Tuesday, April 24, 2018

New Ideas on the Evolution of Photosynthesis Reaction Centers

Pure Junk

Evolutionists do not have a clear understanding of how photosynthesis arose, as evidenced by a new paper from Kevin Redding’s laboratory at Arizona State University which states that:

After the Type I/II split, an ancestor to photosystem I fixed its quinone sites and then heterodimerized to bind PsaC as a new subunit, as responses to rising O2 after the appearance of the oxygen-evolving complex in an ancestor of photosystem II. These pivotal events thus gave rise to the diversity that we observe today.

That may sound like hard science to the uninitiated, but it isn’t.

The Type I/II split is a hypothetical event for which the main evidence is the belief that evolution is true. In fact, according to the science, it is astronomically unlikely that photosynthesis evolved, period.

And so, in typical fashion, the paper presents a teleological (“and then structure X evolved to achieve Y”) narrative to cover over the absurdity:

and then heterodimerized to bind PsaC as a new subunit, as responses to rising O2 …

First, let’s reword that so it is a little clearer: The atmospheric oxygen levels rose and so therefore the reaction center of an early photosynthesis system heterodimerized in order to bind a new protein (which helps with electron transfer).

This is a good example of the Aristotelianism that pervades evolutionary thought. This is not science, at least in the modern sense. And as usual, the infinitive form (“to bind”) provides the telltale sign. In other words, a new structure evolved as a response to X (i.e., as a response to the rising oxygen levels) in order to achieve Y (i.e., to achieve the binding of a new protein, PsaC).

But it gets worse.

Note the term: “heterodimerized.” A protein machine that consists of two identical proteins mated together is referred to as a “homodimer.” If two different proteins are mated together it is a “heterodimer.” In some photosynthesis systems, at the core of the reaction center is a homodimer. More typically, it is a heterodimer.

The Redding paper states that the ancient photosynthesis system “heterodimerized.” In other words, it switched, or converted, the protein machine from a homodimer to a heterodimer (in order to bind PsaC). The suffix “ize,” in this case, means to cause to be or to become. The ancient photosynthesis system caused the protein machine to become a heterodimer.

Such teleology reflects evolutionary thought and let’s be clear—this is junk science. From a scientific perspective there is nothing redeeming here. It is pure junk.

But it gets worse.

These pivotal events thus gave rise to the diversity that we observe today.

Or as the press release described it:

Their [reaction centers’] first appearance and subsequent diversification has allowed photosynthesis to power the biosphere for over 3 billion years, in the process supporting the evolution of more complex life forms.

So evolution created photosynthesis which then, “gave rise to” the evolution of incredibly more advanced life forms. In other words, evolution climbed an astronomical entropic barrier and created incredibly unlikely structures which were crucial for the amazing evolutionary history to follow.

The serendipity is deafening.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

134 comments:

  1. Cornelius, what do you feel is the best hypothesis for the variety of life as we see it today?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you feel is the best hypothesis for the variety of life as we see it today?

      And how can that be tested scientifically?

      Delete
    2. I see Joke the angry YEC is already trying to derail this thread with his usual "your side has no evidence!!" stupidity.

      Mindless, scientifically ignorant attacks on evolution is all he knows how to do. Joke just isn't very bright.

      Delete
    3. LOL! timmy the tunie is clueless. I was responding to Curtis. So Curtis is trying to derail the thread, moron.

      You are mindless and scientifically ignorant, timmy. ID is not anti-evolution which means I do NOT attack evolution. Your ignorance forces you to equivocate like a coward.

      Delete
  2. Curtis is too afraid to state what he thinks about life's diversity and how it came to be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an interesting take on it, considering that I mention what I believe about life's diversity and how it came to be several times per day. I can sum it up in a short sentence if that will help. I believe evolution is the tool God used to bring about life's diversity.

      I did take the conversation sideways, I admit. I've just been attempting to pull a simply answer out of Cornelius for a while now and I spotted a good opportunity.

      Delete
    2. Ghost
      As Curtis says evolution could only have worked IF God intervened. Lol

      Delete
    3. I didn't say that's the only way evolution could work. I said that's what I believe. It is obviously a faith statement to say "God did it", but I would argue that it is also a faith statement to say "nature did it" since it is scientifically impossible to rule out God's existence and activity in nature.

      Delete
    4. But you are sure evolution created all the variety and amazing designs we see in nature including “our body which deploys amazing, interconnected solutions to manage them.

      The parameters are: (1) oxygen, (2) carbon dioxide, (3) hydrogen ion, (4) water, (5) sodium, (6) potassium, (7) glucose, (8) calcium, (9) iron, (10) ammonia, (11) albumin, (12) transport proteins, (13) insulin, (14) glucagon, (15) thyroid hormone, (16) cortisol, (17) testosterone, (18) estrogen, (19) aldosterone, (20) parathormone, (21) digestive enzymes, (22) bile, (23) red blood cells, (24) white blood cells, (25) platelets, (26) clotting factors, (27) anti-clotting factors, (28) complement, (29) antibodies, (30) temperature, (31) heart rate, (32) respiratory rate, (33) blood pressure, (34) lung volume, (35) airway velocity, (36) cardiac output, (37) liver function, (38) kidney function, (39) hypothalamic function, (40) nerve impulse velocity.”

      Delete
    5. But you are sure evolution created all the variety and amazing designs we see in nature including “our body which deploys amazing, interconnected solutions to manage them

      That's what all the evidence we have to date shows.

      Delete
    6. And then there’s this to consider: “No human has ever faced a logistics problem this big. Consider that you have enough DNA in your body to reach Pluto, and it all has to be quickly readable and accessible from a volume one thousandth of a millimeter in diameter. The Library of Congress looks tame by comparison. Oh, and let us not forget — all that DNA has to be copied, separated, and repackaged quickly every time a cell divides. This all has to work in an organism able to pole vault, high dive, or fly in a wingsuit.

      One sure marker of intelligent design is that the closer you look at a designed object, the more complex it becomes. That is certainly true of chromosomal packaging. Since the discovery of DNA, scientists have been able to peer closer and closer over decades. Each time they do, they find more complications to the logistics problems a cell faces.”
      I believe I’m making a rational, scientific decision when I choose to believe blind natural forces could never have accomplished what we see in nature.

      Delete
    7. I've just been attempting to pull a simply answer out of Cornelius for a while now and I spotted a good opportunity.

      Lots of people have been trying for lots of years. It just isn't going to happen. He can't admit his position is non-scientific Creationism or it's game over for this anti-science blog.

      Delete
    8. Phillymike, life forms are amazing in complexity, even the unicellular varieties! We can completely agree on that. However, I think you are missing my point that, despite the scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution, I maintain that it is a tool of the Creator's, not an independent creative force.

      I'm curious, where did the quote come from? This is a considerable list, but far short of everything that needs to work together for full functioning of the human body.

      Delete
    9. Curtis
      Sorry. It’s Glicksman not Glickman

      Delete
    10. Lots of people have been trying for lots of years. It just isn't going to happen. He can't admit his position is non-scientific Creationism or it's game over for this anti-science blog.

      That's an incredibly heavy dose of irony, Ghostrider :-P But it seems as though you have hit the nail on the head. Feel free to set the record straight, Cornelius.

      Delete
    11. I believe I’m making a rational, scientific decision when I choose to believe blind natural forces could never have accomplished what we see in nature.

      Actually all you're doing is arguing from ignorance based personal incredulity. That's about as far from scientific as it gets.

      Delete
    12. LoL! All timmy has are arguments from ignorance based on its personal incredulity. timmy doesn't know what science entails.

      Delete
    13. I believe evolution is the tool God used to bring about life's diversity.

      Starting from what? Single-celled prokaryotes? Single-celled eukaryotes? Both of those plus metazoans?

      How is your position testable?

      Delete
  3. Phillymike I notice you ducked all my questions in the other thread.

    You didn't give me your explanation for the data in the dino diversification paper. You didn't explain how we got from simple body plans in the Cambrian 500+ million years ago through 5 major extinction events to today's millions of species without macroevolution.

    You can be like Joke and think it's magic but that doesn't increase our scientific understanding one iota. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “You didn't give me your explanation for the data in the dino diversification paper. You didn't explain how we got from simple body plans in the Cambrian 500+ million years ago through 5 major extinction events to today's millions of species without macroevolution.”

      That’s what Curtis believes. Ask him.

      Delete
    2. Phillymike, what gave you the impression that I believe all this occurred without "macroevolution"?

      Delete
    3. That’s what Curtis believes. Ask him.

      Weaksauce evasion there PM. Philly weak.

      Delete
    4. timmy doesn't have an explanation for the existence of living organisms nor the diversity of life.

      timmy's "explanation" for this planet is "an accumulation of innumerous just-so cosmic collisions"- totally untestable and as such outside of science.

      Delete
    5. You can be like Joe and think it's magic but that doesn't increase our scientific understanding one iota

      What an ignorant thing to say.

      First design is not magic. Magic did not make cars, computers and other artifacts.

      Second saying natural selection didit is indistinguishable from magic.

      And finally saying something is the result of intelligent design tells us quite a bit. For one it eliminates entire classes of possible causes and gets to the root of one of the 3 basic questions science asks- how did it come to be the way it is?

      Thankfully timmy is not and never will be an investigator.

      Delete
    6. LOL! Poor angry YEC Joke. All he can do is impotently yell "NUH-UH!" to all the scientific evidence for evolution he can't explain. Joke just isn't very bright. :)

      Delete
    7. Curtis
      Sorry it was late and I misread it. I meant you believed that evolution brought about those changes and that in millions and millions of years (the “once upon a time” theory) anything is possible.

      Delete
    8. What? timmy is just an ignorant troll who couldn't understand evidence if its life depended on it.

      And the coward still has to equivocate.

      Thankfully timmy isn't anyone that people have to listen to.

      Delete
    9. Thankfully angry YEC Joke isn't anyone responsible for what gets taught in public school science classes.

      Delete
    10. If they teach evolutionism then they aren't teaching science. And that can change.

      Delete
    11. At least they aren't teaching "JokeScience":

      Frequency = wavelength.

      Adding energy to an object makes it colder.

      Energy has a temperature.

      :D

      Joke just isn't very bright.

      Delete
    12. Wow, what a desperate quote-mining fool and liar you are, timmy.

      Frequency and wavelength are interchangeable under certain contexts. Your ignorance of Englis is not an argument.

      Thermal energy has a temperature.

      And "adding" 70 degrees to an existing 80 degree surface will cool the surface.

      Again, your ignorance and lies don't mean anything

      Delete
    13. If heat doesn't have a temperature, as timmy has said, then how can we tell there is warming?

      Delete
    14. LOL! Joke is still too stupid to understand heat isn't the same thing as temperature. People have tried and tried to explain basic physics to him but it's like talking to a garden slug. Joke really isn't very bright.

      Delete
    15. What? Heat has a temperature, loser. I never said they were the same thing.

      You must be one pathetic loser and liar, timmy.

      Garden slugs are smarter than you, timmy

      Delete
    16. Here Joke, because you're so dense

      Heat vs. Temperature

      Heat describes the transfer of thermal energy between molecules within a system and is measured in Joules. Heat measures how energy moves or flows. An object can gain heat or lose heat, but it cannot have heat. Heat is a measure of change, never a property possessed by an object or system.

      Temperature describes the average kinetic energy of molecules within a material or system and is measured in Celsius (°C), Kelvin(K), Fahrenheit (°F), or Rankine (R). It is a measurable physical property of an object. Other measurable physical properties include velocity, mass, and density, to name a few.

      Heat doesn't have a temperature Joke.

      Joke just isn't very bright.

      Delete
    17. Again, if heat doesn't have a temperature then how can we tell the planet is warming?

      Delete
    18. if heat doesn't have a temperature then how can we tell the planet is warming?

      We measure and note the rise in average temperature of the objects the heat flowed into.

      Garden slugs look like geniuses compared to you Joke. Not only are you stupid you're willfully ignorant.

      Delete
    19. We measure and note the rise in average temperature of the objects the heat flowed into.

      That doesn't tell us anything about whether or not the planet is warming.

      You are clearly a pathetic imp, timmy.

      Delete
    20. An object can gain heat or lose heat, but it cannot have heat.

      If an object gains heat it has heat. If an object loses heat it had heat to lose.

      Delete
    21. LOL! According to Joke we can’t tell the planet is warming when the average air, land, and sea temperatures all rise. Then he still doesn’t understand the concept of heat even when the definition is spoon fed to him

      Joke is the dumbest angry YEC on the planet, bar none.

      Delete
    22. Here comes the really funny part!

      Jioke was too ignorant to know the difference between heat and temperature. Then when he’s given the definitions he’s still too stupid to get it. Now because Joke can’t admit he was wrong about anything, ever, he’ll keep harping on the topic and showing his ignorance for weeks!

      Wait for it. :)

      Delete
    23. According to Joe we can’t tell the planet is warming when the average air, land, and sea temperatures all rise.

      Liar. I never said nor implied such a thing,.

      Clearly timmy is just a desperate loser.

      Delete
    24. Joe was too ignorant to know the difference between heat and temperature.

      Liar. It's as if timmy just cannot help itself.

      You are a sociopath, timmy. Get a life

      Delete
    25. Since Joke still doesn't understand the difference between heat and temperature and doesn't know how to tell things are getting warmer, try this experiment Joke. Put your hand on an oven burner then turn the burner on HIGH. See if you can detect heat being transferred and your hand getting warmer. :D

      Delete
    26. Since all timmy can do is lie like a little baby, cannot post anything or substance, cannot stay on-topic and cannot support anything it says, why bother letting it ruin your blog, Dr Hunter?

      Delete
    27. By the way- global temperatures have been dropping since 2016 even though more and more CO2 has been pumped into the atmosphere.

      Delete
    28. Joe, I'm not a climate scientist, but as I understand it, it's important to look for long-term trends. Judging climate change from one bad hurricane season or 18 months of lower temperature data is equally short-sighted.

      Delete
    29. No Joke, they haven't. 2016 was an exceptionally hot year due to unusual El Nino conditions but the long term trend for the last 40 years has been steadily rising.

      golbal temperature average

      Is there any science you're not completely ignorant of? You're a climate-change denier, and a YEC, and an anti-vaxxer, and a homeopathic medicine nutter. Probably think the moon landings were faked too.

      Joke Gallien: making garden slugs look bright since 1959. :)

      Delete
    30. Curtis- Again if CO2 is the primary driver of global warming as the loons want us to believe then adding CO2 should cause the temperatures to rise and yet they are not.

      The fact is there was a more rapid warming in the early 20th century that was attributed to natural variation than what we observe in the latter half of the 20th century that was attributed to the addition of CO2.

      Delete
    31. The evidence says the temperatures have dropped since 2016 even though there has been an increase in the amount of CO2. timmy can lie and deny that fact but then again timmy is a pathological liar who doesn't know anything about science except how to spell it.

      And to top it off the "warming" is only 1.6 degrees F since 1880. And there is research showing that is within the natural variation especially coming out of the little ice age.

      And not one alarmist prediction has unfolded. Not one.

      Delete
    32. REal science tat timmy will ignore:

      The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity :

      These results imply that high ECS and TCR values derived from a majority of CMIP5 climate models are inconsistent with observed warming during the historical period.

      The IPCC models are wrong. Even if CO2 reaches 560ppm we will still remain below the Paris Accord.

      All we really need to do is stop clear-cutting forests as that is the real problem. Urban heat islands easily explain the "global average temperature rise"- just look where the weather stations are

      Delete
    33. LOL! Another fringe paper from paid climate change denier sources Joke hasn't read and doesn't understand. Even then the paper still admits human produced CO2 is causing the global warming, just that it will be less than every other scientist in the world is predicting.

      Another Joke own goal! Tell us Joke, are you a Holocaust denier too?

      Delete
    34. It's science, timmy. That is why you are afraid of it. It is only "fringe" to lowlife losers, like yourself.

      There are over 30,000 scientists who say the alarmists are loons, timmy. So you are wrong, again.

      All warming, even with the adjustments made by the alarmist loons- strange that they have to adjust the data to make their point- is well within the natural variation limits, especially coming out of a little ice age- which the alarmists are doing their best to change that part of the earth's history.

      Delete
    35. LOL! Poor science denying Joke. Too stupid to understand basic science concepts, gets all his "science" from AIG, ICR, and climate change whackjobs like Anthony Watts. Then wonders why so many people consider him a Grade-A moron. :)

      Delete
    36. timmy, you loser. You are denying the science. You are just an ignorant and desperate troll.

      Strange that you cannot post any science that refutes what I post. You do realize that people notice that.

      Delete
    37. Umm, you are the one denying the science, loser.

      Delete
  4. The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory - https://darwinmyth.wordpress.com/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The author(s) of this article begin with the LTEE, and expresses skepticism because the most dramatic new phenotype observed is the activation of citrate synthesis under aerobic conditions despite the experiment undergoing 66,000 generations. This sounds like plenty of time for something novel and interesting to have occurred, right? Comparisons are then made to humans, in which the generation time ranges from about 22-33 years. If we do the math, 66,000 generations at 22-33 years per generation gives us 1,452,000 years to 2,178,000 years. Surely if evolution were true, then something amazing would have happened by now!! There are several reasons why this argument is fundamentally flawed.

      1. According to the evidence available, scientists currently estimate that the first life forms arose about 3.8 billion years ago and multicellular life forms didn't arrive on the scene for about another 1.7 billion years. That's 1,700,000,000 years that it is estimated that single-celled organisms were the only life forms on earth. But somehow, the author expects more dramatic changes to have occurred in 30 years.

      2. Aerobic utilization of citrate by E. coli is a bigger deal than one might imagine. Since bacteria look rather similar to one another, especially all of the Gram-negative bacilli living inside our intestines, biochemical properties are often utilized to identify specific types of bacteria. E. coli identification is partially based on its inability to utilize citrate in aerobic conditions. This shift from anaerobic to aerobic respiration is indeed a dramatic shift - one which has not been observed for E. coli outside of the lab.

      3. The comparison between E. coli and human timelines in the article gives no mention of the basic differences in sexual and asexual reproduction. There are several key points in sexual reproduction that greatly increase genetic variability in each generation - key points that are not available to bacteria as they give rise to future generations simply by binary fission.

      I haven't read further, but judging from the "opening salvo", I don't have high expectations for great scientific arguments.

      Delete
    2. Sexual reproduction put an end to Common Descent:

      Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.- geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti

      He goes on to say:

      Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang.


      Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times.


      That said the strain of E coli that can utilize citrate under aerobic conditions did so by duplicating the only gene that could get the citrate through the membrane and put it under the control of a different promoter- one that was not switched off by the presence of oxygen. E coli already had all of the components to utilize citrate.

      Delete
    3. 1. I 'm not sure if it is just the author of that paper or the actual scientist who developed the LTEE who feel like there should be dramatic changes. This first point is non-sequitur. People's expectation is irrelevant, however, they are doing the experiment with expectations that something dramatic can take place in a few decades. Ultimately, rates of evolution is difficult and is the reason why there are explanations for stasis in the fossil record. Overall, the amount of death and change needed for common descent it more than what is found in the fossils as noted by Darwin himself.

      2. This leads to point 2. citrate utilization really is not that big of deal. E. coli can utilize citrate. Even with their strain that was more prone to modification the utilization of citrate is not that uncommon. It is quite common for bacteria to fight to stay alive especially if their genes already encode the ability. All we are really witnesses in gene regulation. It is evolution (and AiG and other Biblical creationist would agree, just not molecules to man.) but it is unlikely they will ever get anything but E. coli. Biochemical tests are great but they do not resolve to species all that well and if your dichotomous key does not take into consideration different traits correctly then you would need to PCR the 16S ribosomal subunit which is highly conserved. Under normal conditions E. coli would pass a normal biochemical tests, but E. coli that has been starved will exhibit different traits that is why you would consider where you are collecting the sample from and use metagenomic techniques.

      3. The strains used in the LTEE had high mutation rates. With sexual reproduction our mutation rate should still be less than bacteria. I am not really sure what you are trying to say here in point three, that bacteria and human timelines can not be compared because one reproduces asexually and the other reproduces sexually? Bacteria do have sex using a sex pili. Many times this is what allows for transfer of antibiotic resistances on a plasmid and very common in biofilms.

      Delete
    4. Hi Chuck, good to talk with you again.

      Regarding point 1, the authors of the "evolution = flat earth" paper discredit the LTEE because changes on the scale THEY (not Lenski, et al) expect have not occurred.

      Regarding point 2, the development of the ability of E. coli to utilize citrate in aerobic environments really is a big deal. As I said, this change has never been observed outside of the laboratory. It has been argued by some microbiologists (I don't take it this far) that this change represented a speciation event, but Lenski also argued that this is an overstatement. The fact remains that it is a significant alteration of normal metabolism, regardless of the mutations that allowed it to occur.

      Regarding point 3, although the microbiology vernacular does include "sex pili", this is a far cry from sexual reproduction. The pili allow horizontal gene transfer of HFR plasmids, but do not allow anything resembling meotic recombination, independent assortment of chromosomes, or fertilization that all contribute to genetic variability of sexually-reproducing organisms.

      Delete
    5. Unbelievable. E coli always had the ability to digest citrate. It is just that under aerobic conditions the transport protein gene was switched off.

      What happened was that one gene was duplicated and put under the control of a different promoter that was not switched off in the presence of oxygen.

      Delete
    6. @Curtis Henderson
      The article was not discrediting the LTEE, but the theory of evolution(ToE). The ToE holds that humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor ~ 220,000 generations ago. The study linked in the article identified 60 new protein-coding genes that are not found in chimps, while the comparative genome analyses indicates the existence of thousands of such genes. Meaning, if the ToE is true than all these genes had to be produced by evolutionary process in 220,000 generations. But, the biggest empirical observation of evolutionary process in action(the LTEE) has shown that this process has been unable to produce even a single new protein-coding gene in more than 66,000 generations. Hence, this is not the failure of the LTEE, this is the failure of the ToE.

      But, this was not even the main focus of the article. The LTEE was just an introduction of what is to come, and that is the fact that the gene pools’ variation in the entire history of life on Earth is greatly insufficient to overcome the nonspecificity of just one average gene. This fact is what makes the ToE a myth equivalent to the Flat Earth theory.

      Delete
    7. Joe... that's exactly what I've already said. In the rare cases in which E. coli has been found to be able to utilize citrate in aerobic conditions, it is due to the acquisition of plasmids from another bacterium that encodes a citrate transporter. This phenotypic change in the genome of the E. coliwas a novel change. This bacterium has been grown in the lab for 100+ years, without any sign of this phenotype. To microbiologists, it is a big deal.

      Delete
    8. It is also a sign of built-in responses to environmental cues.

      Delete
    9. It is also a sign of built-in responses to environmental cues.

      ...and right on cue Joke vomits up another of the meaningless ID-Creationist buzz phrases he's been reciting for years. On other science boards he fouls people play "Joke-Bingo" as he recites the same inane one-liners ad nauseum. :)

      Delete
    10. Devastating refutation by the impish troll, timmy hooty Horton.

      timmy's catch phrases are lies it makes up to make itself feel like someone

      Delete
  5. Yeah, I've been trying to stay caught up with the posts. I've been around and notice you are quite active but just really had no comment on most of the last several posts.

    Point 1: My point is that both authors had expectations. However, this is a perfect example of evolution worldview problems which lead to the over emphasized claims in point 2. Regardless of what the LTEE discovered it was going to make no bearing on the belief of evolution. IMO, the whole premise is to demonstrate the fine gradient changes leading to larger scale changes. Why else would someone design such an experiment? There are already plenty of microevolution events well documented that mostly deal with gene regulation due to some environmental stimulus. Any microbiologist arguing that citrate utilization is a speciation event is being completely dishonest to the field. That kind of talk likely more sprinkles they put on the poop donut they trying to serve us. What does that even mean? "It has been argued by some microbiologists (I don't take it this far) that this change represented a speciation event, but Lenski also argued that this is an overstatement." That statement is meaningless. The actual scientist doing the experiment won't agree but other microbiologist would say it is. Gimme a break. Can that statement say any more without actually telling me anything? Surely, you can see the "spin" in that example.

    I'm a microbiologist and I would disagree with that statement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chuck, I am really disappointed to hear you are a microbiologist and still had this to say:

      "Bacteria do have sex using a sex pili."

      I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know that conjugation is completely different from sexual reproduction. The question I have is why would you make a statement that suggests they are the same?

      Delete
    2. Curtis,

      All Chuck said was that bacteria have sex using sex pili, which is true. They share genetic information tat way, which is also true.

      Chuck never said that was the same as sexual reproduction.

      Delete
    3. I'm not sure why you are disappointed in that statement.

      That statement is 100% factual.

      In fact, I know for certain it is probably on someone's college test. It was on mine many, many years ago.

      Conjugation is very analogous to sexual reproduction. I just ignored your last mention about it because you appear to be trying to argue that bacterial conjugation is a far cry from sexual reproduction because there is not anything that resembles meiotic recombination, but I will respond now.

      It is perfectly okay to discuss bacterial conjugation as sexual reproduction. Sex pili is not microbiologist vernacular but an actual apparatus encoded in genes in the cell to determine analogous male/female pairs. Bacterial sexual reproduction falls under horizontal gene transfer and usually discussed with transposons which together (HGT and transposons) has provided scientist a great deal to study on genetic variation. There is also a great deal of crossing-over when the plasmid or transposon is incorporated. This can be due to ligation at the target site and that the entire DNA is not transferred a lot of times mostly due to the short amount of time the cells are in contact with each other. So, to say there is nothing resembling meiotic recombination is just simply incorrect. To use it as a means to distinguish between the two is just incorrect as well. Which recombination provides greater variability in the genome? Who knows!? That is irrelevant. All you really need to know is that they are analogous to sex in creating genetic variation.

      I'm not going to provide links because you can just pick any domain that ends in .edu and read all about it in their biology faculty pages. It will likely be in the microbial genetics department under recombination: transformation, transduction, and conjugation.

      Delete
    4. No, Joe, that is completely false. Bacteria absolutely do NOT have "sex", although with the right plasmids, they can conjugate. You might wanna let Chuck answer the questions directed to him.

      His quote was in response to my observation that bacterial reproduction is very different from human reproduction. Although he did not use the term "sexual reproduction", it was implied.

      Chuck, how often do you see Cit+ E. coli in your lab? You would definitely have a publication on your hands if the answer to that question is not "never".

      Delete
    5. Bacterial conjugation is NOT sex. Yes, the word does get used in the context of conjugation, but it is a misnomer. I stand corrected regarding the potential for recombination when Hfr plasmids transmit genomic DNA. But that is where the rest of the analogy falls apart. Sexual reproduction involves the fusion of nuclei, which obviously does not happen in conjugation. Sexual reproduction typically also involves specialized gametes, which also is lacking in conjugation. Yes, there are superficial similarities, but there are significant fundamental differences.

      Delete
    6. Curtis- many people say that bacteria do have sex.

      Larry Moran wrote:

      I think some species of bacteria do engage in sex because all three mechanisms can result in gene exchange between different individual bacteria.

      You are conflating sex with sexual reproduction. That is not what was said and you do not get to say what someone implies. What you infer is not the same.

      Delete
    7. Bacterial conjugation is not sexual reproduction. It is horizontal gene transfer not vertical gene transfer. I thought this was more than implied.

      Essentially, every E. coli I've worked with is Cit+.

      Here is the work by BG Hall as cited by Lenski. The work is from 1982 well before the LTEE. Forcing a microbe or even C. elegans to exhibit a new phenotype is not that big of a deal.

      http://jb.asm.org/content/151/1/269?ijkey=db663c56c1d295c3648e1af5672968a2ec1514fa&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

      Delete
    8. Thanks Joe. I think there was some confusion there. I did refer to sexual reproduction in that it is okay for microbiologist to discuss it as sexual reproduction.

      The argument seems to be based on semantics and pointless minutiae as well as perceived definitions of some words.

      Based on those perceptions bacteria do have sex but there is no reproduction. My first response was simply bacteria have sex. I thought we all knew they don't reproduce by sexual means.

      My original response was to correct that humans have more genetic variation because of sexual reproduction which sold horizontal gene transfer short. I also never said it was sexual reproduction but only very analogous. There also seems to be some discussion on the exact amount of similarity which again is simply an exercise of getting caught up in the weeds because we all know it isn't sexual reproduction. It should go without saying.

      Delete
    9. "Essentially, every E. coli I've worked with is Cit+"

      Cit+ under aerobic conditions, Chuck?

      Delete
    10. Essentially. Certain traits can be induced based on the growth substrate. It is nothing new.

      By reiterating the question I get the tone that you still feel like it is a big deal. It's just not.

      Cit+ under aerobic conditions. No way! Wow! It's not that big of deal.

      You have simply fell for the spin on the LTEE so it isn't a complete failure after the 20 or 30 years they've wasted on it. We've come full circle back to point 1 where Lenski and most of the godless population that knows about the LTEE have expectations too and want to believe it is something it's not.

      Delete
    11. This is where I disagree with Chuck. I don't think the LTEE has been a waste of time. It shows just how limited evolutionary processes are. ;)

      Delete
    12. It's hilarious seeing Creationists still trying to hand-wave away the results of the LTEE. Pretty much like watching them bawl about Kitzmiller v. Dover after 13 years.

      ID-Creationists are a bunch of lazy sots who sit on their fat bums, do no research or experimentation of their own, just fling poo at real scientists doing actual work they can't rebut. They couldn't be more scientifically and intellectually impotent if they tried.

      Delete
    13. What? It's hilarious watching you choke on everything.

      What research has anyone ever done that supports evolutionism? No one even uses the concept of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes to guide any research. It is useless.

      At least Intelligent Design concepts are used by professionals- to actually do something- genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of intelligent design as they use telic processes to reach a pre-specified goal. (natural selection doesn't have a goal and is strictly non-telic)

      Delete
    14. What? I love the results of the LTEE. They demonstrate how limited evolutionary processes are.

      Delete
    15. Ghost, I will say one thing the anti-religious movement has done well is convince people that the religious are anti-scientific and ignorant. We actually have a huge advantage because we put God first and the glory to God. Next, we actually question and review all the information. There is a lot more "picking and choosing" of information on your "scientific" side.

      Here is my handwave- being that the main result is that E. coli can utilize citrate even impotent people find wood every now and then.

      Can we please put this to rest?

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4800869/

      This paper should put the LTEE in better perspective. You can come up with something else to tout about the LTEE but that is between you, LTEE, and God.

      Delete
    16. Chuck, are you suggesting that an individual that accepts evolution is unable to put God first and give glory to God? I may not do a perfect job of it, but these are certainly goals of mine.

      Regarding the article you posted: No one ever claimed that the aerobic citrate utilization was unique to the LTEE. It just happened to be an interesting event that popped up during the experiment. The corroboration that E. coli can adapt to environmental challenge by developing aerobic citrate utilization only confirmed LTEE findings.

      Delete
    17. Curtis- It all depends on what you mean by "evolution".

      Delete
    18. This is true, Joe. But I only originally brought up the LTEE as an example of evolution in action - cells adapting genetically to their environments. I'm not suggesting that the LTEE is demonstrating "ascent" from E. coli into an entirely new organism.

      Delete
    19. Curtis, No I am not saying that. I accept evolution. I think evolution gives a great deal of variance within a created kind. I do think theistic evolution does have some problems but all those problems are meaningless as long as you give all the glory to God. IMO, it takes stronger faith to believe in full-blown molecules to man evolution and scripture, but that is wonderful if you can and not have your faith shaken by the anti-religious movement.

      I'm talking about the anti-religious movement or as some call it atheistic evolution or militant atheism are at a disadvantage because they are God-less. They've done a good job hijacking evolution as their "Catcher in the Rye" and labeling anyone who questions it as ignorant or anti-scientific.


      On your response to Van Hofwegen's work in Idaho, you appear to be back tracking from some of your previous stances you dug in on. Sorry, if I took your statements that

      1. It is a big deal that E. coli developed it.
      2. Emphasis that no one would have Cit+ E. coli in their lab (which I stated I essentially have Cit+ with every E. coli I work with)

      It appears now it was just an interesting event that popped up even though it was basically already understood 5-8 years prior.

      The paper did not confirm the LTEE finding in the manner in which LTEE is touted. Also, I already provided a paper that was done about 5-8 years before LTEE even began that showed that microbiologists already knew about citrate utilization. They didn't need anything corroborated. In fact, Van Hofwege directly discusses why it is not a speciation event which was another point that was brought up about how some microbiologist were calling it that.

      Delete
    20. Chuck, I tend to agree with you about atheistic evolution. Cornelius does a really good job at pointing out hurdles that must be cleared for purely naturalistic events to have occurred on their own.

      I still maintain that the observed aerobic utilization of citrate is a big deal, because it does show evolution in action. A bigger deal would be the evolution of a de novo gene. Observed aerobic utilization had been previously described in wild populations, but limited to those with the enabling genes present on plasmids.

      The lab populations, including Lenski's and Van Hofwegen's, that have demonstrated the ability to aerobically utilized citrate have been the subject of a lot of attention.

      What exactly do you mean by "essentially" having Cit+ E. coli? Does that mean they aren't now, but you could induce them to be? With a path toward that end in the Van Hofwegen paper, this would be easy to reproduce. But the pioneering observation and follow-up were big deals (Von Howege et al wouldn't have been published in the Journal of Bacteriology otherwise).

      Delete
    21. What type of "evolution in action" does it represent?

      Delete
    22. The development of aerobic utilization of citrate demonstrates the ability for mutation to allow organisms to adapt to their environment.

      Delete
    23. I'm not exactly sure what attention you are referring to because LTEE keeps getting brought up as an example of evolution, so even though Van Hofwegen's work is published it doesn't appear to be a big deal at least his refutation that it does not "show evolution in action".

      Did you read his paper? I get the feeling you didn't.

      He explains why it is not a big deal and that it does not demonstrate the ability of adapting to their environment. Specifically, that it is not a result of genetic mutation due to environment but rather genetic mutation due to experimental conditions and Lenski got lucky to select for it because Cit+ is actually less fit due to the long lag phase and extra cost to maintain gene copies. This would be direct evidence against evolution and was simply an experimental artifact. They (evolutionist) have to write-off the results as an artifact so their worldview is not challenged.

      AiG and others actually provide creationist a list of arguments that should not be used. Evolutionists should do the same and the LTEE should be on there.

      Yes, we can select for mutant strains using selective and differential media. So, selecting for strains is nothing new and is microbiology 101. It's about as important as a hammer is to a carpenter. Yes, according to Hall et al work I can essentially select for Cit+ E. coli in a matter of days.

      Also, always use a selective media when growing a fecal culture. :)


      Delete
    24. I'm not exactly sure what attention you are referring to because LTEE keeps getting brought up as an example of evolution, so even though Van Hofwegen's work is published it doesn't appear to be a big deal at least his refutation that it does not "show evolution in action".

      Joe made an observation earlier that it depends on how we are actually using the word "evolution" in this context.

      In the way I intended it, what I mean is that Lenski's LTEE, as well as Von Hofwegen's work, show genetic mutations that allows organisms to alter phenotype and grow differently from their predecessors.

      I am not claiming that Lenski's bacteria have developed into a new species. In fact, I've stated outright that I think that claim is overblown. The work of Von Hofwegen strongly suggests that the evolution demonstrated is of the small-scale variety.

      "Coupled with whole-genome sequencing, evolutionary changes can be genetically characterized to identify a mutation(s) required for a specific phenotypic change and frozen intermediates can be revived to replay and confirm the events."

      The authors are not saying it isn't evolution, nor is it evidence against evolution. They are saying that it is not an evolution event involving generation of a new coding sequence.

      A better example of de novo gene origination can be seen here:

      http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/01/22/science.1248286.full

      Delete
    25. Right- in Lenski's LTEE the Cit transport gene- the only gene that could help in this situation- was duplicated and put under the control of a different promoter- one that was not w=switched off in the presence of oxygen.

      That just seems too lucky for me to accept blind and mindless processes did it.

      The same goes for de novo genes especially given the paper waiting for TWO mutations

      Delete
    26. I would just like to thank Chuck and Curtis for this very polite discussion and exchange of ideas.

      Delete
    27. No, it doesn't demonstrate evolution even on a small scale variety.

      I'm not sure why you quoted the following:

      "Coupled with whole-genome sequencing, evolutionary changes can be genetically characterized to identify a mutation(s) required for a specific phenotypic change and frozen intermediates can be revived to replay and confirm the events."

      That is part of the introduction where they are describing all long-term experiments and the advantages to them. That really has no bearing on any of the information except to provide background information on long term microorganism experiments.

      Lastly, I am not sure why you are giving an example of de novo genes. Do you know what de novo and orphan genes are?


      Delete
    28. There are a few dozen references to evolution in the paper, including the title (Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA). I just picked one. I'm sticking to my guns here, it does demonstrate evolution when using a common definition like "genetic mutation that produces phenotypic change that allows adaptation in progeny generations". The authors are stating in the quote that the changes are evolution. And I agree with them.

      I could be wrong, but I think your main contention is that the mutations involved do not involve the generation of new, or de novo, coding sequences. That's why I included a different reference that discusses those, albeit in a different organismal context. (Yes, I do know what de novo and orphan genes are)

      Joe, thanks for the compliment! I'm not 100% successful 100% of the time, but for the purpose of meaningful dialogue, I do think it is worthwhile to keep discussions polite.

      Delete
    29. I think there is some talking past each other-

      Chuck, how are you defining "evolution"?

      Curtis- you also

      If "evolution" is just the change in allele frequency over time why wouldn't the LTEE demonstrate that?

      If "evolution" means universal common descent, then the LTEE doesn't come close to that.

      Cards on the table, please ;)

      Delete
    30. Thanks, Joe.

      "If "evolution" is just the change in allele frequency over time why wouldn't the LTEE demonstrate that?"

      This is exactly what I mean by the switch to aerobic utilization of citrate is a demonstration of evolution. Again, I'm not making a claim that the metabolic switch is any sort of evidence for E. coli "evolving" into something else.

      Delete
    31. the anti-religious movement has done well is convince people that the religious are anti-scientific and ignorant

      Not all religious people, just the small subset of Fundies who think the planet and all life is only 6000 years old and that 4500 years ago all animals on the planet were killed in a mega-Flood save those on a wooden boat. Those Fundies convinced everyone else they are morons.

      Your Creationist whining that the LTEE doesn't show evolution is as laughable as the Minnich paper you've been pimping. Minnich is a Creationist who trotted out the tired old Creationist lie of "no new information was created!" during the LTEE. Never mind that he changed the ID-Creation definition of "information" for the 473rd time. Apparently IDiot-Creationists won't accept evolution unless the E coli grow wings and fly across the lab.

      Evolution works by modifying pre-existing genetic sequences to create new genes or new regulatory elements from sequences that were already present in the genome. That's exactly what happened in the LTEE - Several mutations combined and produced never seen before genetic sequences which produced a never seen before beneficial effect under the environmental conditions. ID-Cers can whine all they want but the that is new information and a textbook example of evolution in action.

      Delete
    32. I think evolution gives a great deal of variance within a created kind.

      What is a "created kind"? Please provide a list.

      How do you objectively tell which "kind" a species belongs to?

      What are the genetic limits of a "kind" and what magic barrier prevents a species from evolving outside those limits? What prevents microevolutionary changes from accumulating over time and producing a macroevolutionary change?

      Please, don't embarrass yourself by posting the usual YEC PRATT hand waves. You claim to be a scientist so act like one.

      Delete
    33. timmy, you are a belligerent little child and you act like one.

      No one has to show any barrier exists because no one can show that genetic changes can produce the anatomical and physiological changes required.

      Micro and macro involve different genes, moron. Changes in fur color and eye color will never produce new body plans and new body parts.

      Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.- John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102

      Delete
    34. Put a sock in it Joke. We already know you can't support any of the Biblical baraminology "created kind" nonsense you've been blustering about for years.

      Delete
    35. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    36. timmy is lying. There isn't any evidence that natural selection can produce regulatory networks. And modifying the genomes of bacteria still produces only bacteria.

      As for the LTEE is demonstrates the severe limitations of evolutionary processes.

      Delete
    37. timmy supports baraminology:

      A cat is a member of the family Felidae. Its parents were Felidae, and its grandparents, and all its ancestors going back tens of millions of years. All of the descendants it leaves will be Felidae.

      A dog is a member of the family Canidae. Its parents were Canidae, and its grandparents, and all its ancestors going back tens of millions of years. All of the descendants it leaves will be Canidae.


      Nice own goal, timmy

      Delete
    38. Joke the angry YEC: "derp!"

      You still pushing your ignorance and stupidity claiming evolution says cats should evolve into dogs??

      We all know you're scientifically illiterate but that's borderline retarded.

      Joke is not very bright.

      Delete
    39. Stuff it, timmy. You are the ignorant one here. You are also a liar. Everyone sees that you never support anything and there isn't anything in evolutionism that prevents dogs from evolving into cats or cats from evolving into dogs, given enough time.

      What's the barrier?

      Delete
    40. Several mutations combined and produced never seen before genetic sequences which produced a never seen before beneficial effect under the environmental conditions.

      More ignorance from timmy. The ability for E coli to utilize citrate under aerobic conditions has been seen before. The LTEE was not the first time it has happened in a lab.

      And what happened during the LTEE in no way supports evolution by means of blind and mindless processes

      Delete
    41. Ghost, Minnich was way down the list and the paper was picked up by a secular journal and has no religious tones. I don't know what more you want.

      You my friend are the one lying when you say "new information was created" in the LTEE. Perhaps there has been but not citrate utilization. That is what this discussion is about... the significance of that trait to E. coli. I am not and the creationist community is not the ones touting it as a rare, innovative evolutionary event. The paper directly refuted Curtis' claims on every point.

      AiG and Creation.com have full writeups on their stance on evolution and it is yet another lie from the anti-religious movement to say that creationist don't believe in evolution. You should learn more about things before you go spouting nonsense and lies. This seems to be a recurring motif and as I said the anti-religous is very successful at making people believe them. Also, they say creationist are the willfully ignorant and ignore evidence while you and others are presented with a scientifically sound research paper and yet you still won't acknowledge it and even try to dismiss it merely on the premise that one of the authors has creationist ties.

      If you are not going to read and understand the paper then that is your prerogative, but you won't see why the statement "beneficial effect under the environmental conditions" is not entirely accurate.

      On created kinds:

      Classification is hard work. A kind would be like a candy bar. Then underneath candy bars you have snickers, kitkat, hershey bar, mr. goodbar... you get the idea. Obviously, some things are harder to classify. But, you know, your side has just as many cliche arguments. Can you really not figure out what "a kind" might mean?

      You speak of a magic barrier, but that magic barrier is known to exist and the only thing demonstrated as of modern science.

      What magic do you know to exist that allows no barrier and what magic that allows microevolutionary changes from accumulating over time and producing a macroevolutionary change? Please give me a series of microevolutionary changes (just the evidence) (preferably the gene mutation or genetic adaptation in sequence) that caused a crossing of something higher than the species barrier.


      Delete
    42. "The paper directly refuted Curtis' claims on every point."

      Chuck, what specific claims did I make that were directly refuted by the paper?

      "Minnich was way down the list"

      To be fair, I'm sure you understand that last author is often as import (and frequently more important) than first author.

      Delete
    43. "To be fair, I'm sure you understand that last author is often as import (sic) (and frequently more important) than first author."


      Possibly, but I never heard of order not being important. I guess I can quote it as Minnich et al.


      You're basis was:

      1. some microbiologist claim it is a speciation event
      2. it is a rare and innovated evolution event which leads to #3
      3. it is a big deal and stated that to get aerobic Cit+ E. coli in my lab would be a huge deal.

      The paper, along with Hall's 82 research, showed that it is not a rare and innovated evolution event and can been done much quicker than the time it took Lenski. Minnich et al also discussed why it is not a speciation event. All combined... not a big deal.


      Here are a couple of your quotes for reference:

      "...the development of the ability of E. coli to utilize citrate in aerobic environments really is a big deal. As I said, this change has never been observed outside of the laboratory. It has been argued by some microbiologists (I don't take it this far) that this change represented a speciation event, but Lenski also argued that this is an overstatement. The fact remains that it is a significant alteration of normal metabolism, regardless of the mutations that allowed it to occur."

      "Aerobic utilization of citrate by E. coli is a bigger deal than one might imagine. Since bacteria look rather similar to one another, especially all of the Gram-negative bacilli living inside our intestines, biochemical properties are often utilized to identify specific types of bacteria. E. coli identification is partially based on its inability to utilize citrate in aerobic conditions. This shift from anaerobic to aerobic respiration is indeed a dramatic shift - one which has not been observed for E. coli outside of the lab."


      "Chuck, how often do you see Cit+ E. coli in your lab? You would definitely have a publication on your hands if the answer to that question is not "never"."

      --"Essentially, every E. coli I've worked with is Cit+"--

      Cit+ under aerobic conditions, Chuck?"

      Delete
    44. This is what I wrote.

      Chuck, what specific claims did I make that were directly refuted by the paper?

      1. some microbiologist claim it is a speciation event

      I clearly said that I disagreed with the assertion that the switch to aerobic citrate utilization represented a speciation event. You did not refute anything that I said here.

      2. it is a rare and innovated evolution event which leads to #3

      It is a rare event. Otherwise, E. coli would not be classified as Cit- for identification purposes. You have not refuted anything I've said here.

      3. it is a big deal and stated that to get aerobic Cit+ E. coli in my lab would be a huge deal.

      I should have been more precise in my language here. If you had E. coli that spontaneously mutated and consequently began to utilize the minimal amounts of citrate present as a chelating agent, it would be a big deal. However, if you followed the process laid out in the Von Hofwegen paper and confirmed his results, then yes, that would not be such a big deal.

      That hardly qualifies as "directly refuted Curtis' claims on every point".

      Delete
    45. It isn't that rare if it happens almost every time in the same scenario. Which it does.

      Delete
    46. 1. You brought that up and the paper directly addressed it so it made the list.

      2. The paper directly addressed it being considered a rare and innovated event and provided good reasons and methods why it isn't. Not sure why you are stuck on that.

      3. IMO, training students to be good microbiologist is to get them to stop thinking in those term.


      Chemical analysis has shortcomings and is why there are several better ways to identify and classify bacteria. In many scenarios chemical dichotomous keys will work.

      Delete
    47. Minnich was way down the list and the paper was picked up by a secular journal and has no religious tones.

      Minnich is a Senior Fellow at the DI, a RW Christian think tank whose stated goal is to get religious Creationisn back into schools. His conclusion "LTEE added no new information" was purely religiously motivated.

      You my friend are the one lying when you say "new information was created" in the LTEE.

      Actually it is you who are lying unless you try to weasel by using your own custom definition of "information" as Minnich dishonestly tried. By every accepted definition of biological information the new genetic sequences in the LTEE qualify.

      the creationist community is not the ones touting it as a rare, innovative evolutionary event.

      It was still an evolutionary event. A classic demonstration of evolution observed in real time. Too bad if it makes you Creationists look like scientifically illiterate fools.

      On created kinds: Classification is hard work.

      Exactly as expected you weasel and avoid answering. Why are Creationists too afraid to do the hard work and define their terms like "kind"?

      You speak of a magic barrier, but that magic barrier is known to exist and the only thing demonstrated as of modern science.

      More lying. You can't describe any such barrier or tell us how it's supposed to work. Like all Creationists you bluster and splutter and dodge all questions.

      Please give me a series of microevolutionary changes (just the evidence) (preferably the gene mutation or genetic adaptation in sequence) that caused a crossing of something higher than the species barrier.

      Trivially easy.

      Molecular evolution tracks macroevolutionary transitions in Cetacea

      You Creationist blowhard should really do some research before spouting off.

      Delete
    48. Minnich is a Senior Fellow at the DI, a RW Christian think tank whose stated goal is to get religious Creationisn back into schools.

      Liar

      His conclusion "LTEE added no new information" was purely religiously motivated.

      Liar

      Why are Creationists too afraid to do the hard work and define their terms like "kind"?

      You have already been told- start with body plans

      You can't describe any such barrier or tell us how it's supposed to work.

      We don't have to prove a negative, moron. It is up to you to show that the transformations required are possible and you cannot.

      Like all cowards you try to put the onus on others. You are pathetic.

      Strange how your reference doesn't track the molecular differences to the anatomical and physiological differences.

      Delete
    49. "His conclusion "LTEE added no new information" was purely religiously motivated."

      Perhaps, but that statement is factual based on what the data shows. You are just choosing to ignore it.

      Created kind is not as well-defined as other taxonomic studies that have been in progress for hundreds of years. Obviously, genetic studies moves organisms around all the time. In fact, in college my undergrad research studies was with a lab that was working on mediterranean species of plants. So, whale evolution falls within how a created kind would be grouped even though you only sent over the abstract and not the link to the full paper. I have my doubts that you've even read the paper. Whale evolution is studied by creationists and I'd say it is still an example of our boundary and not your magic boundless one because you still have yet to take the time to understand what creationists believe which is a bush of life of created kinds moreso than a tree of life. We don't just ignore evidence like you're obviously doing with the paper that crushes your misinterpretation of the LTEE. We all look at the same data but interpret it differently. You seem to be just ignoring it completely.

      Ghost, I won't be responding to you any more until you learn some decency.

      Delete
    50. Perhaps, but that statement is factual based on what the data shows.

      Only if you dishonesty use your own custom definition of "information" as Minnich did.

      Created kind is not as well-defined as other taxonomic studies that have been in progress for hundreds of years.

      Creationists have had over two thousand years to get their "kinds" sorted out. I guess they're all just too incompetent.

      Obviously, genetic studies moves organisms around all the time.

      Reference please. What genetic study moved a species from one "kind" to another "kind"? What was the deciding criteria for the move?

      So, whale evolution falls within how a created kind would be grouped

      Cetaceans and all their terrestrial ancestors are one "kind" based on the genetic and fossil evidence? That's a new Creationist position.

      even though you only sent over the abstract and not the link to the full paper.

      You claim to be a scientist but can't use Google Scholar to find an online copy? Wow.

      Whale evolution is studied by creationists and I'd say it is still an example of our boundary

      The magic Creationist boundry you still can't identify or explain any mechanism how it works. Got it.

      We all look at the same data but interpret it differently.

      Classic Creationist excuse for ignoring scientific evidence.

      Ghost, I won't be responding to you any more until you learn some decency.

      LOL! Now the classic Creationist Butthurt Defense. Can't deal with the science so whine about hurt feelings and flounce away. I also note you were the one who first accused me of lying. We'll add "hypocrite" to your list of stellar Creationist attributes.

      Delete
    51. Cetaceans and all their terrestrial ancestors are one "kind" based on the genetic and fossil evidence?

      Cetaceans don't have any terrestrial ancestors

      Classic Creationist excuse for ignoring scientific evidence.

      You don't know what scientific evidence is.

      Again only a moron would ask someone to prove a negative and that is what timmy wants. No one needs to show there is a barrier. it is up to you, the person making the claim for macroevolution, to provide the evidence.

      Micro and macro involve different genes, moron. Changes in fur color and eye color will never produce new body plans and new body parts.

      Loci that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those loci that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many if not most major adaptive changes are not variable.- John McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaptation: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observation”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: 14, 1983, p77-102

      That is the science you ignore, timmy.

      Delete
    52. Hey Joe,

      You ever provide someone a link and then when the link is not very informative you tell them they should have looked elsewhere and then blame them for being the one who can't find what you meant to send in the first place? Not sure why you wouldn't just skip all the nonsense and send the correct link to begin with.

      Just trying to make sense of this.

      Delete
    53. No one needs to show there is a barrier.

      You're the YEC morons claiming there's a magic barrier which makes macroevolution impossible. Show the barrier or shut your pie hole Joke.

      Delete
    54. You're the evoTARD who says macroevolution is possible. Show it or stuff it, punk.

      We don't say there is a barrier. We say there isn't any evidence for it nor any way to test it.

      Delete
    55. Chuck- It's called a literature bluff. And you must be stoooopid to not understand how it supports their claim.

      Just sayin'

      I would rather someone make a case and use the link as support, explaining how it supports them. But that ain't going to happen when debating evos

      Delete
    56. "You claim to be a scientist but can't use Google Scholar to find an online copy? Wow."

      As I was told by someone who sent a link to only the abstract. Oh I found a version but it would have been much easier and made more sense if I was directed directly to it and clearly the person referencing it had not read it.

      Sorry Joe, wasn't referencing you specifically with "YOU" because I'm done with the other guy who can only throw insults. I wasn't talking about your references or links.

      Delete
    57. Yes, Chuck, I know who you were talking about

      Delete
    58. Poor butthurt Creationist. has to console himself by whining with another equally butthurt Creationist.

      Meanwhile the cetacean genetic evidence just sits there scaring the poo out of all those brave YEC "scientists". :D

      Delete
    59. Countdown to Joke the angry YEC moron yelling "COMMON DESIGN!!"

      3..2..1..

      Delete
    60. There isn't any genetic evidence that says the transformations required are even possible. Clearly you don't know anything about genetics and are just a gullible fool.

      Delete
  6. 43+ comments and not one evo has addressed the OP.

    What is the record?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 43+ comments and not one evo has addressed the OP.

      What's to address? It's one more iteration of the silly "science doesn't know everything therefore science doesn't know anything" Creationist claim. We see it with every third OP at this blog.

      Delete
    2. Right- there isn't anything to address as you and yours don't have anything anyway. All you can do is attack people for exposing your position as that farce that it is.

      And your position doesn't have anything to do with science except for the bastardization of it.

      Delete
    3. We know Joke. Every scientist in the world is wrong about every subject but a chubby scientifically illiterate YEC unemployed toaster repairman posting from his basement has all the answers. :D

      When do you think the world will finally recognize your unparalleled "scientific" genius? :D

      Delete
    4. Wow, timmy the desperate idiot strikes again.

      Just because you are a gullible moron doesn't mean we all have to be.

      Delete