Evolution. The proof you've been requesting.

I've been hesitant to post this because every time I use humor to attempt to lighten up a heated thread, someone inevitably complains or the post is removed. However, I made this last night while thinking of this thread. I hope some people get the point it is trying to convey and realize it is on topic even though it uses humor.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Oh gee Mel,, do you really think anyone expected you to post quotes supporting my argument?

How's that? You mean he, like almost every evolutionary biologist, accepts there is more to evolution than the darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection?

The article from his lab states:

At its core, evolution involves a profound tension between
random and deterministic processes. Natural selection works systematically to adapt populations to their prevailing environments. However, selection requires heritable variation generated by random mutation...

Sounds suspiciously like he has no major problems with the presence of darwinian processes. Random and deterministic - yeah, mutation and natural selection will be covered.

Oh really?? care to show us the exact quote Mel?

Yeah, why not...

[originally posted by JPhish]
he said that the information is nothing new, and in value, it technically isn't.

some stuff about pens

the same applies to the article and it's findings

my addition

So he is agreeing with you the study is now't new. Old-hat. Been there before. Just 'dropping the same old pens'.

Technically it is new. The study focuses on historical contingency in evolution. It is also probably the best study thus far that appears to show that Behe is wrong. An experimental lab study suggesting the production of a new function from at minimum 3 mutations. Behe says 2 is very unlikely, 3 over the 'edge' - he said that last year and the other week.

If we had seen this sort of thing many times before, you would expect Behe to have the nous to not claim such things (but I might be expecting too much).

It's not just some lab-dude dropping a pen and listening for noise for the nth time. It's not some old-hat study replicating an old study, this is new science, and great stuff.

And I guess I failed to predict the 'ItZ JuST miCROEvOLUTion!!oneeleventy!' trench.

That's fine. Microevolution is therefore more than just changes in pre-existing variation - you know, particular beaks being favoured in finches - but involves mutations producing new traits. Not just the shuffling/selection of existing traits. Add up lots of novelty over very long periods of time, and...well...

Ill give ya the benefit of the doubt

- Con

Aww, thanks. Sometimes you just need to note the context. I will often use the word 'we', sorry. It's not equivalent to me trying to claim to be a biologist, indeed I would be the first to state I'm not. I had to drop it at school you see, I don't even have a formal HS education in biology. I happened to really like French and was forced to choose.

Au revoir.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
It truly is a fantastic study.

Has many people squeeling and squirming, as this appears to decimate the claims of Behe (even it's though not the first in the last year or so).

Behe discusses this at his Amazon blog. You set that decimation bar pretty low dontcha?

Essentially the study shows three successive mutations that have produced an entirely new effective function (citrate growth). Even better, they showed some historical contingency.

E.coli could already metabolize citrate. No? All the 'metabolic machinery' was already in place here. No? This "entirely new effective function" is just the ability to transport citrate in an oxygen rich[?] environment. No? Or, is there some subtle nuance that I'm missing with your "effective" qualifier. Pretty sneaky, old bean.

Add this to the study which appears to show de novo evolution of a gene from non-coding areas of the genome, not a good month for creationists (when is it? They haz Ben Stein mockumentary, we have actual science).

Link? Also, the only name you mentioned/ideas you discussed were Behe's. He believes that the Earth is billions of years old; that man and ape share a common ancestry; that Genesis is not an accurate scientific account of origins and/or evolution. So creationists could have a bad week... he, and his ideas, will be otherwise fine and stay, as they have to this very day, un-scathed.

How 'bout this one: Predictive Behavior Within Microbial Genetic Networks (pdf) Interesting. Bacteria intentionally mutating to develop anti-biotic resistance, anticipating environmental changes (based on temperature change) and adapting (by turning genes on and off), etc. So much for the 'selfish gene' eh. How very, oh... I don't know... intelligently evolved.


Welcome, new Lamarkian overlords.


PS,

Is this discussion supposed to be in sci/tech or BTS instead of here? Never could get skepticoverlord to clarify that for me. That paper could be a good thread... if I knew where to put it.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by Rren]

Heh, R., Behe is talking rubbish.

I think the results fit a lot more easily into the viewpoint of The Edge of Evolution. One of the major points of the book was that if only one mutation is needed to confer some ability, then Darwinian evolution has little problem finding it. But if more than one is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse. “If two mutations have to occur before there is a net beneficial effect — if an intermediate state is harmful, or less fit than the starting state — then there is already a big evolutionary problem.” (4) And what if more than two are needed? The task quickly gets out of reach of random mutation.

Big evolutionary problem at two mutations? Quickly out of hand for more than two? The evidence suggests at least three mutations for this new function.

So the 'task' appears to be well within the 'reach of random mutation'.

Behe appears to have lost something. I think ERV took his mojo.

And the function produced was unique:

The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit(+)) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that "replayed" evolution from different points in that population's history. We observed no Cit(+) mutants among 8.4 x 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 x 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit(+), indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit(+) but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.

Original PNAS Abstract

Yeah, and Behe isn't your typical creationist. However, if he accepts common descent etc, but then argues that evolution can't even get three mutations together to produce a new function. I think he's got some creationist thing going on.

ABE: for the ps, R. - I said nothing will change, no? Change just ain't what it used to be, heh.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Heh, R., Behe is talking rubbish.

You read his book/argument yet?

Big evolutionary problem at two mutations? Quickly out of hand for more than two? The evidence suggests at least three mutations for this new function.

How many generations needed, mel? How 'novel' is this new function? 30,000 generations (testing billions of mutations) under extraordinary/atypical conditions, for something so trivial, when the 'machinery' is already in place. Put that in the context of (for example) mammalian evolution. Decimated, it's not. You refuse to read his original work/argument but choose instead to rely on his opponents characterizations of it. This is true, no? It's seems you're missing his point re: 'the edge of evolution.' I.e., he's not saying it didn't evolve.

So the 'task' appears to be well within the 'reach of random mutation'.

How was it random? It happened without rhyme or reason? Implemented just the same?

Behe appears to have lost something. I think ERV took his mojo.

I think not, fanboy.

And the function produced was unique:

[...] Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection. [Original PNAS Abstract]

How does this decimate Behe's 'edge'? Mojo.... safe. wheww.

Yeah, and Behe isn't your typical creationist. However, if he accepts common descent etc, but then argues that evolution can't even get three mutations together to produce a new function. I think he's got some creationist thing going on.

He's arguing against evolutionary theory not change over time or common ancestry. Again, you're missing his point. What kinda creationist thing? He believes man is an evolved ape. He believes Genesis gives an inaccurate account of origins and evolution. He's an evolutionist. If you re-define "creationist" in that way you render it useless. Everybody, 'cept atheists, is a creationist. E.g., like PZ tried to do with Ken Miller It's tripe. Vacuous, y'all might say. The same ol' Provocateur BS one comes to expect from your typical New Atheist preaching the good news to the masses. Where's my "I heart real science" Tee-shirt. Blah.

ABE: for the ps, R. - I said nothing will change, no? Change just ain't what it used to be, heh.

Yup. Oh well. I asked him twice. Both times in threads dedicated to discussing it. He replied to the post before and after mine both times but, ignored my inquiries. *shrug* It's his site he can run it how he sees fit. Most of this stuff (sans the philosophy/theology) belongs in sci/tech, like it used to be. In my opinion. I figure I just wont post threads and just reply to what I find interesting wherever I find it. Seems that the forum is exactly as it used to be though. As you predicted.

Regards.

Originally posted by Rren
You read his book/argument yet?

I hear it's going cheap-cheap on Amazon. But, no, I don't want to encourage such people to write anymore....*cunning plan*.....actually, it might be best to do the opposite, he likes to use his gold-plated shovel.

mwhahahaha!

How many generations needed, mel? How 'novel' is this new function? 30,000 generations (testing billions of mutations) under extraordinary/atypical conditions, for something so trivial, when the 'machinery' is already in place. Put that in the context of (for example) mammalian evolution. Decimated, it's not. You refuse to read his original work/argument but choose instead to rely on his opponents characterizations of it. This is true, no? It's seems you're missing his point re: 'the edge of evolution.' I.e., he's not saying it didn't evolve.

I read his interpretation of the article, and also the very funny HIV/AIDS Abbie fiasco. Him being fisked by a lowly grad student was enough for me.

It appears to have taken at least 3 mutations to produce this new function. The function is unique, as e. coli has never evolved this function itself. It has taken a plasmid from elsewhere in the past. But this is not a plasmid issue, but e. coli evolving the function itself by mutations with no outside interference. Unique.

Doesn't matter that the environment was challenging, if you want natural selection to act, it makes sense to 'challenge' the organism. And, yeah, mutations happen all the time.

I can see you want to trivialise this finding, R.

How was it random? It happened without rhyme or reason? Implemented just the same?

Because even when they went back and started over, the chances of the same event happening even with the later variants was around a trillion to one? It wasn't the organism directing this if you think that was the case - would have been much easier to get the beneficial mutations required.

I think not, fanboy.

I do like abbie

Not a fanboy though. Behe was completely unable to read the article correctly, that's pretty bad, R.

One enabling mutation (20,000). One mutation which gave some ability to use citrate (31,500ish). But these were being swamped by other variants (i.e., less fit c.f. original population). Then a final mutation produces a variant which is very successful and prospers (33,000). At least 3 mutations --> new functional trait.

How does this decimate Behe's 'edge'? Mojo.... safe. wheww.

You probably need to read his Amazon article again.

He's arguing against evolutionary theory not change over time or common ancestry.

R., if evolution can't even naturally find 3 mutations to produce a trait, then what's left? Magic?

Seems that the forum is exactly as it used to be though. As you predicted.

Regards.

Yay! \0/

Science wins again!

lol

[edit on 21-6-2008 by melatonin]

One of the foundations of creationism is the basic belief that humans are somehow unique and particularly blessed by the hand of God. As has been my habit on this thread I would like to introduce another recent article addressing this particular illusion:

six "uniquely" human traits found in animals

For those who have substituted their subscription to new scientist with a subscription of new witchcraft, you will not be able to read the full article. (not that you would mind you).
Thus I list six traits from the article that have been PROVEN to coexist in both human and animals.
Culture, Mind Reading (ie. understanding deception), Tool Use, Morality, Emotions, Personality.

Once again let me repeat that this is not a thread for zealots who may still believe that somehow dinosaurs walked alongside humans. It is for the inquisitive who are looking for some facts on the subject.

1. Culture

Art, theatre, literature, music, religion, architecture and cuisine – these are the things we generally associate with culture. Clearly no other animal has anything approaching this level of cultural sophistication. But culture at its core is simply the sum of a particular group's characteristic ways of living, learned from one another and passed down the generations, and other primate species undoubtedly have practices that are unique to groups, such as a certain way of greeting each other or obtaining food.

Even more convincing examples of animal cultures are found in cetaceans. Killer whales, for example, fall into two distinct groups, residents and transients. Although both live in the same waters and interbreed, they have very different social structures and lifestyles, distinct ways of communicating, different tastes in food and characteristic hunting techniques – all of which parents teach to offspring.

Read the original article: Culture shock (24 March 2001)

Hal Whitehead, Dalhousie University writes:

"Since our 2001 review, people have often considered culture as a potential explanation of the behavioural patterns that have turned up in their studies of whales and dolphins.

"Our own work has concentrated on the non-vocal forms of sperm-whale culture. The different cultural clans of sperm whales, although in basically the same areas, use these waters very differently, and are affected very differently by El Niño events. They also have different reproductive rates.

"In sperm whales, and likely other whales and dolphins, culture has the potential to affect population biology, and so issues as diverse as genetic evolution and the impacts of global warming on the species."

2. Mind reading

Perhaps the surest sign that an individual has insight into the mind of another is the ability to deceive. To outwit someone you must understand their desires, intentions and motives – exactly the same ability that underpins the "theory of mind". This ability to attribute mental states to others was once thought unique to humans, emerging suddenly around the fifth year of life. But the discovery that babies are capable of deception led experts to conclude that "mind-reading" skills develop gradually, and fuelled debate about whether they might be present in other primates.

Experiments in the 1990s indicated that great apes and some monkeys do understand deception, but that their understanding of the minds of others is probably implicit rather than explicit as it is in adult humans.

Read the original article: Liar! Liar! (14 February 1998)

Marc Hauser, Harvard University, writes:

"The tamarin work didn't pan out, but there are now several studies that show evidence of theory of mind in primates, including work by Brian Hare, Josep Call, Mike Tomasello, Felix Warneken, Laurie Santos, Justin Wood, and myself on chimps, rhesus monkeys and tamarins. There is nothing quite like a successful Sally-Anne test, but studies point to abilities such as seeing as a form of knowing, reading intentions and goals."

3. Tool use

Some chimps use rocks to crack nuts, others fish for termites with blades of grass and a gorilla has been seen gauging the depth of water with the equivalent of a dipstick, but no animal wields tools with quite the alacrity of the New Caledonian crow. To extract tasty insects from crevices, they craft a selection of hooks and long, barbed tapers called stepped-cut tools, made by intricately cutting a pandanus leaf with their beaks. What's more, experiments in the lab suggest that they understand the function of tools and deploy creativity and planning to construct them.

Nobody is suggesting that toolmaking has common origins in humans and crows, but there is a remarkable similarity in the ways in which their respective brains work. Both are highly lateralised, revealed in the observation that most crows are right-beaked – cutting pandanus leaves using the right side of their beaks. New Caledonian crows may force us to reassess the mental abilities of our first toolmaking ancestors.

Read the original article: Look, no hands (17 August 2002)

Gavin Hunt at the University of Aukland, writes:

"The general aim of our research on New Caledonian crows is to determine how a 'bird brain' can produce such complex tools and tool behaviour. Since the New Scientist article appeared in 2002, our team has focused on continuing to document tool manufacture and use in the wild (New Zealand Journal of Zoology, vol 35 p 115), the development of tool skills in free-living juveniles, the social behaviour and ecology of NC crows on the island of Maré, experimental work investigating NC crows' physical cognition and general intelligence, and neurological work.

"Some of this work is being undertaken collaboratively with laboratories in Germany (neurology) and New Zealand (genotyping). A very similar study is also being carried out independently at the University of Oxford. This parallel research has produced findings that are both confirmatory and conflicting."

Alex Kacelnik, University of Oxford, adds:

"We now know for sure that genetics is involved in the tool-making abilities of new Caledonian crows. We raised nestlings by hand and found that chicks that had never seen anybody handle objects of any kind started to use tools to extract food from crevices at a similar age to those who were exposed to human tutors using tools (Animal Behaviour, vol 72, p 1329). Clearly, observing others is not necessary for the tool use. However chicks exposed to tutoring exhibit a greater intensity of tool-related activity. Not surprisingly, genes and experience show a complex interaction.

"We have also developed a new technique, consisting of loading tiny video cameras on free-ranging birds, so as to see what they see and document the precise use of tools in nature. We have discovered that they use tools in loose soil, that they use a kind of tool not previously described (grass stems), and that they hunt for vertebrates (lizards). All of this, together with laboratory analysis of their cognitive abilities is forming a richer picture of what the species can do."

4. Morality

A classic study in 1964 found that hungry rhesus monkeys would not take food they had been offered if doing so meant that another monkey received an electric shock. The same is true of rats. Does this indicate nascent morality? For decades, we have preferred to find alternative explanations, but recently ethologist Marc Bekoff from the University of Colorado at Boulder has championed the view that humans are not the only moral species. He argues that morality is common in social mammals, and that during play they learn the rights and wrongs of social interaction, the "moral norms that can then be extended to other situations such as sharing food, defending resources, grooming and giving care".

Read the original article: Virtuous nature (13 July 2002)

Marc Bekoff, University of Colorado, writes:

"Work published this year showed that animals are able to make social evaluations and these assessments are foundational for moral behaviour in animals other than humans. Francys Subiaul of the George Washington University and his colleagues showed that captive chimpanzees are able to make judgments about the reputation of unfamiliar humans by observing their behaviour - whether they were generous or stingy in giving food to other humans. The ability to make character judgments is just what we would expect to find in a species in which fairness and cooperation are important in interactions among group members (Animal Cognition, DOI: 10.1007/s10071-008-0151-6)."

5. Emotions

Emotions allow us to bond with others, regulate our social interactions and make it possible to behave flexibly in different situations. We are not the only animals that need to do these things, so why should we be the only ones with emotions? There are many examples of apparent emotional behaviour in other animals.

Elephants caring for a crippled herd member seem to show empathy. A funeral ritual performed by magpies suggests grief. Was it spite that led a male baboon called Nick to take revenge on a rival by urinating on her? Divers who freed a humpback whale caught in a crab line describe its reaction as one of gratitude. Then there's the excited dance chimps perform when faced with a waterfall – it looks distinctly awe-inspired. These days, few doubt that animals have emotions, but whether they feel these consciously, as we do, is open to debate.

Read the original article: Do animals have emotions? (23 May 2007)

6. Personality

It's no surprise that animals that live under constant threat from predators are extra-cautious, while those that face fewer risks appear to be more reckless. After all, such successful survival strategies would evolve by natural selection. But the discovery that individuals of the same species, living under the same conditions, vary in their degree of boldness or caution is more remarkable. In humans we would refer to such differences as personality traits.

From cowardly spiders and reckless salamanders to aggressive songbirds and fearless fish, we are finding that many animals are not as characterless as we might expect. What's more, work with animals has led to the idea that personality traits evolve to help individuals survive in a wider variety of ecological niches, and this is influencing the way psychologists think about human personality.

And here are six shared behaviors:

1. Teaching

We may be the only animals to go to school, but we are not the only ones that can teach. Meerkats, for example, are taught the most important life skills they need by their elders. It might seem that intelligence is the key to being a good teacher, but researchers believe this is not necessarily true for these animals. Meerkats rely on instinct when they are teaching their young how to kill scorpions.

Meerkats attend scorpion-hunting kindergarten

2. Learning

When a toddler is learning to walk or talk, there is a lot of trial and error involved. But learning through experimentation is not unique to humans – in fact, birds do it too when they are learning to sing.

Researchers recently discovered that the part of the brain used by young zebra finches when they babble is different from the brain area used by adults when they belt out their more melodious songs. So while a baby bird is experimenting discordantly with its vocal range, it will eventually develop the brain pathway that will allow it to sing its heart out with great skill.

Random babbling leads chicks to the perfect tune

3. Cooperation

A human can easily gauge when a helping hand is necessary, but what about a rook? Video footage from a recent study shows a precarious set-up where birds had to work together if they wanted some dinner.

Researchers found that they needed little training in order to cooperate on the task. But it seems they did not fully understand that they could not complete the task alone. If one rook arrived before the other, it would attempt to get at the food, in vain.

Birds team up to grab a bite to eat

4. Deception

If you have ever tried internet dating, you will know that a person's profile may not be an honest depiction of who they are. Humans use many underhand strategies to help them win over a love interest, and they are not the only ones in the animal kingdom to do so.

Another video shows how male nursery web spiders lure females by playing dead. If only such a simple strategy worked for humans.

Male spiders play dead when they want to get laid

5. Memory

As humans, we prize our cognitive abilities, but this video puts us to shame. Humans and adolescent chimps were given the same memory test, which involved remembering a sequence of numbers on a computer screen.

The chimps easily outperformed the humans – the first time humans have been bested by chimps at a cognitive test. Although there is little mention of how much training the chimps had beforehand, it shows we are not the masters of all things mental.

Chimps outperform humans at memory task

6. Social learning

Researchers love to compare humans to our close relatives the great apes. This video shows footage of a study that compared the physical and social skills of orang-utans, chimps and 2-year-old children.

Humans and apes had similar concepts of the physical world, but the researchers found that humans were better at social learning. The toddlers could recognise non-verbal cues better than the apes and were also more likely to learn by example.

However, the tests did ask the apes to learn from humans. Perhaps they would be better at learning from their own species?

Just watch this documentary about making birds into living dinosaurs by retro engineering their DNA at early fetal stages. Astounding facts here!

If you are a creationist BEWARE! This film will shake your foundation to the core!

Remember, dinosaur fossils weren't placed here by the devil to test the faith of man!

WARNING: FACTUAL INFORMATION BEYOND THIS POINT!
quicksilverscreen.com...



[edit on 21-6-2008 by IMAdamnALIEN]

Originally posted by melatonin

Sounds suspiciously like he has no major problems with the presence of darwinian processes. Random and deterministic - yeah, mutation and natural selection will be covered.

Calling it the "Darwinian process is a crock but beyond that, you know damn well that is NOT the issue. Yes everyone knows mutations happen, everyone knows micro-evolution happens but if you think lenski's experiment would result in some form of new type of bacteria culture or any other new type of life form,, at least that is the impression I got from you when you said they were close to evolution taking place.

also when I said:

Oh really?? care to show us the exact quote Mel?

I was not responding to J's quote,. if you read my post it was this quote referring to behe, see below:

You don't even understand the study. So what you say about its aims is meaningless to me. The study is a fantastic illustration of the hollow claims of IDers like Behe. J said this is just old-hat, yet Behe is making claims just a year ago that suggested these findings were beyond evolution.

I realize J is mentioned but I wanted to know where you get this idea behe said the lenski experiment was beyond micro-evolution?

I'd like to see that.

Rather than use the Darwin bait and switch equivocating micro when you know damn well behe accepts micro evolution and you also know damn well I meant macro which is why nobody is squirming. Just let it be known Mel, that creationists could give two toots about micro-evolution. When we say evolution, we mean the kind that can't be done without MAGIC. The kind I thougth this thread was going to offer, the kind that can't get past astyanax trap without assuming the consequent, the kind called "molecules to man" evolution.

THAT'S the ONLY thing between creationists and evolutionists because that notwithstanding, everything else we already heard about in Genesis which by the way is testable and observable for thousands and thousands of years and none of it has changed an iota. So THAT is why when it comes to the bonfide FACTS, what is real, what we can see touch. feel, test and observe, it seems pretty damn ridiculous for any Darwhining Atheist to say we believe things on Faith when we have the Facts and until one of you can prove otherwise, we got over two thousand years of time tested proof prima facie evidence which is enough to have faith in the rest and the rest says we didn't come from some primordial soup.

They won't give up on that theory and to this day they have not proven diddly when it comes to Darwinian macro evolution. If they did, would I believe in God?

If they found proof there was a God, would you be upset? Would you disbelieve it regardless?

Of course you would, that's why Atheists say they disbelieve in God i the first place. They aren't "Unbeleivers" they are "disbelievers" which means they ignore his existence and that is what Atheist evolutionists have a problem with about creationists.

Our Science (yeah thats what it is) wants to learn how God does things, your Science wants to reinvent the damn wheel only you want to just have a mindless entity of some kind invent itself but not only that, you want it to know its a damn wheel and figure out it makes things roll without any intention behind it. That kind of thing is gonna take forever but then again that's why your Science says it takes millions and millions of years.

Hell we might as well assume Elvis will be back with that kind of logic.

Hey given enough time ?

Technically it is new. The study focuses on historical contingency in evolution. It is also probably the best study thus far that appears to show that Behe is wrong. An experimental lab study suggesting the production of a new function from at minimum 3 mutations. Behe says 2 is very unlikely, 3 over the 'edge' - he said that last year and the other week.

You're not saying this only took 3 mutations are you?

That's fine. Microevolution is therefore more than just changes in pre-existing variation - you know, particular beaks being favoured in finches - but involves mutations producing new traits. Not just the shuffling/selection of existing traits. Add up lots of novelty over very long periods of time, and...well...

Yes I am saying that is EXACTLY what it is,, you evolutionists ideas about junk DNA has been debunked so it is VERY likely that the lenski experiment was nothing more than discovering a new method of micro evolution and that's all

- Con

PS: At least you didn't use the peppered moths example.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
I realize J is mentioned but I wanted to know where you get this idea behe said the lenski experiment was beyond micro-evolution?

I'd like to see that.

OK, possibly my bad. Looked like it was related to JPhish.

I've outlined why Behe is wrong numerous times now (which is why I assumed you had gotten the point by now). He talks of the 'edge of evolution', the findings of this study are beyond that edge. He suggests such evolution is not possible - as I stated in the quote you used, 'beyond evolution'. Only you mentioned Behe and microevolution. Me:

You don't even understand the study. So what you say about its aims is meaningless to me. The study is a fantastic illustration of the hollow claims of IDers like Behe. J said this is just old-hat, yet Behe is making claims just a year ago that suggested these findings were beyond evolution.

You asked me to show you the money.

And the micro stuff is just a creationist jig. You have no barrier. We have new functions evolving without magic - the possibility of lots of new functions, lots of time - and the nice nested heirarchy predicted by evolution along with all the other 29+ evidences of common descent. You have complaints of no rats becoming bats in the lab.

And I'm not equivocating. I'm focusing on exactly what Behe has said in response to this study, the one the OP is based on. If new functions by multiple mutations are within the 'reach of evolution', then lots of new functions and big changes are possible.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by IMAdamnALIEN
Just watch this documentary about making birds into living dinosaurs by retro engineering their DNA at early fetal stages. Astounding facts here!

If you are a creationist BEWARE! This film will shake your foundation to the core!

Remember, dinosaur fossils weren't placed here by the devil to test the faith of man!

WARNING: FACTUAL INFORMATION BEYOND THIS POINT!
quicksilverscreen.com...



[edit on 21-6-2008 by IMAdamnALIEN]

Been there done that, here is how much my core was shaken.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's BUNK

- Con

[edit on 21-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by JPhish
the same applies to the article and it's findings.

It doesn't J.

Yourself and con can shell-game this, but this article directly relates to claims made by ID creationists, such as Behe.

This is why people like Behe and others are squirming. Even the dope who runs conservapedia is squirming (he asked Lenski for the data, heh. As if he'd have a clue what to do with it).

I assume you don't know this because you don't follow this issue so closely. There are previous papers which show Behe to be talking tripe in various ways, but the more evidence the better.

We have known this stuff is not an issue for a long-time (e.g., new functions in nylon bugs). But in Lenski's article we have evidence of at least 3 mutations producing a new function - a process which Behe said was beyond the 'edge' of evolution not so long back.

And so Waterloo is postponed for another year, and creationists retreat to 'I want rat to bat in the lab' and continuing to attack science via school boards and media - they are a science free-zone. The Lenski article is a big fat piece of phail pie for Behe and ID creationists.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by melatonin]

yes Mel, i normally don't follow this particular issue closely at all, but after doing some brief research online (like finding out more on this Behe character), i see your points and your reasons for excitement.

So feel free to tell Behe and ID supporters like him that their alleged phail cake is served; im not Behe, and im not an ID advocate. To me this article is still as important as gathering evidence for gravity. But if you feel you have won some sort of great battle . . . please enjoy the after party; because you may very well have.

Originally posted by JPhish
To me this article is still as important as gathering evidence for gravity. But if you feel you have won some sort of great battle . . . please enjoy the after party; because you may very well have.

I hear ya. I'm not exactly expecting IDers or creationists to suddenly accept this article as being fatal to their argument. From experience, I doubt anything could do that, possibly even 'the big J' himself floating down and telling the faithful that Darwin was his right-hand man - evidence is not important to these people.

No great battle won. Just another nail in the coffin of Behe's credibility, IDs foundations, and a nice piece of research to file in the 'evolutionary science works' drawer. The attacks on science and science education will continue unaffected and relentlessly.

However, I think painting the study as some sort of 'same-old' study does trivialise the work a tad. But it's also true that the study is nothing like a Darwin staking out a profound insight about nature.

I just like nice research papers, and I think Behe's response was pitiful but funny (I like ambivalent emotional states).

[edit on 21-6-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


don't get me wrong; i understand your disapproval of me saying it's "old news"

How about this for an analogy . . . evolutions case against this Behe character and ID's is like a bridge . . . It's been in construction for a while. The last thing to be placed is the very important keystone. You've pretty much finished the bridge. Congrats. All you have to do now is take down the support beams and wires . . . But the bridge has been in construction for a long time now, and pretty much the same "stones" have been used all long. Sure, the keystone is important, because it is cut differently than all the others, and supports everything "full circle". But it's still just a stone, in a bridge, made up of very similar stones . . . I guess instead of saying "this is old news" i should have said "i'm not surprised". One would expect the keystone of a bridge to be placed eventually.

[edit on 6/22/2008 by JPhish]