Arrogance of Elitism

I agreewith most of what you say. I don't think abiogenesis is movin the goalposts though, because it is a heck of a big claim that matter would arrange itself to become something more than matter. Evolution allows that particular pill to become easier to swallow. Therefore logically, evolution has a bearing on abiogenesis, BECAUSE it claims that ALL organisms came from a simpler common ancestor, which removes the need to explain a "modern" organism.So it's not fallacious to require evidence of abiogenesis.Thanks.As for believers who accept evolution. I know they accept it. But lots become atheist because of evolution. this is also true and I know because of experience.

That's correct. I should have specified. 100% of all observed data.I believe science treats induction of evidence with importance does it not? In this case ALL of the evidence favours that logically, you require information to get lifeforms.Now to bring mistakes to me and claim they produce information requires a lot of proof because why would it? 100% of the evidence shows deformity and disease, and only mutational LOSS is advantageous. (Just NS basically.)Thanks for the responses. Apologies if I don't get back to anyone.

Mike, did you draw your avatar?

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

I think though, that my position is that you still have to argue that the information came from mutation in the past.

---

Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost very much and the materials can be acquired from any decent biological supply house.Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they shold all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.Why would you have us deny what we can prove in less than a week's time?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

I don't think abiogenesis is movin the goalposts though, because it is a heck of a big claim that matter would arrange itself to become something more than matter.

---

Huh? Then you deny your own existence? You take in water, which is mere "matter," oxygen which is also mere "matter," and a whole bunch of other dead material and convert it into living matter that makes up your own body. What makes you think it is impossible?

quote:

---

Therefore logically, evolution has a bearing on abiogenesis, BECAUSE it claims that ALL organisms came from a simpler common ancestor, which removes the need to explain a "modern" organism.

---

Incorrect. Evolution is compatible with every method of genesis you care to name. Life could have arisen chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, extra-terrestrially through panspermia or alien seeding, interdimensionally through a rift in space-time, or any other method you can imagine. So long as that first life did not reproduce perfectly from one generation to the next, evolution is completely satisfied.Evolution doesn't care where life comes from, so why would you claim it requires abiogenesis?Are you saying god is incapable of making life that evolves?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Stars have incredibly complex life cycles, are made up of complex processes from the core to the outer corona, and give birth to new stars from their own ashes. I'm not wholly convinced that they are not alive themselves in some sense. Do stars form naturally from clouds of matter, or do they require supernatural intervention??? Ah, the crux of the matter

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

100% of the evidence shows deformity and disease

---

Incorrect. Over 90% of all mutations are neutral and have no effect.But at any rate, even your claim is wrong. The E. coli experiment proves it. Evolution right in front of your eyes not once but twice, both times toward survival and improved fitness.

quote:

---

only mutational LOSS is advantageous. (Just NS basically.)

---

Incorrect.Your immune system proves you wrong. It is designed to mutate and increase in complexity. So many structures in our genome exist because of duplication, increasing the "information."Why would you have us deny it?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I said that 100% of the evidence shows disease and deformity as the effects of mutation. You don't know what "proof" is, or the claims of the ToE then.The logical equivalent example of evolution defined according to the full claims of the ToE would require a change in the morphology of the E.coli. --It's design, physically--.It is not fair to simply state your own qualifier as "proof".Fitness, even change such as blindness in the dark, only shows micro-evolution.If there is new information in a gene pool that creates a new morphology then evolution is proven.I believe in natural selection, because i agree that the fittest will survive. Hpw is that the equivalent of saying that every organism is from a common ancestor?You have evidence of a very specific thing. Logically, you have not proved evolution because a reduction of information over time does not add up, it removes. This is what we see in organisms.Breeding dogs gets you dogs with less information.I believe you are a very determined person, therefore I think it's futile to debate you. I have no more time for you.Even your flagellum examples are not fair because I am unable to evaluate an experiment I did not take part in.To "prove" evolution logically, you need the logical equivalent of it's claims, SHOWN.The adaptation of micro-organisms, given their speed of regeneration, is not impressive. How is it that you can only ever show me micro-organisms.You claim a man can fly but you only ever show me fleas jumping.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Seriously though - you have another problem. This is why it is futile for us to debate. You forget that I, personally REQUIRE a certain piece of information, in order to convince me of something on a personal level. ME.Me.Let it go.

Hi Phat.No I didn't. Gud 2 c u.

It is quite possible.It is my personal philosophy to be honest with myself, and it can bring pain. Mostly, I am preaching to myself.I WILL accept evolution if I see it happen, a new design, even if it hurts, because essentially I want to know the truth.

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Incorrect. Over 90% of all mutations are neutral and have no effect.

---

​

I said that 100% of the evidence shows disease and deformity as the effects of mutation.

---

And I said you were incorrect. Disease and deformity are rarely the effects of mutation. Please let us not play dumb. While mutation can cause disease, let us not pretend that you were merely pointing out a single range of opportunities among several.The overwhelming majority of all mutations are neutral in effect and are never noticed. Those that do cause a reduced fitness will be selected against while those that result in an increased fitness will be selected for. Since most are neutral, they are subject to drift and quite often become fixed in a population because there is no pressure to stop them from propagating.

quote:

---

You don't know what "proof" is, or the claims of the ToE then.

---

Mutation resulting in increased fitness? Wasn't that what you were railing against? Let us not play dumb.

quote:

---

The logical equivalent example of evolution defined according to the full claims of the ToE would require a change in the morphology of the E.coli. --It's design, physically--.

---

And that's precisely what you were shown. That's why they're given a different name. They're a different kind of bactierum from what we started with.Oh! You were expected ostriches hatched from alligator eggs! I'm so sorry, but evolution doesn't claim that. In fact, if you could show that, you'd destroy evolutionary theory.

quote:

---

Fitness, even change such as blindness in the dark, only shows micro-evolution.

---

You say that as if "micro-evolution" was not evolution.If 1 + 1 = 2, why doesn't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10?You have been shown many times the data showing larger morphological changes. And if you want even more dramatic changes, the fossil record is crystal clear. The only difference between this "micro-evolution" you sneer at and this "macro-evolution" you claim doesn't exist is the time scale. The experiment I have repeatedly asked you to do for yourself takes under a week. Surely you weren't expecting something Spielbergian, were you?

quote:

---

If there is new information in a gene pool that creates a new morphology then evolution is proven.

---

And what part of duplication isn't "new information"?Oh, that's right! You're about to claim that if you start with "a," then ending with "aa" isn't actually an "increase in information" because it's just the same thing repeated. And then you're going to claim that if you start with "a," then ending with "b" isn't actually an "increase" in information because you still have the same number of informational bits. All the while, you will deliberately and specifically ignore that if you start with "a" and then go to "aa" and then go to "ab," you have done precisely what you claim cannot be done: Increase "information."

quote:

---

I believe in natural selection, because i agree that the fittest will survive. Hpw is that the equivalent of saying that every organism is from a common ancestor?

---

Because in order for there to be a "fittest," there needs to be variation for the selection to act upon. Diversity comes from ancestry. Given the extreme changes in environment that have occured during the very long time life has been on this planet, if there hadn't been common ancestry, life would have died out a long time ago. At the very least, we would not see the megaflora and fauna that we do.But, methinks you are saying this not because you actually do accept natural selection but rather because you have become wise to the corrections you have received over the years pointing out how you continually ignore selection ("disease and deformity as the effects of mutation").

quote:

---

Logically, you have not proved evolution because a reduction of information over time does not add up, it removes. This is what we see in organisms.

---

Incorrect. What we see in organisms is that the genome is constantly in flux, moving any which way you care to name. We can see duplication all the time. Those nice, big strawberries you had the other day? They're the result of duplication of the entire chromosome.Wait for it..."Duplication is not an 'increase in information,'" right?

quote:

---

Breeding dogs gets you dogs with less information.

---

Incorrect.Phylogenetic relationships, evolution, and genetic diversity of the domestic dog
C Vil*, JE Maldonado, and RK Wayne
Department of Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA *Corresponding author at: Department of Evolutionary Biology, Uppsala University, Norbyvagen 18D, S-752 36 Uppsala, Sweden. E-mail: Carles.Vlila@bmc.uu.se You need to do your homework. This requires looking through actual science journals.

quote:

---

I believe you are a very determined person, therefore I think it's futile to debate you.

---

I would agree with that. I keep providing evidence to back up my claims. I will refute all statements you make with specifics and examples that you can verify for yourself if you would only take the time to do so.What have you got other than bald assertion?

quote:

---

To "prove" evolution logically, you need the logical equivalent of it's claims, SHOWN.

---

And the E. coli experiment does exactly that. Faced with this, you shift the goalposts and demand ostriches from alligators, which evolution does not claim.

quote:

---

The adaptation of micro-organisms, given their speed of regeneration, is not impressive.

---

Why? I see you want sparkles and special effects.

quote:

---

How is it that you can only ever show me micro-organisms.

---

Incorrect. We show you new species, new genera, even new families being created. I keep bringing up the E. coli experiment because it is something you can do on your own in very little time for very little money. If you want more spectacular changes, you're going to have to expend more time and effort to see the results.Do you have a generation to spend watching a population of organisms change their morphology? Some biologists do and you have been shown their work previously. You will, of course, deny this, but it does leave the question I have asked of you many times, all of which you have never answered:When was the last time you were in a science library?
When was the last time you were in a bio lab?
When was the last time you conducted a bio experiment?And you have the gall to complain that you haven't been shown evidence?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

I WILL accept evolution if I see it happen, a new design, even if it hurts, because essentially I want to know the truth.

---

Then do the E. coli experiment and despair.My prediction, however, is that you will not do the experiment and instead will move the goalposts, claiming that the change isn't "significant" enough, that it is only "micro-evolution" as if that means anything.You certainly won't bother to go to, say, a natural history museum and take a look at the information there. And no way in hell would you ever bother to talk to the professors of biology at your local college or enter a science library to do any real study and research.Instead, you'll scour the creationist web sites as if that were actual inquiry into the subject.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

Seriously though - you have another problem. This is why it is futile for us to debate. You forget that I, personally REQUIRE a certain piece of information, in order to convince me of something on a personal level. ME.

​

Me.

---

Then do the experiment. It doesn't cost a lot of money and isn't very difficult to do. And despite this ability to acquire the information that you claim doesn't exist, you continually turn away.When was the last time you were in a science library?
When was the last time you were in a natural history museum?
When was the last time you were in a bio lab?You claim you need this information, but what are you doing to acquire it?You can be led to the water, but you cannot be forced to drink it.

quote:

---

Let it go.

---

No.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Larger changes aren't shown to happen repeatabley. The fossils are the facts, not the theory.As for 1+1 = 2, that is a lie if you think micro=macro, because natural selection, as you said - moves against mutation, and culls defective genes according to environment.If you have a gene pool and you get an isolated population, the removal of information is negative. So you're going from 5, to 4, to 3, to 2.So 5-1-1-1 doesn't = 8. It is a mistake in your thinking i'm afraid, because the facts only show a reduction of information. You still need what you try to hide, equivocate and fudge away. You still need morphological change. (physical appearance).Untill you can SHOW ME those changes in real time, logically and technically, evolution is not proven.Even the evolutionists have to agree with me on this, because they know logic. So you're going from bacteria to......bacteria. How exactly is that a problem for a creationist when they admitt to natural selection?You say there is morphological change. SHOW ME the physical difference that arises from new information ABSOLUTELY. No, I didn't. No good making out I'm dumb as that is irrelevant to your claims Sir. Won't work with me. It's irrelevant because you are not defining anything according to the facts presented to us. The facts show natural selection reducing information. I have never seen a new morphology in an organism - only a hyper-adaptation in a micro-organism. Mutation is an error. It can change information but it does not add to the DNA in that sense. A beneficial mutation, is beneficial by accident, according to a different environment.If you get a mutation causing three fingers rather than five, and three is beneficial in an environment, then it's not a new morphology. Your claim is that it is. vacuously it is new in appearance, but the information is still for a finger. Your claim is that ab is new information. What you need to show LOGICALLY if you are going to claim ToE-proof, is the equivalent of your claims. The equivalent is a new type of finger. Yet I recognise that they are STILL strawberries. Thanks for proving my point over and over again. That duplication or change within a gene pool does not bring anything new under the sun. When it does, phone me. Until then, get over your big ego and admitt that you can't prove that which can't be proved in any syllogism. If the scientists don't claim proof, then who are you to claim it. I have fact, which is stronger than evidence, and wisdom, to know the difference. You seem to don't know that logically this is irrelevant because the claims of evolution ONLY ALLOW that we never actually SEE what the ToE ACTUALLT claims.It can be shown in a syllogism, that technically a claim must show what it states. The ToE claims that every organism came from mutation and natural selection. That is a huge claim. It is not enough to show survival of the fittest, as this does not prove that a gene pool can lead to another gene pool over time. Decreasing information leads to decreasing information AND fitter species, because that is the power of NS.It is useless to state something about me, my knowledge, others, their knowledge, because an appeal to authority will not allow you to escape my wisdom.This is you claim;If mike does not know information X then claim Y is true.Are you so inept? do you not know that making out I know nothing, and you know everything, doesn't make you know everything, or me know nothing, nor does it show that my claims are false.If I were stating that something was wrong about a proven fact, then I would be in error. If I said to a maths teacher; "no, 2 add 2 is not 4, I disagree", then an argument from authority would be sound, as I am in ignorance. But that's not the case. I am saying that theories come and go, and that it does not prove they are true if you are a scientist and I am not. Saying you will refute me doesn't mean you will. The problem here is that you don't understand my hyper-specifics. If you did, you would realise that you have precisely ZERO chance of proving the ToE experimentally, because strawberries become strawberries, dogs become dogs, bacteria become bacteris - BUT THE TOE CLAIMS MORE.Time for you to learn. What does that prove logically? are these your specifics? Appeals to authority, ad hominem vapours?Don't you even know that wisdom has nothing to do with knowledge? how does this information prove your claims specifically?ALL YOU HAVE EVER CLAIMED is what mike doesn't know. But what does that prove. You don't even know me, or what I know. If I do not reveal everything I know, then it means that I have no practical reason to reveal it, other than pride. You don't know me in the least. You don't know a hell of a lot of things. I know things you don't, you know things I don't. If evolution can only be proved by stating things about the person rather than dealing with the information, then it's bunkem. yet there is not one post where you don't either mention what I know, or that you are a mathematician. Why is that exactly? How is it that nobody knows my occupation but you voice yours continually? the only motive is so that you can gain favour above me somehow, rather than deal with specific claims without mentioning personal things.You should look to Modulous as your model. he doesn't mention one thing about the person!You are BLINDED by your own personality. I only say you are determined because you are stubborn. You have knowledge but don't have wisdom. You are determined to be wrong, and there are more open-minded, honest, humble people on earth who deserve my time, which is why I am completely done with you forevermore. Goodbye Sir.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.