved you wrong on this dishonest claim. Why do you keep lying about it?

Your assertions are garbage. You just hurl insults and never back anything up. What did he prove, give post and link. You will not, because he has been beaten in three straight threads with his garbage.

[gore3000]

It clearly states that it was a mutation on an existing gene which took away the ability of the bacteria to eat carbohydrates! -me-

And added the ability to digest polymers - a new beneficial function.

Oh yes, you can find polymers all over in nature. Once the plant closes they will die, as I said. You just keep talking garbage.

[gore3000]

1. a. The observable physical or biochemical characteristics of an organism , as determined by both genetic makeup and environmental influences. b. The expression of a specific trait, such as stature or blood type, based on genetic and environmental influences.

That's right, observable. You finally looked it up after you moronically said it had to do with the expression of proteins which are not observable. Like all the evolutionists you keep trying to change the meanings of words to fit stupid theory. Phenotype is the observable characteristics. If scientists are talking about proteins, they say proteins not phenotype. Unlike evolutionists scientists are very specific in their use of words.

[gore3000]

Really? I ignored it? - nilla-

Yes, you did. Several times. In more than one thread.

Just answer the question: how is a program changed at random in an evolutionary way. No links, no garbage, no daemons. We are not talking mutations, we are talking about the human development program. You have shown me dozens of garbage mutations already which I have completely refuted already. You are trying to change the subject, I will not allow it. Answer the question. Just a straight answer, none of this throwing dirt against the wall see what sticks. The process by which a single cell is turned into 3 trillion cells by birth is a program, a very specific program which cannot be changed at random.

[gore3000]

Of course you remember this.

Yup, and same question, same refutation - stop wasting my time, the answer is below:

I chose the mosquito study to examine in detail since it is a good example of natural selection in the wild and the ONLY logical conclusion is that the duplicated esterase genes are expressed. Nilla

We have been over this before. We are not talking logic, we are talking facts. What you call logic is not logic. It is only logical if you start with the premise that evolution is true. Since that is what we are trying to determine such a premise is not valid. Since the premise is not valid the 'logical conclusion' from that premise is not valid. It is also very telling that since this is such a 'logical' conclusion, you cannot find any scientists that say that this is in fact what occurred. They do not say that the new gene(s) was(were) expressed. If this is the only 'logical' conclusion why don't they say it? Because they know it is not true. See my answer to Stultis just above for the reasons. 414 posted on 7/24/02 10:23 PM Pacific by gore3000

[gore3000]

Of course you remember this.

Yup, and same question, same refutation - stop wasting my time, the answer is below:

I chose the mosquito study to examine in detail since it is a good example of natural selection in the wild and the ONLY logical conclusion is that the duplicated esterase genes are expressed. Nilla

We have been over this before. We are not talking logic, we are talking facts. What you call logic is not logic. It is only logical if you start with the premise that evolution is true. Since that is what we are trying to determine such a premise is not valid. Since the premise is not valid the 'logical conclusion' from that premise is not valid. It is also very telling that since this is such a 'logical' conclusion, you cannot find any scientists that say that this is in fact what occurred. They do not say that the new gene(s) was(were) expressed. If this is the only 'logical' conclusion why don't they say it? Because they know it is not true. See my answer to Stultis just above for the reasons. 414 posted on 7/24/02 10:23 PM Pacific by gore3000

[gore3000]

Remember this thread?

Yup, and the refutation is below. Since you lost the argument completely you are taking pieces from here and there, wasting everyone's time:

Gore3000 is grasping at straws with this statement. These mutants spontaneously evolved a new ability via random mutation. RWN-

Nope. Your example does not show:
1. greater complexity.
2. greater genetic information.
3. the duplication of and expression of a new gene.
4. better functioning under normal conditions.
In short it does not show anything necessary for evolution to be true. What it does show is adaptation to the environment. One last thing, it is even doubtful that this can be called a mutation. The specificity of the change, suggests (but does not prove) that it may have been due to deliberate adaptation by transposons. As I said at the start of this discussion 4 - 2 does not equal 6. You need additional expressed genes for evolution to be true and such has never been shown.

1311 posted on 7/24/02 5:56 AM Pacific by gore3000

[gore3000]

You wanted lots of children, you got them. -me-

Once again, Gore3000 shows us how detached from reality he is.

The population in this purely hypothetical scenario is skyrocketing in an ridiculously unrealistic fashion.

The math is the same, it just shows the problem faster. The evos have been arguing about many children, they got them. If it's too many it does not work, if it is too few, it does not work. Math is the same any way you look at it. Divide by two you always get a smaller number regardless of what numbers you use. Your argument and that of your fellow evolutionists is therefore completely moronic.

[gore3000]

I've seen the estimate that the average human child has one or two novel mutations somewhere.

Oh wow! What fantastic evidence you are presenting us with! Maybe you should get a Nobel Prize for the discovery! I mean how can anyone refute it!

Interestingly the above is the same kind of 'evidence' presented by Darwin throughout his works - his mother's cousin's friend said that this or that had been observed. What a joke evolution and evolutionists are.

[gore3000]

Vade and his links. Where are they from today? TalkOrigins, Lindsay? Let's see you post your brilliant stuff where all can see it. It is always good for a laugh. BTW - I thought nobody had ever observed evolution? Guess some evo took a time machine and got pictures of it?

[gore3000]

Your post is incorrect because (inter alia) you are assuming that those with a mutation will only interbreed with those without a mutation.

That has already been discussed. If there is close interbreeding other mutations will destroy the individuals interbreeding with close relatives. This is a very well established fact in genetics and explained in several posts already.

[Tribune7]

My interest got piqued so I did a Google search on evolution mutation and ended up at this TalkOrigin site by Edward Max

Max, who is a M.D., and has a Ph.d -- I'm not sure in what by I'll assume a hard science, is disputing positions by biochemist Dr. Duane Gish; peditrician Ross Olson and Dr. Lee Spetner.

Now, all four of these people know more about this subject than myself, and I strongly suspect everybody else on this thread.

The creationists argue that a beneficial mutation has never been observed in a human. Max says "so what" they happen in bacteria, and nobody ever had a reason to look for them in people, anyway. He does admit they are rare.

The creationists say mutations do not add information to the genome. Max says they do. Max publishes an interesting and fair account of a debate on the subject with Spetner here

The conclusion is nobody seems to knock anybody out. I would give the win to the creationists but that may be my bias.

I was impressed with Max. He agreed that "macro-evolution" has never been observed. I won't claim that "macro-evolution" is impossible or should be discounted.

I do believe quite strongly that random mutations and natural selection fail remarkably in explaining biodiversity.

One think I found humorous was that both sides used the phrase "straw man"

[gore3000]

He's also proved that men will become extinct. The Y-chromosme has only a 50% chance of being passed to the next generation.

Showing your absolute ignorance of biology. Women have two X chromosomes, men have an X and a Y. So the chances of the progeny having one X and one Y are determined by the man and the chances are 50% as we see. Study up on genetics so you do not continue to make a fool of yourself.

[gore3000]

The mutation that gave S. aureus penicillin resistance is an example of a favorable mutation.

Let's see the research on that. I have shown many mutations which are not favorable already, time for you to back up what you say.

[gore3000]

The studies I have linked

So when are you going to answer how a program is changed at random??????

Since you keep claiming that you have the evidence you should be able to do so. Any mutation has to become part of the developmental program of an organism for it to be passed on and work so unless you can answer the question all the nonsense about mutations is just nonsense.