the 'embryo tail' is not evidence of anything, except how some organisms develop. I see it as a 'correlation equals causation' argument. You would have to demonstrate that this visual has some kind of bearing on the claim, not just a 'it looks like a fish!' argument. Moreover, the embryo does NOT have a tail, or gills. That is just a 'looks like!' argument. Real tails & gills have different genes, development, & function. Attempting to correlate a morphological view of a trait in its development does not make it those traits. I can drop a rock over a bridge for thousands of times, & it will always go down.. that is observable reality. You may theorize that after enough attempts, the rock will fly up in the air, instead of down, then demand that i disprove your theory. I cannot. I can only demonstrate observable reality. The burden of proof is on you to prove the rock can fly in the air & overcome gravity, by some mysterious process. That is the same with evolution. Observable reality says that organisms stay within their genetic definitions, & can only draw upon that that has been passed down to them. You are claiming that new traits, new genes, & new chromosomes can be added, but you provide no mechanism for this, or explain HOW you can overcome the 'gravity' of the DNA, which always reproduces the organism to its parent stock.
False. Both the embryo's tail and the embryo itself are among the strongest evidence for universal common descent, as all educated people know. We.like to do fun stuff with them to demonstrate this as a mere exercise, like turning on a gene in a chicken embryo, causing it to grow teeth like its exctint dinosaur ancestors. We find no such gene in species that we know didn't evolve from toothed ancestors.
I can dig up mammalian fossils 100,000 times, and they will always be found within rock less than 200 million years old. That is observable reality.
False. Offspring are always somewhat genetically different than their parents, and often express outright errors in genetic transmission. Sometimes these errors are benficial and are then passed on more copiously than the original code.
And yet it is used every single time a doctor saves anyone from a pathogen-caused illness. Staying alive is useful, if you ask me.
You didn't respond to a word of my post. Stop repeating your matra over and over again and actually read what others have to say and address them. Let me try again. In your OP you incorrectly assumed that the e coli experiment is used by evolutionists to prove common descent and the development of new species. That is incorrect, and actually it is used by evolutionists to show the evolution of new complex abilities and new information (so-called irreducible complexity) through mutations and natural selection. We can argue over whether the e coli experiment in fact proves all this, but for right now I just want to make sure you clear up your misunderstanding of what evolutionists are arguing from the e coli experiment. So why is this experiment relevant if it doesn't prove common descent? Because if true, it lays waste creationist arguments for irreducible complexity and arguments against mutations. Also, all animals couldn't have common descent without some advanced features evolving because of the wide variety of features we see in animals. So showing that advanced features can evolve is really really helpful. Its only a stepping stone to proving common descent but it is a very important one. So are we on the same page here as to what evolutionists are trying to argue with the e coli experiment?
The alleged lack of a mechanism for generating new genetic information is nonsense. The combination of random mutations and selective pressures, combined with gene duplication and other genetic mechanisms, are fully capable of increasing overall genetic information and creating new information.
Correct, genetic information undergoes changes not just over generations, but even within individuals in one lifetime. If genetic information does not change..why are all individual of each species not exact clones of one another? And let's not forget about genetic drift, which isn't really even a biochemical mechanism, but merely a statistical mechanism. It can be a very powerful evolutionary force all by itself.
That deficit is a consequence of an egotistical investment in the idea that humans are merely new and improved simians, not of anything God did.
Hmm, no, that's not accurate either, for a couple of reasons: 1) the investment would never have been made in the first place for most, if these people we're not compelled by the "appearance of fact" in question, and 2) plenty of theists believe in both evolution and creation. They just point at evolution and say, "God(s) did that!" So, the question still stands: Why would God make it appear factual to so many people?
Obviously they're not, since there is no such appearance without that investment. Let them advance the same idiotic arguments in my presence and they'll get the same treatment from yours truly.
What treatment is that? A little fit? Oh no! I weep for them and their families. I knew you wouldn't answer. What a sissy.
1. Yes a tail is a remnant. Look at newborns and later. 2. Where is your retort about branchial clefts. It is a common neck mass presenting in children. Where did they come from? 3. Species have had their entire genome sequenced some in contrast with alike species. Lupus familiaris as once considered a subspecies of Lupus Canis Canis as in Lupus Canis familiaris not Lupus familiaris. That's attributable to genome sequencing. Not saying genetic sequencing is the only way. 4. If you had studied embryogenesis and comparative embryogenesis then you'd know what vestigal organs and structures are remnants. Since it's clear you've had no formal study then you should listen to those who have. We know where branchial clefts originate and how to diagnosis and treat. Children borne with tails require amputation.
Highly complex genetic structures exist, as well as simple ones. There is no mechanism defined or observed to explain a progression of complexity.. the adding of genes, traits, or structural changes in the genome. Cumulative, structural changes in the genetic structure is a belief. There is no hard science to corroborate this 'theory'. All living things stay strictly within the parameters of their genetic code. They do not flit about, adding genes, changing structure, or becoming completely different phylogenetic types. They can only vary within the confines of their DNA. Mutations & time do not provide the evidence for the alleged phenomena of increasing complexity & changes in the genetic structure.
That is exactly the argument given. If all that is being said is that organisms vary within their genetic parameters, then there is no debate. E coli is unique, in that it has a wide range of adaptability, but there is NO EVIDENCE that it came from some simpler (or complex) genetic structure. Here i address the e coli study that has been alluded to. Quotes from the study are italicized. genomic evolution was nearly constant for 20,000 generations. Such clock-like regularity is usually viewed as the signature of neutral evolution, but several lines of evidence indicate that almost all of these mutations were beneficial. This same population later evolved an elevated mutation rate and accumulated hundreds of additional mutations dominated by a neutral signature. Pathetically, i understand this.. being a bit of a science geek, & having followed with great interest this subject for decades. I take issue with the use of the terminology, 'evolution', as it seems to use circular reasoning.. using the premise (and terminology) to prove itself. If by 'genomic evolution' you merely mean minor changes in generations, or micro evolution, that is plainly obvious. But to correlate it with macro is still a false equivalence. Now, the study is claiming 'beneficial' mutations, among 'several lines of evidence. I am a bit confused about the statement above, which seems to conflict with the findings of the study: Of the 12 populations, six have so far been reported to have developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of mutation in those strains.[5][19][20] Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated that within this time frame,only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population, with fewer than 100 total point mutations (including neutral mutations) reaching fixation in each population. So there is a question about the results.. were 'almost all mutations beneficial'? Or were there 'only 10-20 beneficial mutations? That is a fine point, & may be due more to the writer, than the experiment itself. Ok lets go to the findings, & see what conclusions they compel. * Change in fitness. All populations showed a pattern of rapid increase in relative fitness during early generations, with this increase decelerating over time * defects in genome repair Of the 12 populations, six have so far been reported to have developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of mutation in those strains * increase in cell size, & morphological change All twelve of the experimental populations show an increase in cell size concurrent with a decline in maximum population density, and in many of the populations, a more rounded cell shape * Polymorphism & phylogenetic comparison Two distinct variants, S and L, were identified in the population designated Ara-2 at 18,000 generations based on their formation of small and large colonies, respectively.[25] Clones of the S and L types could co-exist stably in co-culture with each other, indicating they occupied distinct niches in the population * Citrate usage The inability to grow aerobically on citrate, referred to as a Cit− phenotype, is considered a defining characteristic of E. coli as a species, and one that has been a valuable means of differentiating E. coli from pathogenic Salmonella. While Cit+ strains of E. coli have been isolated from environmental and agricultural samples, in every such case, the trait was found to be due to the presence of a plasmid containing a foreign citrate transporter.[32] A single, spontaneous Cit+ mutant of E. coli was reported by Hall in 1982.[33] This mutant had been isolated during prolonged selection for growth on another novel substance in a growth broth that also contained citrate. Hall's genetic analysis indicated the underlying mutation was complex, but he was ultimately unable to identify the precise changes or genes involved, leading him to hypothesize activation of a cryptic transporter gene There is a bit more in this study, & lots of commentary about the findings. But the primary evidence being presented is the ability of e.coli 'to grow aerobically on citrate', when oxygen is present. Now, let us examine the claims that this is evidence for macro evolution, which predicts a structural change in the genome. Has there been a 'structural change' in the dna? No. This is still a strain of e.coli. It is not another, more advanced bacteria, but one of the simplest, most basic ones there is, & even over thousands of generations, it is still e.coli, with a few mutations & variations, perhaps, but genetically, morphologically, & phylogenetically, unchanged. It is just a different haplogroup from the same haplotree. Here are some other facts about this study. E.coli is an asexual organism, able to reproduce by itself. The study began in 1988, & by 2016 has increased to 66,000 generations. E.coli has been found to be extremely adaptive, with ability to survive & adapt to many different conditions. There are many criticisms of this study & its conclusions, among peer reviewed scientists. This study provides no evidence for any structural changes in the genome. I like this study. I am intrigued by the findings about e.coli, & its amazing adaptability to its environment. It is similar to the shark, in its longevity & ability to live in whatever environmental variables come its way. But, for those who think this study provide evidence for the ToE, you are greatly mistaken. It does not. It merely illustrates the adaptability of e.coli. The claim of 'new speciation' is only an arbitrary definition, not anything compelled by any changes in the morphology or genetic structure of the organism. To claim this is 'real evolution!' is absurd. It is obviously just adaptation, & only demonstrates the viability & adaptability of this particular organism. Some organisms do NOT have this capability, but die under unfriendly conditions. So this phenomenon does not apply universally, as would be expected if this were a mechanism for macro evolution, but is unique to e.coli. Lenski criticizes Van Hofwegen et al.'s description of the initial evolution of Cit+ as a "speciation event" by pointing out that the LTEE was not designed to isolate citrate-using mutants or to deal with speciation since in their 2008 paper they said "that becoming Cit+ was only a first step on the road to possible speciation", and thus did not propose that the Cit+ mutants were a different species, but that speciation might be an eventual consequence of the trait's evolution So the claim of 'new speciation!' is not even claimed by Lenski, the one doing the study, even though hordes of eager Believers cling to it as 'scientific proof!' Of UCD.
Gish Gallop is a technique, named after the creationist Duane Gish who employed it, whereby someone argues a cause by hurling as many different half-truths and no-truths into a very short space of time so that their opponent cannot hope to combat each point in real time. https://speakingofresearch.com/2012/09/11/gish-gallop/
I am sorry to have to ignore people in this thread. But to have a rational, evidentiary based discussion necessitates ignoring hecklers and disrupters. The problem arises when the hecklers outnumber the debaters! I will explain my policy for debating, here, and the reasons for putting someone on ignore. 1. My goal here is intelligent, rational debate, not reality show hysteria. 2. Facts, scientific evidence, and reason are the tools in this debate, not mocking, ridicule, and fallacies. 3. I may point out the disruptive, unscientific responses, but getting baited into personal bickering only disrupts the thread. 4. After repeated warnings of off topic or fallacious deflections, i will put the poster on ignore. Here are the posters currently on ignore. Derideo_Te Mamasaid Taxonomy26 tecoyah primate rahl I will be happy to take any off ignore, if you wish to engage in rational, scientific debate. Message me and I'll be glad to try again.
As every debate I take part in involves myself being rational and fact based in my replies and the data I provide as can be attested to and verified by anyone who bothers to review my history, Clearly the issue here is your own interpretation of these things and how you view "science" I do not assume whether this is due to purposeful ignorance or some other reasoning but, attempting to debase those doing exactly what you claim to want in debate is disingenuous. The "Ignore" function does not make a debate forum better but instead stifles what it is meant to accomplish....that said I do not mind being ignored in this case.
You are closer but you missed my point again! In the OP you claimed that evolutionists use the e coli experiment to claim the evolution of a new species. That is not how we use the experiment and instead we use it to argue that natural selection and mutations can result in the evolution of complex new abilities. Whether this argument is actually true is a whole other issue and something you tried to focus on right here. I just want you to understand right now that the e coli experiment isn't being used by evolutionists to try to prove specification. Your biggest flaw with evolution isn't that your logic and reasoning is lacking. You have plenty of that as we can see from this post. The problem is that you inherently misunderstand the intended reasons behind major evolutionist arguments and what they are trying to show. That is why I am only trying to correct your understanding of how evolutionists are using the Lenski experiment and not your arguments against it. Again, are we on the same page as to how evolutionists are using the Lenski experiment? I better not hear you repeating the claim they use the experiment to try to prove speciation.
If you put everyone that disagrees with you on ignore, why bother going on a debate site to debate? Just go onto a Creationist site and agree with everyone else on there.
Why not have a rational debate? With points, arguments, and reasoning? I have no problem with disagreement, or even different beliefs. My problems with many of the posters on ignore is heckling, ad hom, hostile polemy, and ridicule, instead of factual, evidentiary based arguments. Your phony caricature of my posts is beneath you, as a rational, scientific minded person. Why stoop to ad hom and distortions about me, in a scientific debate? Does that not seem to be an irrational response? ..Bordering on religious zeal, instead of logical, empirical debate?
