Intelligent Design in Biology

Originally posted by RJHinds
The reason I am a winner is because I know the truth. For example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0DarH79soo&feature=related

I would've thought that someone who knows the truth would not care whether he won or lost? How does that work?

Why all the links that I'm hardly ever going to look up?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I would've thought that someone who knows the truth would not care whether he won or lost? How does that work?

Why all the links that I'm hardly ever going to look up?

If you had read all my posts on this forum you would have come across one that stated winning or losing and argument is not important, but knowing the truth is important, for the truth will set one free. So when I say I am a winner, it has nothing to do with winning the argument. I do not care wether I have won or lost the argument. I am not a loser because I know the truth, which makes me a winner, regardless of what anyone else thinks. All I can do is to present the truth as best as I can so others can be winners too.

Originally posted by humy
I am afraid, unless I am missing something ( because I couldn't stomach watching the whole video ), you have just given a Creationist propaganda video by mistake.
It gives the usual religious crap and lies including the lie that a mutation cannot add new information and, if have any effect on information, can only result in a loss of information ( or words of ...[text shortened]... en proven wrong but will not admit it, I would say he has also been proven to be a liar.

Yeah, I zigged when I should have zagged. Got one of the video's RJ posted instead.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you had read all my posts on this forum you would have come across one that stated winning or losing and argument is not important, but knowing the truth is important, for the truth will set one free. So when I say I am a winner, it has nothing to do with winning the argument. I do not care wether I have won or lost the argument. I am not a loser becau ...[text shortened]... lse thinks. All I can do is to present the truth as best as I can so others can be winners too.

but knowing the truth is important, for the truth will set one free.

1, you have been totally proven wrong so apparently you are NOT the one “knowing the truth”.

2, the truth will “set one free” from what?

So when I say I am a winner, it has nothing to do with winning the argument.

-of course this has nothing to do with winning the argument. That's because you have been proven totally wrong.

I do not care wether I have won or lost the argument.

-and you don't care whether you have been proven totally wrong because of the way you lost the argument -you just want to cling on to your delusions and never be a man and admit when you are wrong.

I am not a loser because I know the truth,

you do not. You know your assertions have been disproved; you have been given not one but two proofs that you don't validly address in the hope we wouldn't notice.

makes me a winner, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

-which is irrelevant and what is relevant here is that you are wrong.

All I can do is to present the truth as best as I can

well, you version of your “truth” has been totally disproved in this thread so you didn't do a good job.

so others can be winners too.

I cannot imagine how other people being wrong can be “winners”.



Here is the reminder of where you have been proven wrong in this thread:

Proof 1:

We know that a mutation can occur that is then reversed by another mutation later on. Such reversible mutations have been observed often including in bacteria which do not reproduce sexually so that the reverse mutation couldn't have merely came from a copy of the original gene from another 'mate' ( exactly what 'barrier' would stop any possibility of the reverse mutation occurring anyway? ) .
If the first mutation resulted in a 'lost of information' then the reverse mutation MUST, LOGICALLY, result in the GAIN of that information.
Thus POOVING that a mutation CAN ( and also sometimes DOES given the evidence – see http://www.springerlink.com/content/n4l77r6h77064172/ and http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/l/slmd-43.pdf for evidence of this occurring in bacteria ) result in a GIAN of information.

Proof 2:

We have proof that sometimes a mutation consists of an extra copy of a chromosome being made. This can be viewed as “adding new information” depending on how you define “new information”. If that extra chromosome then eventually mutates, which it would inevitable do so given sufficient time ( this is called “genetic drift” and we have proof that it happens ), and so becomes different from the other copy in that same genome then, no matter how you look at it and no matter how you define “new information”, it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to deny that that combination of chromosome duplication followed by one of the two chromosome copies mutating to become different from the other copy must provide new information.

-your silence on this tells all.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Yeah, I zigged when I should have zagged. Got one of the video's RJ posted instead.

Yes, I thought it might be something like that 🙂

Originally posted by humy

but knowing the truth is important, for the truth will set one free.

1, you have been totally proven wrong so apparently you are NOT the one “knowing the truth”.

2, the truth will “set one free” from what?

So when I say I am a winner, it has nothing to do with winning the argument.

-of course this has noth ...[text shortened]... r copy must provide new information.
[/quote]

-your silence on this tells all.

You say," Such reversible mutations have been observed often including in bacteria which do not reproduce sexually so that the reverse mutation couldn't have merely came from a copy of the original gene from another 'mate'..."

You do not know this and here is proof:

We consider the above results as proof that in our case the resistance to virus is due to a heritable change of the bacterial cell which occurs independently of the action of the virus. It remains to be seen whether or not this is the general rule. There is reason to suspect that the mechanism is more complex in cases where the resistant culture develops only several days after lysis of the sensitive bacteria.

The proportion of mutant organisms in a culture and the mutation rate are far smaller in our case than in other studied cases of heritable bacterial variation. The possibility of investigation of such rare mutations is in our case merely the result of the method of detecting the mutant organisms. In other cases, the variants are detected by changes in the colony type which is produced by the mutant organism, either in the pigmentation or in the character of the surface or the edge of the colony. Often, colonies of intermediate character occur, and it is difficult to decide whether they are mixed colonies or stem from bacteria with intermediate character. This is particularly true of cases where the mutation rate is high and where reverse mutation occurs.

http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/l/slmd-43.pdf

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]You say," Such reversible mutations have been observed often including in bacteria which do not reproduce sexually so that the reverse mutation couldn't have merely came from a copy of the original gene from another 'mate'..."

You do not know this and here is proof:

We consider the above results as proof that in our case the resistance to virus ...[text shortened]... ion occurs.[/b]

http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/l/slmd-43.pdf[/b]

How does this address anything or counter-argue anything I have said?
In fact, how is it even relevant?

You do not know this and here is proof:

Exactly HOW does that prove anything and exactly WHAT does that prove?
You do understand the meaning of the words “proof” and “relevant” and “argument” and “counterargument” -right?

Exactly WHERE does any of that contradict or in some way goes against my assertion of:
" Such reversible mutations have been observed often including in bacteria which do not reproduce sexually so that the reverse mutation couldn't have merely came from a copy of the original gene from another 'mate'...".

Please highlight exactly where and explain please.....

All my proofs still hold firm.

Originally posted by humy
How does this address anything or counter-argue anything I have said?
In fact, how is it even relevant?

You do not know this and here is proof:

Exactly [b]HOW does that prove anything and exactly WHAT does that prove?
You do understand the meaning of the words “proof” and “relevant” and “argument” and “counterargument” -rig

Please highlight exactly where and explain please.....

All my proofs still hold firm.[/b]

I did put the parts in bold letters. The bacteria are cultures in colonies with a variety of bacteria, some may be mutated in one way and others in other ways and some may lack mutatiions. What is inherited by a bacteria that you claim to be new information may be obtained from other bacteria in the culture. This is shown by the following statement.

Often, colonies of intermediate character occur, and it is difficult to decide whether they are mixed colonies or stem from bacteria with intermediate character. This is particularly true of cases where the mutation rate is high and where reverse mutation occurs.

P.S. Notice that reverse mutation is mentioned. This what you claim is new information. It is not new at all. It regains old information that was lost by inheriting it from the mixed colonies of bacteria.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did put the parts in bold letters. The bacteria are cultures in colonies with a variety of bacteria, some may be mutated in one way and others in other ways and some may lack mutatiions. What is inherited by a bacteria that you claim to be new information may be obtained from other bacteria in the culture. This is shown by the following statement.

[b ...[text shortened]... articularly true of cases where the mutation rate is high and where reverse mutation occurs.[/b]

It doesn't say/imply there that all reverse mutations must come from other bacteria.
If you claim otherwise, please highlight exactly where is says/implies this....

Originally posted by humy
It doesn't say/imply there that all reverse mutations must come from other bacteria.
If you claim otherwise, please highlight exactly where is says/implies this....

It says it is difficult to decide. Translation - it is not known.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It says it is difficult to decide. Translation - it is not known.

It implies it may be difficult to decide for a particular case and NOT that it is difficult to decide if it CAN happen!
There is no doubt that it CAN and sometimes MUST happen given the mathematics of probability.
Highlight where it says/implies otherwise....

In addition, what about my first proof? To have any hope of debunking my proofs, you must deal with BOTH of them.



In addition, a mutation often consists of a “point mutation” where only one DNA base is changed.
If such a point mutation M1 occurs that results in a “loss” of information by, for example, preventing a fully functional protein being produced ( which is sometimes one of the effects of a point mutation ) by changing, say, a T base to a G base then that proves that that T base CAN mutate to a G base so what barrier exists that would make it impossible for that G base later on to mutate back to a T base? -answer, none.

Therefore, LOGICALLY, such a possible reverse mutation M2 that reverses a mutation M1 that represents a “loss” of information means that mutation M2 must represent a “gain” of information no matter how you look at it.



Well?

Originally posted by humy
It implies it may be difficult to decide for a particular case and NOT that it is difficult to decide if it CAN happen!
There is no doubt that it CAN and sometimes MUST happen given the mathematics of probability.
Highlight where it says/implies otherwise....

In addition, what about my first proof? To have any hope of debunking my proofs, you must d ...[text shortened]... t mutation M2 must represent a “gain” of information no matter how you look at it.



Well?

You don't have any proofs. All you have is an abominable myth.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You don't have any proofs. All you have is an abominable myth.

All you have is an abominable myth.

a proof is not a “myth” and what would be “abominable” about it? -it only proves that a mutation can add new information -oh, of course, I know what is “abominable” about it; you could not use your lie for religious propaganda if you acknowledge the proof against the lie -right?

You don't have any proofs

I have just given you the proofs and they are plain to see.
I have now, in effect, given you three proofs in total and you haven't effectively made any argument against one of them.
Do you really think other people reading your lies in this thread and your post would not notice? Exactly who are you trying to fool?

But lets just stick to the latest proof:


A mutation often consists of a “point mutation” where only one DNA base is changed.
If such a point mutation M1 occurs that results in a “loss” of information by, for example, preventing a fully functional protein being produced ( which is sometimes one of the effects of a point mutation ) by changing, say, a T base to a G base then that proves that that T base CAN mutate to a G base so what barrier exists that would make it impossible for that G base later on to mutate back to a T base? -answer, none.

Therefore, LOGICALLY, such a possible reverse mutation M2 that reverses a mutation M1 that represents a “loss” of information means that mutation M2 must represent a “gain” of information no matter how you look at it.


so where is you counterargument? Exactly where and how is this proof erroneous?
OK, read this very slowly and carefully and tell us exactly at what point you disagree with the proof:

Do you deny that point mutations happen?
Do you deny that point mutations can result in the loss of a function of a protein?
Do you deny that if a point mutation changes, say, a T base to a G base, then a later point mutation can change a G to to a T base?

If your answer to all three above is “no” then, logically, you admit that this is a proof that a mutation can add new information.

Well? -Still know counterargument?

Originally posted by humy

All you have is an abominable myth.

a proof is not a “myth” and what would be “abominable” about it? -it only proves that a mutation can add new information -oh, of course, I know what is “abominable” about it; you could not use your lie for religious propaganda if you acknowledge the proof against the lie -right?

[quote] You don't have ...[text shortened]... this is a proof that a mutation can add new information.

Well? -Still know counterargument?

4. The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.

Moreover, there is no evidence of gradually-changing DNA codes in nature that would allow periodic mutations to occur which would gradually transform a given type of organism, over long periods of time, into a completely different type of organism. Instead, organisms can mutate only so much before insurmountable DNA limits are reached. That is what the evidence demonstrates. Therefore, as noted previously, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant no matter how much time you allow for the alleged evolutionary process to occur. So, even though limited mutations occur in organisms, it is impossible for drastic or unlimited mutations, i.e., evolution, to occur.

5. Evolutionists frequently take the biological evidence proving that living organisms do experience a limited amount of change and variation, and then fallaciously expand such evidence to prove something entirely different and unsupportable by the evidence, namely, the alleged existence of unlimited change and mutation in life-forms. Obviously such an argument violates logic because it goes way beyond the evidence at hand.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_three_main_problems_of_Darwin's_theory_of_evolution

Originally posted by RJHinds
4. The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes ...[text shortened]... and.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_three_main_problems_of_Darwin's_theory_of_evolution

Well that is just stupid religious propaganda crap -a load of lies basically.
They show no valid evidence nor give any valid argument to support their absurd claims.
They also don't say anything there that would effectively counter-argue against any of my proofs so I don't know why you bothered posting that for it is clearly irrelevant.

So, back to the topic; where is your counterargument against my proof....

Failure to give a counterargument means you have said nothing to dismiss my proof.

reminder:

A mutation often consists of a “point mutation” where only one DNA base is changed.
If such a point mutation M1 occurs that results in a “loss” of information by, for example, preventing a fully functional protein being produced ( which is sometimes one of the effects of a point mutation ) by changing, say, a T base to a G base then that proves that that T base CAN mutate to a G base so what barrier exists that would make it impossible for that G base later on to mutate back to a T base? -answer, none.

Therefore, LOGICALLY, such a possible reverse mutation M2 that reverses a mutation M1 that represents a “loss” of information means that mutation M2 must represent a “gain” of information no matter how you look at it.


so where is you counterargument? Exactly where and how is this proof erroneous?
OK, read this very slowly and carefully and tell us exactly at what point you disagree with the proof:

Do you deny that point mutations happen?
Do you deny that point mutations can result in the loss of a function of a protein?
Do you deny that if a point mutation changes, say, a T base to a G base, then a later point mutation can change a G to to a T base?

If your answer to all three above is “no” then, logically, you admit that this is a proof that a mutation can add new information.

Well?