Re: [DebunkCreation] Re: Lenny's 90 references of observed speciations
- On 29 Aug 2002 at 19:25, George Hunter wrote:
>Which evidence is this? The fact that a lot of yammerheads SAY it
> > >
> > > I don't know, but the burden of proof is on you, not me.
> > No, Junior---you are the one claiming something is "impossible".
> > Show us why.
> In science, the person proposing the theory has the burden of proof. I
> did not say the extrapolation of small-scale change it large-scale is
> impossible (if I did it was a slip). I said this several times here:
> the key question is: "is this a reasonable notion?" So far, the
> evidence says "no". Does the evidence prove it to be impossible? Of
> course not.
won't work is not actually evidence, you know.
> But how could I turn down such a gracious offer? But seriously,Been there, seen it, done it. Don't see any evidence to support the
> someone else earlier also asked for evidence about why the change is
> limited. Your monkey wrench analogy notwithstanding, I marvel that I'm
> even being asked the question. You talked about all those centuries of
> medical research -- are you completely ignorant of animal husbandry,
> horticulture, and other types of breeding experiments. Or how about
> all those evolution experiments trying to evolve flies? Now it is my
> turn to tell you to go to the library.
claim that the NEW genetic variation being seen due to mutation will
not cause isolated populations to diverge, as they mathematically
must do unless some actual force prevents it.
> Does the available evidence disprove the extrapolation? No, but itYes you are. And you are doing it either because you were sold a
> does not support the evidence. I'm not the one here making the claim
> that goes against our empirical knowledge base. And I'm open to
bill of goods by creationists more interested in sophistry than in
science or because you wish to peddle such a bill of goods.
I would strongly suggest that you get your biology from science
sources, not religious heretics with an agenda.
- Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:50:47 -0000
From: "Michael E. Suttkus, II" <suttkus@...>
Subject: Re: vitamin C and Msg#31642
--- In DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com, "deismplus"
> > It is known, and has been known for a longWhat does it matter why they would consider it? It's a hypothesis,
> > time, that primates do not synthesize vitamin C.
> > And that guinea pigs don't either.
> > Here's my prediction: if we check it out at molecular
> > level, we'll find that the vitamin C genes
> > of both humans and chimps have the SAME mutation
> > that causes it not to function, while in guinea
> > pigs, it is some OTHER mutation that causes the failure.
> This seems to be an argument against the
> hypothesis that human beings were specially
> created. However, what would motivate
> anyone to consider that hypothesis?
> I can only think of two possibilities:If I get up tomorrow and find a car wrapped around the tree in my
> (a) Some people have an emotional resistance
> to the idea that human beings and chimps have
> common ancestors.
> (b) The doctrines of some religions include
> the claim that human beings were specially
> Suppose we start with the genetic code of a
> human being and trace backwards, imagining
> the genetic codes of ancestors.
> (1) We start with a human being, an organism
> whose body chemistry cannot make vitamin C.
> (2) As we trace backwards, we arrive at an
> organism whose body chemistry could make vitamin C.
> (3) However, if we continue to trace backwards,
> we arrive at an organism whose body chemistry
> could NOT make vitamin C.
> The only alternative to (3) is:
> A complex organism capable of making vitamin C
> arose directly from nonliving matter.
> Either it arose spontaneously or it arose under
> the control of a directing intelligence.
> Now, if we assume that (3) is true, then the following
> questions arise:
> (1) How do we know that those genes that do
> not quite allow our bodies to make vitamin C
> aren't good for something?
front yard, which is the logical response:
1. That's a car that has been smashed into a tree and no longer
2. That looks like a smashed car, but it might have been built that
way and serve some other purpose.
We have a defective vitamin C gene. Worse, we have exactly the same
defective vitamin C gene that chimps have. Trying to pretend that it
might be something else is silly.
\The IDiot will solemnly inform you that chimps and humans are separately
and similarly designed with the defective gene in both.
But if you don't like the vitamin C gene, let's move to the growth
regulator gene that has a transposon stuck in it. Not only can we
identify it's original purpose, but we can tell you what happened to
change it and what would happen were it somehow reactivated. This
isn't rocket science.
\It must be, IDiots can't figure it out.
> (2) If we begin with our ancestors whose bodiesThat acestor wouldn't have a non-functional gene just waiting for one
> could make vitamin C and we trace backwards to an
> ancestor of those ancestors--an ancestor whose body
> could NOT make vitamin C--how do we know that
> the defect that prevented vitamin C from being
> made was not exactly the same defect that we now have?
change to turn it into a vitamin C gene. Off happens fast, but
development works in stages.
\Redevelopment of a disabled gene can take a highly roundabout route.
Take the gastrointestinal torsion of the Gastropoda. Apparently a point
mutation caused one muscle to fail, twisting the intestinal tract to
empty just above the head. The Opisthobranchia have reverted to the
normal molluscan condition, but through a complicated process.
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!