Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"

Religions > Atheism > Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 3 of 5

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Aaron Kim"
Date:	25 Jun 2007 01:03:53 PM
Object:	Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"

Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA
molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and
which contains all its genetic information. These breaks or replacements are
the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every
mutation is an "accident," and either damages the nucleotides making up the
DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage
and modification that the cell cannot repair them.
Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand
that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The
direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can
only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and
Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature.
The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and
random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states:
First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations
are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the
structure of genes;any random change in a highy ordered system will be for
the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a
highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change
in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an
improvement.19
Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations
have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments
on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic
Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have
been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:
Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant
genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of
evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result
from mutations practically all of which are harmful?20
Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in
failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce
mutations in fruit flies, as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so
mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies
were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. The evolutionist
geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, evolutionary biologists have
sought examples of useful mutations by creating mutant flies. But these
efforts have always resulted in sick and deformed creatures. The left
picture shows the head of a normal fruit fly, and the picture on the right
shows the head of fruit fly with legs coming out of it, the result of
mutation.
It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have
been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the
world- flies which produce a new generation every eleven days-they have
never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.21
Mutant frogs born with crippled legs.
Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the
experiments carried out on fruit flies:
Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected
generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark,
and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations,
practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced.
Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have
survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are
sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type.22
The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human
beings have had deleterious results. All mutations that take place in humans
result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down
syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. Needless to say, a process that
leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary
mechanism"-evolution is supposed to produce forms that are better fitted to
survive.
A mutant fly with
deformed wings.
The American pathologist David A. Demick notes the following in a scientific
article about mutations:
Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have
been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A
recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different
genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically
in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome)
are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many
different mutations... With this array of human diseases that are caused by
mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful
mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some
positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only
for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of
the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive
mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.23
The only instance evolutionary biologists give of "useful mutation" is the
disease known as sickle cell anemia. In this, the hemoglobin molecule, which
serves to carry oxygen in the blood, is damaged as a result of mutation, and
undergoes a structural change. As a result of this, the hemoglobin
molecule's ability to carry oxygen is seriously impaired. People with sickle
cell anemia suffer increasing respiratory difficulties for this reason.
However, this example of mutation, which is discussed under blood disorders
in medical textbooks, is strangelyevaluated by some evolutionary biologists
as a "useful mutation."
The shape and functions of red corpuscles are compromised in sickle-cell
anemia. For this reason, their oxygen-carrying capacities are weakened.
They say that the partial immunity to malaria by those with the illness is a
"gift" of evolution. Using the same logic, one could say that, since people
born with genetic leg paralysis are unable to walk and so are saved from
being killed in traffic accidents, therefore genetic leg paralysis is a
"useful genetic feature." This logic is clearly totally unfounded.
It is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul
Grass�, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, is quite clear
on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grass� compared
mutations to "making mistakes in the letters when copying a written text."
And as with mutations, letter mistakes cannot give rise to any information,
but merely damage such information as already exists. Grass� explained this
fact in this way:
Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one
another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given
direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter
how.. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being,
sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the
phenomenon of life and anarchy.24
So for that reason, as Grass� puts it, "No matter how numerous they may be,
mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."25
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms06.html
19 B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust,
1988. (emphasis added)
20 Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science,
vol. 123, June 29, 1956, p. 1159. (emphasis added)
21 Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books,
London, 1984, p. 48.
22 Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, River Publishing, London, 1984, p.
70. (emphasis added)
23 David A. Demick, "The Blind Gunman", Impact, no. 308, February 1999.
(emphasis added)
24 Pierre-Paul Grass�, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New
York, 1977, p. 97, 98.
25 Pierre-Paul Grass�, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New
York, 1977, p. 88. (emphasis added)
--
Listen to Zion Redemption's Radio hosted by Art Bulla and Aaron Kim on
Sunday from 3 to 4 (pst). Just go to
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?host_id=3513 All are invited to
call in live, email at art@artbulla.com, or by MSM artbulla@hotmail.com.
This show is dedicated to the redemption of Zion, revelations of Jesus
Christ, authority, Priesthood, Kingdom of God, doctrine discussed pertaining
to the salvation of Ephraim and Manasseh. During non broadcast hours you can
also listen to archived shows.
Aaron Kim
www.artbulla.com
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	25 Jun 2007 04:58:09 PM

In article <5eahvjF372n7fU1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> writes:

"Pt. Lurk" <Pt. Lurk@renvcom.net> wrote in message
news:uZTfi.1360$KE1.322@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

artbullshitta wrote

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand
that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form.

*BZZZZZT*!! The idea of 'a more advanced and perfect form' has no meaning
in evolutionary theory. No evolutionary biologist ever claims that this is
what mutation produces. Therefore you are an idiot who doesn't know what
he's talking about; therefore we should ignore your post.

Thanks for playing, though. It's great to think that you wasted all that
time copying and pasting!

That's a lie. I would think that it would take advancement for molecules to
evolve into man.

Well, let's examine an aspect of this advancement, shall we?
Animals, as a group, stay alive by using one metabolic
pathway: oxidizing sugars.
Plants, as a group, stay alive by using two metabolic
pathways: the one that animals use, and a second one,
involving making sugars utilizing sunlight as the
source of energy source.
Bacteria, as a group, have at least TWENTY different
metabolic pathways they use to stay alive, including
not only the above two, but oxidizing sulfides,
reducing sulfur, oxidizing iron, and a whole host
of others. There has hardly been found an environment
so dry, so saline, so cold, so hot, so high-pressure,
so radioactive, so acidic, or so alkaline that there
are no bacteria thriving in it.
So, which are more "advanced": animals (including man),
plants, or bacteria?
-- cary
.

User: "Aaron Kim"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	27 Jun 2007 07:32:51 PM

"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f5pdph$kb2$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

In article <5eahvjF372n7fU1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim"
<aaron@artbulla.com> writes:

"Pt. Lurk" <Pt. Lurk@renvcom.net> wrote in message
news:uZTfi.1360$KE1.322@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

artbullshitta wrote

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic
wand
that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect
form.

*BZZZZZT*!! The idea of 'a more advanced and perfect form' has no
meaning
in evolutionary theory. No evolutionary biologist ever claims that this
is
what mutation produces. Therefore you are an idiot who doesn't know
what
he's talking about; therefore we should ignore your post.

Thanks for playing, though. It's great to think that you wasted all
that
time copying and pasting!

That's a lie. I would think that it would take advancement for molecules
to
evolve into man.

Well, let's examine an aspect of this advancement, shall we?

Animals, as a group, stay alive by using one metabolic
pathway: oxidizing sugars.

Plants, as a group, stay alive by using two metabolic
pathways: the one that animals use, and a second one,
involving making sugars utilizing sunlight as the
source of energy source.

Bacteria, as a group, have at least TWENTY different
metabolic pathways they use to stay alive, including
not only the above two, but oxidizing sulfides,
reducing sulfur, oxidizing iron, and a whole host
of others. There has hardly been found an environment
so dry, so saline, so cold, so hot, so high-pressure,
so radioactive, so acidic, or so alkaline that there
are no bacteria thriving in it.

So, which are more "advanced": animals (including man),
plants, or bacteria?

So you're saying you think a bacteria is a more advanced creature than a
human being? "Nuff said.

.

User: "Elf M. Sternberg"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	28 Jun 2007 03:04:07 PM

"Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> writes:

So you're saying you think a bacteria is a more advanced creature than
a human being? "Nuff said.

I think you'll have a hard time explaining why the onion has
seven times as many genes as a human being. Does that make onions
"more advanced" than human beings?
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.pendorwright.com/
"You know how some people treat their body like a temple?
I treat mine like issa amusement park!" - Kei
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	28 Jun 2007 03:24:34 PM

Elf M. Sternberg <elf@speakeasy.net>

Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.religion.mormon:114276 alt.atheism:1476962

"Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> writes:

So you're saying you think a bacteria is a more advanced creature than
a human being? "Nuff said.

I think you'll have a hard time explaining why the onion has
seven times as many genes as a human being. Does that make onions
"more advanced" than human beings?

Elf

And chimps have something like (IIRC) 150 more mutations relative
to the projected common genome than humans do. Chimps are
more advanced?H!
-- cary
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	27 Jun 2007 07:40:43 PM

In article <5egdtoF381puaU1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> writes:

"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f5pdph$kb2$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

In article <5eahvjF372n7fU1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim"
<aaron@artbulla.com> writes:

"Pt. Lurk" <Pt. Lurk@renvcom.net> wrote in message
news:uZTfi.1360$KE1.322@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

artbullshitta wrote

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic
wand
that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect
form.

*BZZZZZT*!! The idea of 'a more advanced and perfect form' has no
meaning
in evolutionary theory. No evolutionary biologist ever claims that this
is
what mutation produces. Therefore you are an idiot who doesn't know
what
he's talking about; therefore we should ignore your post.

Thanks for playing, though. It's great to think that you wasted all
that
time copying and pasting!

That's a lie. I would think that it would take advancement for molecules
to
evolve into man.

Well, let's examine an aspect of this advancement, shall we?

Animals, as a group, stay alive by using one metabolic
pathway: oxidizing sugars.

Plants, as a group, stay alive by using two metabolic
pathways: the one that animals use, and a second one,
involving making sugars utilizing sunlight as the
source of energy source.

Bacteria, as a group, have at least TWENTY different
metabolic pathways they use to stay alive, including
not only the above two, but oxidizing sulfides,
reducing sulfur, oxidizing iron, and a whole host
of others. There has hardly been found an environment
so dry, so saline, so cold, so hot, so high-pressure,
so radioactive, so acidic, or so alkaline that there
are no bacteria thriving in it.

So, which are more "advanced": animals (including man),
plants, or bacteria?

So you're saying you think a bacteria is a more advanced creature than a
human being? "Nuff said.

No, I'm saying that "advanced" is a meaningless concept when it
comes to the fitness of organisms.
You think otherwise? If so, what are your criteria for "advanced"?
-- cary
.

User: "Kelsey Bjarnason"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	29 Jun 2007 07:08:14 AM

[snips]
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:32:51 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:

So, which are more "advanced": animals (including man),
plants, or bacteria?

So you're saying you think a bacteria is a more advanced creature than a
human being? "Nuff said.

She's saying that the whole concept of "advanced" simply doesn't apply.
The only objectively evaluable criterion is fitness to environment, and
even that is difficult to evaluate.
That said, the obvious question then becomes which is better adapted to
its environment - a human, or an amoeba?
--
I doubt if you will be so flippant and cocky when you are
trembling at the foot of God on judgement day, Marilyn. You
*willbe judged whether you like it or not. - Christian
Soldier, HolySmoke forum.
.

User: "J Forbes"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	25 Jun 2007 05:14:48 PM

Cary Kittrell wrote:

So, which are more "advanced": animals (including man),
plants, or bacteria?

obviously man because plants and bacteria have not evidently invented
gods.
Jim
.

User: "johac"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	26 Jun 2007 12:10:19 AM

In article <5eahvjF372n7fU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> wrote:

"Pt. Lurk" <Pt. Lurk@renvcom.net> wrote in message
news:uZTfi.1360$KE1.322@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

artbullshitta wrote

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand
that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form.

That's a lie. I would think that it would take advancement for molecules to
evolve into man.

You really don't understand the first thing about biology do you? Put
down your bible and open a modern biology book. Careful. You might learn
something.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.

User: "skyeyes"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	25 Jun 2007 03:08:40 PM

On Jun 25, 12:05 pm, "Aaron Kim" <a...@artbulla.com> wrote:

"Pt. Lurk" <Pt. L...@renvcom.net> wrote in messagenews:uZTfi.1360$KE1.322@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

artbullshitta wrote

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand
that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form.

Thanks for playing, though. It's great to think that you wasted all that
time copying and pasting!

That's a lie. I would think that it would take advancement for molecules to
evolve into man.

And you would be wrong. Why don't you take some courses in genetics
and find out how it really works?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	25 Jun 2007 05:47:51 PM

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:08:40 -0700, skyeyes wrote:

On Jun 25, 12:05 pm, "Aaron Kim" <a...@artbulla.com> wrote:

"Pt. Lurk" <Pt. L...@renvcom.net> wrote in
messagenews:uZTfi.1360$KE1.322@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

artbullshitta wrote

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic
wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and
perfect form.

*BZZZZZT*!! The idea of 'a more advanced and perfect form' has no
meaning in evolutionary theory. No evolutionary biologist ever claims
that this is what mutation produces. Therefore you are an idiot who
doesn't know what he's talking about; therefore we should ignore your
post.

Thanks for playing, though. It's great to think that you wasted all
that time copying and pasting!

That's a lie. I would think that it would take advancement for
molecules to evolve into man.

And you would be wrong. Why don't you take some courses in genetics and
find out how it really works?

Because knowledge destroys faith?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.

User: "Aaron Kim"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	27 Jun 2007 07:10:59 PM

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:UJydnXbRS6OK2x3bnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@giganews.com...

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:08:40 -0700, skyeyes wrote:

On Jun 25, 12:05 pm, "Aaron Kim" <a...@artbulla.com> wrote:

"Pt. Lurk" <Pt. L...@renvcom.net> wrote in
messagenews:uZTfi.1360$KE1.322@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

artbullshitta wrote

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic
wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and
perfect form.

*BZZZZZT*!! The idea of 'a more advanced and perfect form' has no
meaning in evolutionary theory. No evolutionary biologist ever claims
that this is what mutation produces. Therefore you are an idiot who
doesn't know what he's talking about; therefore we should ignore your
post.

Thanks for playing, though. It's great to think that you wasted all
that time copying and pasting!

That's a lie. I would think that it would take advancement for
molecules to evolve into man.

And you would be wrong. Why don't you take some courses in genetics and
find out how it really works?

Because knowledge destroys faith?

Darwinism is false. Organisms do not increase in information over
generations but only inherit pre-existing genes. Get that simple concept
through that head of yours.

Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini

User: "Elf M. Sternberg"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	28 Jun 2007 03:03:24 PM

"Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> writes:

Darwinism is false. Organisms do not increase in information over
generations but only inherit pre-existing genes. Get that simple
concept through that head of yours.

Except that you are fundamentally wrong. Noise does
emerge from the gene duplication process; that noices which makes an
animal better suited to its enviroment gets selected, resulting in an
assembly of genes that create more of the animal better suited to its
environment.
Sorry, but information increase through gene duplication,
mutation, and selection is so well documented you're either ignorant,
insane, or deliberately deceptive to deny it.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.pendorwright.com/
"You know how some people treat their body like a temple?
I treat mine like issa amusement park!" - Kei
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	28 Jun 2007 08:18:30 PM

In article <87k5tnvoc3.fsf@speakeasy.net> Elf M. Sternberg <elf@speakeasy.net> writes:

"Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> writes:

Darwinism is false. Organisms do not increase in information over
generations but only inherit pre-existing genes. Get that simple
concept through that head of yours.

Seeing the number of times this has been explained to him, and
by more than one poster, I'm going with "deliberately deceptive to
deny it."
-- cary
.

User: "Tokay Pino Gris"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	17 Jul 2007 07:40:42 PM

Aaron Kim wrote:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:UJydnXbRS6OK2x3bnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@giganews.com...

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:08:40 -0700, skyeyes wrote:

On Jun 25, 12:05 pm, "Aaron Kim" <a...@artbulla.com> wrote:

"Pt. Lurk" <Pt. L...@renvcom.net> wrote in
messagenews:uZTfi.1360$KE1.322@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

artbullshitta wrote

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic
wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and
perfect form.

*BZZZZZT*!! The idea of 'a more advanced and perfect form' has no
meaning in evolutionary theory. No evolutionary biologist ever claims
that this is what mutation produces. Therefore you are an idiot who
doesn't know what he's talking about; therefore we should ignore your
post.

Thanks for playing, though. It's great to think that you wasted all
that time copying and pasting!

That's a lie. I would think that it would take advancement for
molecules to evolve into man.

And you would be wrong. Why don't you take some courses in genetics and
find out how it really works?

Because knowledge destroys faith?

Darwinism is false. Organisms do not increase in information over
generations but only inherit pre-existing genes. Get that simple concept
through that head of yours.

What you seem to miss... Get an education. Learn what the theory of
evolution actually says. THEN attack that. If you can. Which I doubt.
learn
if you are not willing to do that, you are using up valuable air.
Tokay
--
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared
to what lies within us."
Ralph Emerson
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	27 Jun 2007 07:46:45 PM

In article <5egcl8F39d3chU1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> writes:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:UJydnXbRS6OK2x3bnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@giganews.com...

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:08:40 -0700, skyeyes wrote:

On Jun 25, 12:05 pm, "Aaron Kim" <a...@artbulla.com> wrote:

"Pt. Lurk" <Pt. L...@renvcom.net> wrote in
messagenews:uZTfi.1360$KE1.322@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

artbullshitta wrote

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic
wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and
perfect form.

*BZZZZZT*!! The idea of 'a more advanced and perfect form' has no
meaning in evolutionary theory. No evolutionary biologist ever claims
that this is what mutation produces. Therefore you are an idiot who
doesn't know what he's talking about; therefore we should ignore your
post.

Thanks for playing, though. It's great to think that you wasted all
that time copying and pasting!

That's a lie. I would think that it would take advancement for
molecules to evolve into man.

And you would be wrong. Why don't you take some courses in genetics and
find out how it really works?

Because knowledge destroys faith?

Darwinism is false. Organisms do not increase in information over
generations but only inherit pre-existing genes. Get that simple concept
through that head of yours.

Simple. And incorrect.
In fact, one example mechanism for "increase in information", involving
the creation of new genes, has been explained to you in detail.
And more than once.
For some odd reason, you have not seen fit to reply.
That's fallacy number one, fallacy number two is your bizarre
idea that "real evolution", as you once put it, demands an
increase in information. It does not. Here -- read and learn:
-- cary
The New York Times
June 26, 2007
From a Few Genes, Life's Myriad Shapes
By CAROL KAESUK YOON
Since its humble beginnings as a single cell, life has evolved into a
spectacular array of shapes and sizes, from tiny fleas to towering
Tyrannosaurus rex, from slow-soaring vultures to fast-swimming
swordfish, and from modest ferns to alluring orchids. But just how such
diversity of form could arise out of evolution's mess of random genetic
mutations -- how a functional wing could sprout where none had grown
before, or how flowers could blossom in what had been a flowerless world
-- has remained one of the most fascinating and intractable questions in
evolutionary biology.
Now finally, after more than a century of puzzling, scientists are
finding answers coming fast and furious and from a surprising quarter,
the field known as evo-devo. Just coming into its own as a science,
evo-devo is the combined study of evolution and development, the process
by which a nubbin of a fertilized egg transforms into a full-fledged
adult. And what these scientists are finding is that development, a
process that has for more than half a century been largely ignored in
the study of evolution, appears to have been one of the major forces
shaping the history of life on earth.
For starters, evo-devo researchers are finding that the evolution of
complex new forms, rather than requiring many new mutations or many new
genes as had long been thought, can instead be accomplished by a much
simpler process requiring no more than tweaks to already existing genes
and developmental plans. Stranger still, researchers are finding that
the genes that can be tweaked to create new shapes and body parts are
surprisingly few. The same DNA
sequences are turning out to be the spark inciting one evolutionary
flowering after another. "Do these discoveries blow people's minds?
Yes," said Dr. Sean B. Carroll, biologist at the Howard Hughes Medical
Institute at the University of Wisconsin
,
Madison. "The first response is "Huh?" and the second response is "Far
out." "
"This is the illumination of the utterly dark," Dr. Carroll added.
The development of an organism -- how one end gets designated as the head
or the tail, how feet are enticed to grow at the end of a leg rather
than at the wrist -- is controlled by a hierarchy of genes, with master
genes at the top controlling a next tier of genes, controlling a next
and so on. But the real interest for evolutionary biologists is that
these hierarchies not only favor the evolution of certain forms but also
disallow the growth of others, determining what can and cannot arise not
only in the course of the growth of an embryo, but also over the history
of life itself.
"It's been said that classical evolutionary theory looks at survival of
the fittest," said Dr. Scott F. Gilbert, a developmental biologist at
Swarthmore College. By looking at what sorts of organisms are most
likely or impossible to develop, he explained, "evo-devo looks at the
arrival of the fittest."
Charles Darwin saw it first. He pointed out well over a century ago that
developing forms of life would be central to the study of evolution.
Little came of it initially, for a variety of reasons. Not least of
these was the discovery that perturbing the process of development often
resulted in a freak show starring horrors like bipedal goats and insects
with legs growing out of their mouths, monstrosities that seemed to shed
little light on the wonders of evolution.
But the advent of molecular biology reinvigorated the study of
development in the 1980s, and evo-devo quickly got scientists' attention
when early breakthroughs revealed that the same master genes were laying
out fundamental body plans and parts across the animal kingdom. For
example, researchers discovered that genes in the Pax6 family could
switch on the development of eyes in animals as different as flies and
people. More recent work has begun looking beyond the body's basic
building blocks to reveal how changes in development have resulted in
some of the world's most celebrated of evolutionary events.
In one of the most exciting of the new studies, a team of scientists led
by Dr. Cliff Tabin, a developmental biologist at Harvard Medical School,
investigated a classic example of evolution by natural selection, the
evolution of Darwin's finches on the Gal�pagos Islands.
Like the other organisms that made it to the remote archipelago off the
coast of Ecuador, Darwin's finches have flourished in their isolation,
evolving into many and varied species. But, while the finches bear his
name and while Darwin was indeed inspired to thoughts of evolution by
animals on these islands, the finches left him flummoxed. Darwin did not
realize for quite some time that these birds were all finches or even
that they were related to one another.
He should be forgiven, however. For while the species are descendants of
an original pioneering finch, they no longer bear its characteristic
short, slender beak, which is excellent for hulling tiny seeds. In fact,
the finches no longer look very finchlike at all. Adapting to the
strange new foods of the islands, some have evolved taller, broader,
more powerful nut-cracking beaks; the most impressive of the big-beaked
finches is Geospiza magnirostris. Other finches have evolved longer
bills that are ideal for drilling holes into cactus fruits to get at the
seeds; Geospiza conirostris is one species with a particularly elongated
beak.
But how could such bills evolve from a simple finch beak? Scientists had
assumed that the dramatic alterations in beak shape, height, width and
strength would require the accumulation of many chance mutations in many
different genes. But evo-devo has revealed that getting a fancy new beak
can be simpler than anyone had imagined.
Genes are stretches of DNA that can be switched on so that they will
produce molecules known as proteins. Proteins can then do a number of
jobs in the cell or outside it, working to make parts of organisms,
switching other genes on and so on. When genes are switched on to
produce proteins, they can do so at a low level in a limited area or
they can crank out lots of protein in many cells.
What Dr. Tabin and colleagues found, when looking at the range of beak
shapes and sizes across different finch species, was that the thicker
and taller and more robust a beak, the more strongly it expressed a gene
known as BMP4 early in development. The BMP4 gene (its abbreviation
stands for bone morphogenetic protein, No. 4) produces the BMP4 protein,
which can signal cells to begin producing bone. But BMP4 is
multitalented and can also act to direct early development, laying out a
variety of architectural plans including signaling which part of the
embryo is to be the backside and which the belly side. To verify that
the BMP4 gene itself could indeed trigger the growth of grander, bigger,
nut-crushing beaks, researchers artificially cranked up the production
of BMP4 in the developing beaks of chicken embryos. The chicks began
growing wider, taller, more robust beaks similar to those of a
nut-cracking finch.
In the finches with long, probing beaks, researchers found at work a
different gene, known as calmodulin. As with BMP4, the more that
calmodulin was expressed, the longer the beak became. When scientists
artificially increased calmodulin in chicken embryos, the chicks began
growing extended beaks, just like a cactus driller.
So, with just these two genes, not tens or hundreds, the scientists
found the potential to recreate beaks, massive or stubby or elongated.
"So now one wants to go in a number of directions," Dr. Tabin said.
"What happens in a stork? What happens in a hummingbird? A parrot?" For
the evolution of beaks, the main tool with which a bird handles its food
and makes its living, is central not only to Darwin's finches, but to
birds as a whole.
BMP4's reach does not stop at the birds, however.
In lakes in Africa, the fish known as cichlids have evolved so rapidly
into such a huge diversity of species that they have become one of the
best known evolutionary radiations. The cichlids have evolved in
different shapes and sizes, and with a variety of jaw types specialized
for eating certain kinds of food. Robust, thick jaws are excellent at
crushing snails, while longer jaws work well for sucking up algae. As
with the beaks of finches, a range of styles developed.
Now in a new study, Dr. R. Craig Albertson, an evolutionary biologist at
Syracuse University
,
and Dr. Thomas D. Kocher, a geneticist at the University of New
Hampshire
,
have shown that more robust-jawed cichlids express more BMP4 during
development than those with more delicate jaws. To test whether BMP4 was
indeed responsible for the difference, these scientists artificially
increased the expression of BMP4 in the zebrafish, the lab rat of the
fish world. And, reprising the beak experiments, researchers found that
increased production of BMP4 in the jaws of embryonic zebrafish led to
the development of more robust chewing and chomping parts.
And if being a major player in the evolution of African cichlids and
Darwin's finches -- two of the most famous evolutionary radiations of
species -- were not enough for BMP4, Dr. Peter R. Grant, an evolutionary
biologist at Princeton University
,
predicted that the gene would probably be found to play an important
role in the evolution of still other animals. He noted that jaw changes
were a crucial element in the evolution of lizards, rabbits and mice,
among others, making them prime candidates for evolution via BMP4.
"This is just the beginning," Dr. Grant said. "These are exciting times
for us all."
Used to lay out body plans, build beaks and alter fish jaws, BMP4
illustrates perfectly one of the major recurring themes of evo-devo. New
forms can arise via new uses of existing genes, in particular the
control genes or what are sometimes called toolkit genes that oversee
development. It is a discovery that can explain much that has previously
been mysterious, like the observation that without much obvious change
to the genome over all, one can get fairly radical changes in form.
"There aren't new genes arising every time a new species arises," said
Dr. Brian K. Hall, a developmental biologist at Dalhousie University in
Nova Scotia. "Basically you take existing genes and processes and modify
them, and that's why humans and chimps can be 99 percent similar at the
genome level."
Evo-devo has also begun to shine a light on a phenomenon with which
evolutionary biologists have long been familiar, the way in which
different species will come up with sometimes jaw-droppingly similar
solutions when confronted with the same challenges.
Among the placental mammals of the Americas and the marsupials of
Australia, for example, have evolved the same sorts of animals
independently: beasts that burrowed, loping critters that grazed,
creatures that had long snouts for eating ants, and versions of wolf.
In the same way, the cichlids have evolved pairs of matching species,
arising independently in separate lakes in Africa. In Lake Malawi, for
example, there is a long and flat-headed species with a deep underbite
that looks remarkably like an unrelated species that lives a similar
lifestyle in Lake Tanganyika. There is another cichlid with a bulging
brow and frowning lips in Lake Malawi with, again, an unrelated but
otherwise extremely similar-looking cichlid in Lake Tanganyika. The same
jaws, heads, and ways of living can be seen to evolve again and again.
The findings of evo-devo suggest that such parallels might in fact be
expected. For cichlids are hardly coming up with new genetic solutions
to eating tough snails as they each crank up the BMP4 or tinker with
other toolkit genes. Instead, whether in Lake Malawi or Lake Tanganyika,
they may be using the same genes to develop the same forms that provide
the same solutions to the same ecological challenges. Why not, when even
the beaked birds flying overhead are using the very same genes?
Evo-devo has even begun to give biologists new insight into one of the
most beautiful examples of recurring forms: the evolution of mimicry.
It has long been a source of amazement how some species seem so able to
evolve near-perfect mimicry of another. Poisonous species often evolve
bright warning colors, which have been reproduced by nonpoisonous
species or by other, similarly poisonous species, hoping to fend off
curious predators.
Now in a new study of Heliconius butterflies, Dr. Mathieu Joron, an
evolutionary biologist at the University of Edinburgh, and colleagues,
found evidence that the mimics may be using some of the same genes to
produce their copycat warning colors and patterns.
The researchers studied several species of tropical Heliconius
butterflies, all of which are nasty-tasting to birds and which mimic one
another's color patterns. Dr. Joron and colleagues found that some of
the main elements of the patterns -- a yellow band in Heliconius
melpomene and Heliconius erato and a complex tiger-stripe pattern in
Heliconius numata -- are controlled by a single region of DNA, a tightly
linked set of genes known as a supergene.
Dr. Joron said he and colleagues were still mapping the details of color
pattern control within the supergene. But if this turned out to
function, as researchers suspected, like a toolkit gene turning the
patterns on and off, it could explain both the prevalence of mimicry in
Heliconius and the apparent ease with which these species have been
shown to repeatedly evolve such superbly matching patterns.
One of evo-devo's greatest strengths is its cross-disciplinary nature,
bridging not only evolutionary and developmental studies but gaps as
broad as those between fossil-hunting paleontologists and molecular
biologists. One researcher whose approach epitomizes the power of such
synthesis is Dr. Neil Shubin, an evolutionary biologist at the
University of Chicago
and the Field Museum.
Last year, Dr. Shubin and colleagues reported the discovery of a fossil
fish on Ellesmere Island in northern Canada. They had found Tiktaalik,
as they named the fish, after searching for six years. They persisted
for so long because they were certain that they had found the right age
and kind of rock where a fossil of a fish trying to make the transition
to life on land was likely to be found. And Tiktaalik appeared to be
just such a fish, but it also had a few surprises for the researchers.
"Tiktaalik is special," Dr. Shubin said. "It has a flat head with eyes
on top. It has gills and lungs. It's an animal that's exploring the
interface between water and land."
But Tiktaalik was a truly stunning discovery because this water-loving
fish bore wrists, an attribute thought to have been an innovation
confined strictly to animals that had already made the transition to land.
"This was telling us that a piece of the toolkit, to make arms, legs,
hand and feet, could very well be present in fish limbs," Dr. Shubin
said. In other words, the genetic tools or toolkit genes for making
limbs to walk on land might well have been present long before fish made
that critical leap. But as fascinating as Tiktaalik was, it was also
rock hard and provided no DNA that might shed light on the presence or
absence of any particular gene.
So Dr. Shubin did what more and more evo-devo researchers are learning
to do: take off one hat (paleontologist) and don another (molecular
biologist). Dr. Shubin oversees one of what he says is a small but
growing number of laboratories where old-fashioned rock-pounding takes
place alongside high-tech molecular DNA studies.
He and colleagues began a study of the living but ancient fish known as
the paddlefish. What they found, reported last month in the journal
Nature, was that these thoroughly fishy fish were turning on control
genes known as Hox genes, in a manner characteristic of the four-limbed,
land-loving beasts known as tetrapods.
Tetrapods include cows, people, birds, rodents and so on. In other
words, the potential for making fingers, hands and feet, crucial
innovations used in emerging from the water to a life of walking and
crawling on land, appears to have been present in fish, long before they
began flip-flopping their way out of the muck. "The genetic tools to
build fingers and toes were in place for a long time," Dr. Shubin wrote
in an e-mail message. "Lacking were the environmental conditions where
these structures would be useful." He added, "Fingers arose when the
right environments arose."
And here is another of the main themes to emerge from evo-devo. Major
events in evolution like the transition from life in the water to life
on land are not necessarily set off by the arising of the genetic
mutations that will build the required body parts, or even the
appearance of the body parts themselves, as had long been assumed.
Instead, it is theorized that the right ecological situation, the right
habitat in which such bold, new forms will prove to be particularly
advantageous, may be what is required to set these major transitions in
motion.
So far, most of the evo-devo work has been on animals, but researchers
have begun to ask whether the same themes are being played out in plants.
Of particular interest to botanists is what Darwin described as an
"abominable mystery": the origin of flowering plants. A critical event
in the evolution of plants, it happened, by paleontological standards,
rather suddenly.
So what genes were involved in the origin of flowers? Botanists know
that during development, the genes known as MADS box genes lay out the
architecture of the blossom. They do so by turning on other genes,
thereby determining what will develop where -- petals here, reproductive
parts there and so on, in much the same manner that Hox genes determine
the general layout of parts in animals. Hox genes have had an important
role in the evolution of animal form. But have MADS box genes had as
central a role in the evolution of plants?
So far, said Dr. Vivian F. Irish, a developmental biologist at Yale
University
,
the answer appears to be yes. There is a variety of circumstantial
evidence, the most interesting of which is the fact that the MADS box
genes exploded in number right around the time that flowering plants
first appeared.
"It's really analogous to what's going on in Hox genes," said Dr. Irish,
though she noted that details of the role of the MADS box genes remained
to be worked out. "It's very cool that evolution has used a similar
strategy in two very different kingdoms."
Amid the enthusiast hubbub, cautionary notes have been sounded. Dr.
Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago,
said that as dramatic as the changes in form caused by mutations in
toolkit genes can be, it was premature to credit these genes with being
the primary drivers of the evolution of novel forms and diversity. He
said that too few studies had been done so far to support such broad
claims, and that it could turn out that other, more mundane workaday
genes, of the sort that were being studied long before evo-devo appeared
on the scene, would play equally or even more important roles.
"I urge caution," Dr. Coyne said. "We just don't know."
All of which goes to show that like all emerging fields, evo-devo's
significance and the uniqueness of its contributions will continue to be
reassessed. It will remain to be seen just how separate or incorporated
into the rest of evolutionary thinking its findings will end up being.
Paradoxically, it was during just such a flurry of intellectual
synthesis and research activity, the watershed known as the New or
Modern Synthesis in which modern evolutionary biology was born in the
last century, that developmental thinking was almost entirely ejected
from the science of evolution.
But perhaps today synthesizers can do better, broadening their focus
without constricting their view of evolution as they try to take in all
of the great pageant that is the history of life.
"We're still a very young field," Dr. Gilbert said. "But I think this is
a new evolutionary synthesis, an emerging evolutionary synthesis. I
think we're seeing it."
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	28 Jun 2007 08:15:25 AM

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:46:45 +0000, Cary Kittrell wrote:

That's fallacy number one, fallacy number two is your bizarre idea that
"real evolution", as you once put it, demands an increase in
information. It does not.

Either way, information and entropy are closely related. The
"information" claim is merely a redress of their failed 2LoT claim.
Typically, they rarely--if ever--come up with anything new.
Information *can increase. Locally. Just as entropy can decrease,
locally. Else, nobody could ever grow up. Whatever information you had
when you were born would be the most you would ever have and it would
decay from there.
There is no way we would have survived as a species to sit here, typing
on computers, and sending messages electronically around the planet.
Which also could not have happened if information could not increase.
Were they *ever consistent, they'd be compelled to refuse to believe in
computers and the Internet. <g>
Not to mention, the argument is specious even if the total sum of
information in the entire system (aka "the universe") is constant or
declining. Even if it is a "zero sum game" in the long run, there's a
vast amount of information to be acquired. Evolution works just fine even
if it is merely the acquisition of information from the environment and
the total "sum" of information in the total system remains constant.
Maybe everything is only "new" to the organism. But so what?
The cretinists have tried to co-opt Information Theory the way they tried
with the 2LoT but, as usual, don't understand the matter and how it
actually undermines their position rather than supports it.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	28 Jun 2007 01:47:10 PM

In article <mYidnZ6YIZTwKR7bnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews.com> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> writes:

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:46:45 +0000, Cary Kittrell wrote:

That's fallacy number one, fallacy number two is your bizarre idea that
"real evolution", as you once put it, demands an increase in
information. It does not.

Yeppers. Exactly the same as my mighty-oaks-from-acorns-cannot-grow
example.
And hey: if structured systems cannot spontaneously emerge from
more diffuse, higher-entropy ones, then good news: there was
no Hurrican Katrina!
(geez, don't you wish you had known that earlier?)

There is no way we would have survived as a species to sit here, typing
on computers, and sending messages electronically around the planet.

Which also could not have happened if information could not increase.
Were they *ever consistent, they'd be compelled to refuse to believe in
computers and the Internet. <g>

Well, I'm pretty sure that brother Jong doesn't go in
for quantum mechanics. Same thing.

Not to mention, the argument is specious even if the total sum of
information in the entire system (aka "the universe") is constant or
declining. Even if it is a "zero sum game" in the long run, there's a
vast amount of information to be acquired. Evolution works just fine even
if it is merely the acquisition of information from the environment and
the total "sum" of information in the total system remains constant.

Maybe everything is only "new" to the organism. But so what?

The cretinists have tried to co-opt Information Theory the way they tried
with the 2LoT but, as usual, don't understand the matter and how it
actually undermines their position rather than supports it.

Entropy in action!
-- cary
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	28 Jun 2007 03:14:40 PM

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:47:10 +0000, Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <mYidnZ6YIZTwKR7bnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews.com> "Mark K.
Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> writes:

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:46:45 +0000, Cary Kittrell wrote:

That's fallacy number one, fallacy number two is your bizarre idea
that "real evolution", as you once put it, demands an increase in
information. It does not.

Yeppers. Exactly the same as my mighty-oaks-from-acorns-cannot-grow
example.

And hey: if structured systems cannot spontaneously emerge from more
diffuse, higher-entropy ones, then good news: there was no Hurrican
Katrina!

(geez, don't you wish you had known that earlier?)

And Bobby is in the shower!

Well, I'm pretty sure that brother Jong doesn't go in for quantum
mechanics. Same thing.

Heisenburg was satan!

Not to mention, the argument is specious even if the total sum of
information in the entire system (aka "the universe") is constant or
declining. Even if it is a "zero sum game" in the long run, there's a
vast amount of information to be acquired. Evolution works just fine
even if it is merely the acquisition of information from the
environment and the total "sum" of information in the total system
remains constant.

Maybe everything is only "new" to the organism. But so what?

The cretinists have tried to co-opt Information Theory the way they
tried with the 2LoT but, as usual, don't understand the matter and how
it actually undermines their position rather than supports it.

Entropy in action!

Well, *they certainly don't ever produce any new information...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Behold the foul stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	28 Jun 2007 08:02:47 AM

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:10:59 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:UJydnXbRS6OK2x3bnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@giganews.com...

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:08:40 -0700, skyeyes wrote:

On Jun 25, 12:05 pm, "Aaron Kim" <a...@artbulla.com> wrote:

"Pt. Lurk" <Pt. L...@renvcom.net> wrote in
messagenews:uZTfi.1360$KE1.322@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

artbullshitta wrote

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a
magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced
and perfect form.

*BZZZZZT*!! The idea of 'a more advanced and perfect form' has no
meaning in evolutionary theory. No evolutionary biologist ever
claims that this is what mutation produces. Therefore you are an
idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about; therefore we should
ignore your post.

Thanks for playing, though. It's great to think that you wasted all
that time copying and pasting!

That's a lie. I would think that it would take advancement for
molecules to evolve into man.

And you would be wrong. Why don't you take some courses in genetics
and find out how it really works?

Because knowledge destroys faith?

Darwinism is false. Organisms do not increase in information over
generations but only inherit pre-existing genes. Get that simple concept
through that head of yours.

Sorry but I have no interest in getting a lobotomy...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Behold the foul stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"
.

User: "Kelsey Bjarnason"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	29 Jun 2007 07:08:12 AM

[snips]
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:10:59 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:

Darwinism is false.

Possibly, but the subject around here is generally "evolution", not
"Darwinism". Do try to keep up.

Organisms do not increase in information over
generations

Obviously. On the other hand, populations _can_ gain such increases - or
even simply changes - in such genetic information, via mutation and
similar means. Of course, you knew that, so your point isn't quite clear.
--
Please, for kryst sake, slit your wrists already. - Kirby
Nixon
.

User: "Aaron Kim"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	16 Jul 2007 10:03:33 AM

"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rivel4-eu1.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...

[snips]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:10:59 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:

Darwinism is false.

Possibly, but the subject around here is generally "evolution", not
"Darwinism". Do try to keep up.

Darwinism is synonymous with evolution. Distorting your opinion again as
expected.

Organisms do not increase in information over
generations

Mutations are destructive. They are genetic copying errors. They do not add
any new information. Cancer, altuism, Down's syndrome are examples of
mutation.
.

User: "The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN."
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	25 Jun 2007 02:45:54 PM

On Jun 25, 8:05 pm, "Aaron Kim" <a...@artbulla.com> wrote:

"Pt. Lurk" <Pt. L...@renvcom.net> wrote in messagenews:uZTfi.1360$KE1.322@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

artbullshitta wrote

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand
that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form.

Thanks for playing, though. It's great to think that you wasted all that
time copying and pasting!

That's a lie. I would think that it would take advancement for molecules to
evolve into man.

Perfect is a subjective point of view. The universe has no point of
view, it has no conscience.
.

User: "Pt. Lurk Pt."
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	25 Jun 2007 11:02:23 PM

On Jun 25, 8:05 pm, "Aaron Kim" <a...@artbulla.com> wrote:

"Pt. Lurk" <Pt. L...@renvcom.net> wrote in
messagenews:uZTfi.1360$KE1.322@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

artbullshitta wrote

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic
wand
that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect
form.

*BZZZZZT*!! The idea of 'a more advanced and perfect form' has no
meaning
in evolutionary theory. No evolutionary biologist ever claims that this
is
what mutation produces. Therefore you are an idiot who doesn't know
what
he's talking about; therefore we should ignore your post.

Thanks for playing, though. It's great to think that you wasted all
that
time copying and pasting!

That's a lie.

It's not a lie, you sad, ineducable twat. It's *biology*. If you want to
argue with biology, *pay some fucking attention to what biology says*.

I would think that it would take advancement for molecules to
evolve into man.

Yeah. You 'would think'. Unfortunately, we all know that what you personally
'would think' has *bollock-all* to do with *anything* outside your own
personal world of self-deluding, pathological fantasy.
Read a *science book* sometime, you dim twat.
L.
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	25 Jun 2007 05:47:27 PM

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:05:19 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:

"Pt. Lurk" <Pt. Lurk@renvcom.net> wrote in message
news:uZTfi.1360$KE1.322@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

artbullshitta wrote

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic
wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect
form.

*BZZZZZT*!! The idea of 'a more advanced and perfect form' has no
meaning in evolutionary theory. No evolutionary biologist ever claims
that this is what mutation produces. Therefore you are an idiot who
doesn't know what he's talking about; therefore we should ignore your
post.

Thanks for playing, though. It's great to think that you wasted all
that time copying and pasting!

That's a lie. I would think that it would take advancement for molecules
to evolve into man.

No it doesn't. You're imposing religious thinking on evolutionary theory.
Evolution has no "goals". It's a blind process.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Behold the foul stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"
.

User: "Aaron Kim"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	27 Jun 2007 07:44:10 PM

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:UJydnXfRS6Ni2B3bnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@giganews.com...

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:05:19 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:

"Pt. Lurk" <Pt. Lurk@renvcom.net> wrote in message
news:uZTfi.1360$KE1.322@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

artbullshitta wrote

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic
wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect
form.

*BZZZZZT*!! The idea of 'a more advanced and perfect form' has no
meaning in evolutionary theory. No evolutionary biologist ever claims
that this is what mutation produces. Therefore you are an idiot who
doesn't know what he's talking about; therefore we should ignore your
post.

Thanks for playing, though. It's great to think that you wasted all
that time copying and pasting!

That's a lie. I would think that it would take advancement for molecules
to evolve into man.

No it doesn't. You're imposing religious thinking on evolutionary theory.
Evolution has no "goals". It's a blind process.

I agree that evolution is a blind process. You think life began by sheer
chance around 3 plus billion years ago and that the life we see around is a
complete accident which is why it is mind boggling to believe. It would be
easier for a tornado inside a junkyard to make a Cadillac. You're so full of
it.

.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	27 Jun 2007 07:54:37 PM

In article <5egej2F38k9m7U1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> writes:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:UJydnXfRS6Ni2B3bnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@giganews.com...

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:05:19 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:

"Pt. Lurk" <Pt. Lurk@renvcom.net> wrote in message
news:uZTfi.1360$KE1.322@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

artbullshitta wrote

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic
wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect
form.

*BZZZZZT*!! The idea of 'a more advanced and perfect form' has no
meaning in evolutionary theory. No evolutionary biologist ever claims
that this is what mutation produces. Therefore you are an idiot who
doesn't know what he's talking about; therefore we should ignore your
post.

Thanks for playing, though. It's great to think that you wasted all
that time copying and pasting!

That's a lie. I would think that it would take advancement for molecules
to evolve into man.

No it doesn't. You're imposing religious thinking on evolutionary theory.
Evolution has no "goals". It's a blind process.

Fred Hoyle was wrong about Steady State too, wasn't he?
Bits and pieces of cars have no memory, in that they cannot
reproduce.
When a bit of life gets something right, it gets to keep
that something, via reproduction. Millions and millions
of copies of that something, in fact.
That's the significant difference between timing cams
and flagella. And the difference between evolution
and your straw windstorm.
That, and a few billion years.
-- cary
.

User: "Aaron Kim"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	28 Jun 2007 01:55:05 PM

"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f5v0sd$oi6$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

In article <5egej2F38k9m7U1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim"
<aaron@artbulla.com> writes:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:UJydnXfRS6Ni2B3bnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@giganews.com...

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:05:19 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:

"Pt. Lurk" <Pt. Lurk@renvcom.net> wrote in message
news:uZTfi.1360$KE1.322@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

artbullshitta wrote

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic
wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and
perfect
form.

*BZZZZZT*!! The idea of 'a more advanced and perfect form' has no
meaning in evolutionary theory. No evolutionary biologist ever claims
that this is what mutation produces. Therefore you are an idiot who
doesn't know what he's talking about; therefore we should ignore your
post.

Thanks for playing, though. It's great to think that you wasted all
that time copying and pasting!

That's a lie. I would think that it would take advancement for
molecules
to evolve into man.

No it doesn't. You're imposing religious thinking on evolutionary
theory.
Evolution has no "goals". It's a blind process.

I agree that evolution is a blind process. You think life began by sheer
chance around 3 plus billion years ago and that the life we see around is
a
complete accident which is why it is mind boggling to believe. It would
be
easier for a tornado inside a junkyard to make a Cadillac. You're so full
of
it.

Scientists can't even make a cell despite all their efforts. Evolution is an
atheist's dream.

That's the significant difference between timing cams
and flagella. And the difference between evolution
and your straw windstorm.

That, and a few billion years.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Mutations Are Not An Evolutionary "Magic Wand"	28 Jun 2007 02:51:25 PM

In article <5eiegdF39531tU1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com> writes:

"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f5v0sd$oi6$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

In article <5egej2F38k9m7U1@mid.individual.net> "Aaron Kim"
<aaron@artbulla.com> writes:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:UJydnXfRS6Ni2B3bnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@giganews.com...

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:05:19 -0700, Aaron Kim wrote:

"Pt. Lurk" <Pt. Lurk@renvcom.net> wrote in message
news:uZTfi.1360$KE1.322@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

artbullshitta wrote

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic
wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and
perfect
form.

*BZZZZZT*!! The idea of 'a more advanced and perfect form' has no
meaning in evolutionary theory. No evolutionary biologist ever claims
that this is what mutation produces. Therefore you are an idiot who
doesn't know what he's talking about; therefore we should ignore your
post.

Thanks for playing, though. It's great to think that you wasted all
that time copying and pasting!

That's a lie. I would think that it would take advancement for
molecules
to evolve into man.

No it doesn't. You're imposing religious thinking on evolutionary
theory.
Evolution has no "goals". It's a blind process.

I agree that evolution is a blind process. You think life began by sheer
chance around 3 plus billion years ago and that the life we see around is
a
complete accident which is why it is mind boggling to believe. It would
be
easier for a tornado inside a junkyard to make a Cadillac. You're so full
of
it.

Scientists can't even make a cell despite all their efforts.

"All their efforts?" Exactly how many scientists do you
think are working on experimental abiogenesis, and how
many years do you think this field has been active?
(if you guessed "single digits", you wouldn't be that
far off).
Secondly, no one I know of is trying to start with
a single cell, any more than Orville and Wilbur set
out to build the Airbus. No one thinks abiogenesis
went <POOF!> and lo and behold, the fully integrated
cell.
Thirdly, to take an example from the field I am associated
with, "Astronomers can't even make a star".
And finally, as you have been told before, evolutionary
theory and abiogenesis are two different things. I once sat through
a series of lectures by a quite prominent paleontologist
who thinks that 1) life is too unlikely to have
appeared by abiogenesis, some divine twiddling
must have been involved, and 2) once life WAS present,
evolution is entirely capable of accounting for
its subsequent elaboration.
Oh, and this quite religious paleontologist, who thinks
God must have kicked things off by putting life here
in the first place, also feels strongly that 2a) creationists
are profoundly dishonest.

Evolution is an atheist's dream.

Funny, then, that nearly half of practicing biologists
describe themselves as religious.
-- cary

That's the significant difference between timing cams
and flagella. And the difference between evolution
and your straw windstorm.

That, and a few billion years.