Proof

Originally posted by twhitehead
The content of what text has nothing to do with you? The text I was referring to was posted by you. The lie that I was referring to was stated by you. How can you claim it has nothing to do with you?
You stated "... that all mutations are generally inferior" which is a lie. In order to try and cover up the lie you referenced an experiment in the hope th ...[text shortened]... ou before that the experiment in question did not back up your lie. The lie is entirely yours.

what about this, i want to here you say it,

Mutation can result in several different types of change in sequences;(DNA) these can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.[4] Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to remove mutations.[1]

are the sources for these references also a lie, i want you big mouth to say it, are they also lying when it states that up to seventy percent of mutations are damaging, come on dont be shy. Is this article also a lie?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The key word is [b]MOST, i'll repeat that in case you missed it MOST. It doesn't say ALL, it says MOST

Just like the DNA correcting sequence you keep bringing up, it corrects MOST coding mistakes, not all.[/b]

yes that is why it was described as being generally inferior, that is not in every single instance. But then again, it would take some discernment to work that out from the actual text. Would it help if it was described as the overwhelming majority of mutations are inferior as opposed to all mutations are generally inferior? so be it, i retract the term all, and state that the overwhelming majority of mutations are inferior, for clearly this was the intent.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The content of what text has nothing to do with you? The text I was referring to was posted by you. The lie that I was referring to was stated by you. How can you claim it has nothing to do with you?
You stated "... that all mutations are generally inferior" which is a lie. In order to try and cover up the lie you referenced an experiment in the hope th ...[text shortened]... ou before that the experiment in question did not back up your lie. The lie is entirely yours.

Dobzhansky: “The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity

'almost without exception', interesting, are you willing to disagree with geneticist Dobzhansky? On what basis are you willing to disagree with Dobzhansky? Is he also a liar?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes that is why it was described as being generally inferior, that is not in every single instance. But then again, it would take some discernment to work that out from the actual text. Would it help if it was described as the overwhelming majority of mutations are inferior as opposed to all mutations are generally inferior? so be it, i retract th ...[text shortened]... state that the overwhelming majority of mutations are inferior, for clearly this was the intent.

The fact that most mutations are bad is both something that none of us refutes and is totally irrelevant.
Natural selection simply weeds-out the bad ones but selects the good ones -the fact that the majority of mutations are bad (excluding those that have no overall effect) does not have any relevance to that fact. Excluding those that have no overall effect; even if 99.999% are bad and the rest are good, so what? All that would mean is that natural selection would inevitably simply weeds-out 99.999% while selecting the 0.001% thus we have evolution for is is only the 0.001% that counts because ONLY those would be selected and the rest rejected.

Oh, and to pre-empt any of the usual crap (by anyone) about “selection” and “select” implying consciousness/intent; I point out (just as I have done countless times on these forums) in advance that those words are given a non-standard meaning in this context that do NOT imply consciousness/intent -just as it would do if somebody said “the wind only selected the lighter grains of sand (by moving only them) “ .
-it is just stupid to insist a person implies consciousness/intent for saying “the wind only selected the lighter grains of sand” and it is just as stupid and for exactly the same reason to insist a person implies consciousness/intent for saying “natural selection” or “natural selection selects...”. Is there a law against obvious non-standard meanings?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
The fact that most mutations are bad is both something that none of us refutes and is totally irrelevant.
Natural selection simply weeds-out the bad ones but selects the good ones -the fact that the majority of mutations are bad (excluding those that have no overall effect) does not have any relevance to that fact. Excluding those that have no overa ...[text shortened]... ion would inevitably simply weeds-out 99.999% while selecting the 0.001% thus we have evolution.

no its not totally irrelevant, in fact, it forms the basis of one of the fundamental tenets of your theory, nice try to side step the main issue though. It is scientifically proven that mutations do not produce anything new. In fact, as has been demonstrated that DNA vigorously resists changes to its molecular structure even having a repair mechanism, and yet, here you are claiming it as a fundamental tenet for your theory. What we actually observe and what you are trying to make us believe are entirely opposed. Now you may couch it in terms like, natural selection, but as Dobansky has proven through zillions of experiments over decades is that not one new species was produced. The fly remained just that, a fly, thus what we observe is not a transmutation, as you would have us believe, but a stable and functioning genetic sequence designed to resist change and repair damage, and yet you are claiming that its the basis for new species, when clearly its not.

No its not Darwinian evolution and you know it, for what Darwin envisaged and what evolution teaches is transmutation from one species to another. So please as I stated to avalanche the putty cat, have the decency not to try to palm off on us variation within a species and transmutation of one species into another, they are not the same thing.

Why you are havering on about consciousness, i have no idea?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no its not totally irrelevant, in fact, it forms the basis of one of the fundamental tenets of your theory, nice try to side step the main issue though. It is scientifically proven that mutations do not produce anything new. In fact, as has been demonstrated that DNA vigorously resists changes to its molecular structure even having a repair mechani ...[text shortened]... r, they are not the same thing.

Why you are havering on about consciousness, i have no idea?

The mechanisms in place to correct DNA coding errors DO NOT CORRECT ALL MISTAKES. I cannot put in any bolder then that.

Do you accept this?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The mechanisms in place to correct DNA coding errors [b]DO NOT CORRECT ALL MISTAKES. I cannot put in any bolder then that.

Do you accept this?[/b]

this is not the issue i am contesting, I am contesting that what Darwinian evolution teaches and what we observe are entirely different and what you would have us believe is evolution is in fact simply variation within a species. As for your question, yes they do not correct all mistakes, but so what? all that is produced are different strains or variations, like colouring, or a sixth finger, or a stronger lion. You can play chess for millennia, through more variations than the known atoms in the universe, yet it remains, a game of chess. (brilliant analogy or what)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this is not the issue i am contesting, I am contesting that what Darwinian evolution teaches and what we observe are entirely different and what you would have us believe is evolution is in fact simply variation within a species. As for your question, yes they do not correct all mistakes, but so what? all that is produced are different strains or va ...[text shortened]... n the known atoms in the universe, yet it remains, a game of chess. (brilliant analogy or what)

The process of speciation takes hundreds of thousands of years if not longer (if you had read a proper science book you would know this). How on earth do you expect to see that process happening in a lab when humans have only been conducting experiments for 50yrs?!

Have a look at this, i 'm off out for a few hours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The process of speciation takes hundreds of thousands of years if not longer (if you had read a proper science book you would know this). How on earth do you expect to see that process happening in a lab when humans have only been conducting experiments for 50yrs?!

Have a look at this, i 'm off out for a few hours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

as i stated, the remain after all bacteria, nothing else, variation within a strain. That you have not observed the theory that you are professing is rather telling, but we knew that already. Have a good time, i need to go shopping, argggh!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no its not totally irrelevant, in fact, it forms the basis of one of the fundamental tenets of your theory, nice try to side step the main issue though. It is scientifically proven that mutations do not produce anything new. In fact, as has been demonstrated that DNA vigorously resists changes to its molecular structure even having a repair mechani ...[text shortened]... r, they are not the same thing.

Why you are havering on about consciousness, i have no idea?

“....in fact, it forms the basis of one of the fundamental tenets of your theory, ...”

that is a lie and you know it. Where have I ever said/implied that most mutations are good? And my argument does NOT have as its premise (nor needs to) that most mutations are good.

“...It is scientifically proven that mutations do not produce anything new. In fact, as has been demonstrated that DNA vigorously resists changes to its molecular structure even having a repair mechanism, . ...”

not all mutations are corrected; I am OBVIOUSLY only talking about the mutations that fail to be corrected and are passed-on so many/most mutations being repaired before they have a chance to become permanent is totally irrelevant. Do you deny that SOME are permanent and are passed-on?

“....and yet, here you are claiming it as a fundamental tenet for your theory ...”

where did I claim this? I challenging you to show me where I claimed this!!!

“...The fly remained just that, a fly, ...”

...and over the short time-scale of the experiments is PREDICTED by evolution theory to stay a fly because species change normally requires many thousands if not millions of years. So that isn't evidence against evolution as you imply.

“...Why you are havering on about consciousness, i have no idea? ...”

because some theists on these forums moronically have been saying “natural selection” implies “consciousness” 😛

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“....in fact, it forms the basis of one of the fundamental tenets of your theory, ...”

that is a lie and you know it. Where have I ever said/implied that most mutations are good? And my argument does NOT have as its premise (nor needs to) that most mutations are good.

“...It is scientifically proven that mutations do not produce anything new. sts on these forums moronically have been saying “natural selection” implies “consciousness” 😛

1. Transmutation forms a basic tenet of your theory, that is not a lie, it is a truth.
2. No i do not deny that some a permanent and passed on, i am stating that they are merely variations upon a theme, hair colouring, eye colouring, fitter and stronger lions, etc you may be born with six fingers, but it still remains a hand.
3. Your theory has as its very basis the idea of transmutation, are you denying this?
4. Its evidence against a process that you claim has happened and yet remains unobserved, hardly scientific, to say the least.
5. How does natural selection imply consciousness? design implies intelligence, but natural selection, mmm, i suppose an argument could be made for it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
1. Transmutation forms a basic tenet of your theory, that is not a lie, it is a truth.
2. No i do not deny that some a permanent and passed on, i am stating that they are merely variations upon a theme, hair colouring, eye colouring, fitter and stronger lions, etc you may be born with six fingers, but it still remains a hand.
3. Your theory has as ...[text shortened]... gn implies intelligence, but natural selection, mmm, i suppose an argument could be made for it.

.”... Transmutation forms a basic tenet of your theory, that is not a lie, it is a truth. ...”

you didn't say “Transmutation “

“...2. No i do not deny that some a permanent and passed on, i am stating that they are merely variations upon a theme, hair colouring, eye colouring, fitter and stronger lions, etc you may be born with six fingers, but it still remains a hand. ...”

that is not what you said -you have shifted your argument.

“...3. Your theory has as its very basis the idea of transmutation, are you denying this? ...”

No; and you didn't say “Transmutation “

“...4. Its evidence against a process that you claim has happened and yet remains unobserved, hardly scientific, to say the least. ...”

you just admitted that “ No i do not deny that some a permanent and passed on” and now, in 4, there is evidence against that process? Or are you talking here about some other process here and, if so which one?

“...5. How does natural selection imply consciousness? ...”

It doesn't. It is NOT ME who said this! Some theists claimed that the word “selection” ALWAYS implies consciousness/intent EVEN in “natural selection” 😛

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
.”... Transmutation forms a basic tenet of your theory, that is not a lie, it is a truth. ...”

you didn't say “Transmutation “

“...2. No i do not deny that some a permanent and passed on, i am stating that they are merely variations upon a theme, hair colouring, eye colouring, fitter and stronger lions, etc you may be born with six fingers, but that the word “selection” ALWAYS implies consciousness/intent EVEN in “natural selection” 😛

i meant transmutations i thought you Vulcans had the gift of telepathy?
That is what i meant, i provided illustrations, eyes, fingers, lions,
I meant transmutation as opposed to simple adaptation
Transmutation is not the same as adaptation, you know its true.
Some theists will argue for anything.

and now my dear Mr Hamilton i must enter the valley of death, Sainsburys car park, to go shopping, if i am lucky i get to sit in the car with my chess set, if not, i must awkwardly peruse the endless shelves of brightly coloured packaging looking at foods that are processed and i dare say, not too healthy for it. Yesterday i bought sixteen veggie burgers! at least i know what in them.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what about this, i want to here you say it,

You stated "... that all mutations are generally inferior" which is a lie.
You now admit that your own reference says some mutations are ".. weakly beneficial."

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so be it, i retract the term all, and state that the overwhelming majority of mutations are inferior, for clearly this was the intent.

If it was the intent, why did you fail to retract it last time I pointed out the error in another thread? Instead, you chose to start your usual tactic of insult slinging and then refused to talk to me then you waited a bit then repeated the error in this thread.