christopher hitchens

[buckshot24]

If evolution states that humans evolved from a micro-organism, and the micro-organism was simpler, then the original organism would not have all of the genes needed to build mutations off of. For a micro-organism to evolve, to something like a human, it would need to build a foundation of genes to work with. This paper shows that the organism duplicated genes that could eventually be used to produce other things.

Look at the platypus. It has duplicate genes that are used for its venom and for its metabolism and protein synthesis. If evolution were to be true, it would need an explanation, and, it does.

This type of thing would be needed.

But, this is missing the point, because, I need to know one of the steps that you do not think works in evolution so I can explain it. You already said you did not need me to show every step from a cell to a person, and this is a step, just like the other step I gave. You agree that mutations happen, so me giving you more examples does not seem like it would help if you dont tell me which one you say cant happen.

DNA can easily gain information through mutation, or even Viruses can add information to DNA. Mutation can then change the DNA. So what do you disagree with?

Did you misspeak about the mutation being a response to the environment or not? Maybe you missed my last paragraph?

The thing you're missing is copying an existing gene isn't making the genome more complex.

The thing you're missing is copying an existing gene isn't making the genome more complex.

Me typing that twice doesn't give my post more information or make it more complex. If it is your assertion that the duplicate can become something fundamentally different via subsequent mutations then you'll need to show this happening. I won't assume any of it. And it seems to me that this is the point of our interactions anyway. Can mutation build complex biological machines? You've shown a gene duplication event and haven't explained how this has anything to do with that question. Remember, I don't have your blind faith that mutations can do these things.

Gene duplication is light years away from the formation of biological machines and not just quantitatively so I don't see how more time is going to help you.

I'm asking you how cars are built and you're showing me a bolt that was duplicated and used to make an existing function more efficient. Having two lug nuts on a wheel doesn't explain how the wheel was built.

 

[jackstar7]

I warned you guys about the pedantry.

 

[soulcougher73]

I warned you guys about the pedantry.

But..but..he needs to see it with his own 2 eyes!! If only he would use that rationale to his own religion. Typical hypochristian.

 

[realibrad]

Did you misspeak about the mutation being a response to the environment or not? Maybe you missed my last paragraph?

The thing you're missing is copying an existing gene isn't making the genome more complex.

The thing you're missing is copying an existing gene isn't making the genome more complex.

By the definition of the word, it became more complex.

Complex-
consisting of many different and connected parts.

Complexity does not have to be anything more than more.

Me typing that twice doesn't give my post more information or make it more complex.

Actually it does. It implies a message and gives further context to your argument, even if it is flawed. Would you have been able to make your argument about how saying it twice did not make it more complex, if you did not say it twice? That was very dumb, but I wont stick on it beyond this.

If it is your assertion that the duplicate can become something fundamentally different via subsequent mutations then you'll need to show this happening.

Wait, so I now need to show a gene being duplicated, and then the duplicated gene mutating? You already know genes mutate, so why would the duplicated gene not mutate? If I show this, would you then agree that evolution is logical even if its not what caused all life on earth? I would imagine that you would not.

So, do you care to explain what steps evolution cannot do?

I won't assume any of it. And it seems to me that this is the point of our interactions anyway. Can mutation build complex biological machines? You've shown a gene duplication event and haven't explained how this has anything to do with that question. Remember, I don't have your blind faith that mutations can do these things.

I have, multiple times. The complex machine can be built like any other machine, one part at a time. You and I have already talked about this, which is why were are at the point of talking about the steps needed to build the machine.

Evolution says that a machine can be built if the pars through mutations. The mutation can happen from a coding error or even by something like a virus adding in dna to the host. You then wanted me to show one of the steps, and agreed that I did not have to show you all of the millions of steps, just one that was logical.

I now gave you that step, and you say its not good enough again. Please tell me a step that you think cannot happen that would need to happen.

Gene duplication is light years away from the formation of biological machines and not just quantitatively so I don't see how more time is going to help you.

I know, which is why I pointed this out to you. Evolution from a micro-organism to a person takes millions of years worth of mutations. I told you that it would be stupid to try and give you every single mutational step, and yet, here we are it seems.

I'm asking you how cars are built and you're showing me a bolt that was duplicated and used to make an existing function more efficient. Having two lug nuts on a wheel doesn't explain how the wheel was built.

Actually, I like your analogy.

VW lugs are different from Toyota lugs. If I were to find a VW lug, I would wonder why it was different. I would look around at other cars and see that that lug matched only some models of cars and not others. I would then research those models and find that they came from the same manufacture. I would then be able to research further about how they manufacture their cars, and their factories to learn about how the wheels might be made.

So, perfect.

But, I am following you in the circles you are creating. You seem to be saying that mutations cannot account for all the things we see. Give me something that we see in nature that you think evolution could not have created, and I will give you the data. Please dont be dumb and say a cat, or a human.

 

[buckshot24]

By the definition of the word, it became more complex.

Complex-
consisting of many different and connected parts.

Complexity does not have to be anything more than more.

Looks like Brad has some free time on his hands today. Look, if you want to play word games you go right ahead. This isn't more complex by any reasonable definition of the word. Furthermore it has nothing to do with showing how biological machines are built from genetic copying errors. Calling it more complex is totally arbitrary. Nothing new is created, period. A gene is duplicated and you act as if this is some great step to build a man out of a microbe. Fail.

Actually it does. It implies a message and gives further context to your argument, even if it is flawed. Would you have been able to make your argument about how saying it twice did not make it more complex, if you did not say it twice? That was very dumb, but I wont stick on it beyond this.

So my post is on the way to becoming War and Peace? Quit playing games.

Wait, so I now need to show a gene being duplicated, and then the duplicated gene mutating? You already know genes mutate, so why would the duplicated gene not mutate?

I never asked you for a gene duplication, how do these complex biological machines get created via genetic copying errors? You say gene duplication as if that answers that question, it doesn't. Your blind faith is all you have that it can. Just face it and admit that you worship at the altar of chance and selection as your creator while doing so with no evidence.

And who said the duplicate gene wouldn't mutate? Nobody.

If I show this, would you then agree that evolution is logical even if its not what caused all life on earth? I would imagine that you would not.

If you show me this I'll say, so? Mutation, to me, doesn't have this magical power that you blindly believe it does.

So, do you care to explain what steps evolution cannot do?

Show that it can build complex biological machines.

I have, multiple times. The complex machine can be built like any other machine, one part at a time.

By assuming each step is possible! Your fairy tale is all you have and I don't share your blind faith.

Evolution says that a machine can be built if the pars through mutations. The mutation can happen from a coding error or even by something like a virus adding in dna to the host. You then wanted me to show one of the steps, and agreed that I did not have to show you all of the millions of steps, just one that was logical.

Mutations aren't magic.

I now gave you that step, and you say its not good enough again. Please tell me a step that you think cannot happen that would need to happen.

You think gene duplication is significant because you are suffering from extreme confirmation bias. Your blind faith is blinding you to the task at hand. How do these genes that produce proteins come together to form complex biological machines? You show me a gene duplication, whoopee! You're not even in the same ball park and we're talking about a completely different sport.

I know, which is why I pointed this out to you. Evolution from a micro-organism to a person takes millions of years worth of mutations. I told you that it would be stupid to try and give you every single mutational step, and yet, here we are it seems.

You need more than more gene duplication events so time isn't the limitation here. Your blind faith isn't shared by myself.

Actually, I like your analogy.

VW lugs are different from Toyota lugs. If I were to find a VW lug, I would wonder why it was different. I would look around at other cars and see that that lug matched only some models of cars and not others. I would then research those models and find that they came from the same manufacture. I would then be able to research further about how they manufacture their cars, and their factories to learn about how the wheels might be made.

So, perfect.

Cool, now you're a proponent of ID. We're making progress.

But, I am following you in the circles you are creating. You seem to be saying that mutations cannot account for all the things we see. Give me something that we see in nature that you think evolution could not have created, and I will give you the data. Please dont be dumb and say a cat, or a human.

No you won't, you'll give me more fairy tales but forget the "once upon a time" at the beginning and the "and they all lived happily after." at the end. You'll tell me a story and act like you're doing "science" while assuming every step along the way of your tale is possible and not show that they actually are possible.

I'm not interested in your blind faith nor am I interested in further fairy tales. If gene duplication is the best you've got then you've got nothing. You tried, you failed. Mutation and selection can't be demonstrated to do what your religion requires.

 

[realibrad]

Looks like Brad has some free time on his hands today. Look, if you want to play word games you go right ahead. This isn't more complex by any reasonable definition of the word. Furthermore it has nothing to do with showing how biological machines are built from genetic copying errors. Calling it more complex is totally arbitrary. Nothing new is created, period. A gene is duplicated and you act as if this is some great step to build a man out of a microbe. Fail.

So my post is on the way to becoming War and Peace? Quit playing games.

Its not word games. You made the comment twice to make a point. How could you have made the point with out duplication? Are you saying that you make comments that have nothing to do with your arguments? If so that is very weird.

I never asked you for a gene duplication, how do these complex biological machines get created via genetic copying errors? You say gene duplication as if that answers that question, it doesn't. Your blind faith is all you have that it can. Just face it and admit that you worship at the altar of chance and selection as your creator while doing so with no evidence.

You clearly asked for some of the steps evolution would need to take, and this is one of them. You did not ask me for gene duplication but it seems reasonable as it would be one of the steps. This is why I have been asking you for a step you want to see. Just give me a step, and thats it. You dont have to do anything else, no work, nothing. Just give me something to work with.

And who said the duplicate gene wouldn't mutate? Nobody.
If you show me this I'll say, so? Mutation, to me, doesn't have this magical power that you blindly believe it does.
Show that it can build complex biological machines.

Are you asking for the step by step that you said you were not asking for? I cant show you the step by step, but what I can show you is that mutations happen that would be one of the steps. It then logically follows that if nature can create the steps, that they could eventually build up enough to create the structure.

By assuming each step is possible!

No, I see the steps happening in nature. Assumption is not required. Unless you see a step that you think is an assumption, and if so please tell me.

Your fairy tale is all you have and I don't share your blind faith.
Mutations aren't magic.
You think gene duplication is significant because you are suffering from extreme confirmation bias. Your blind faith is blinding you to the task at hand. How do these genes that produce proteins come together to form complex biological machines? You show me a gene duplication, whoopee! You're not even in the same ball park and we're talking about a completely different sport.

So first you need the genetic foundation to be able to build mutations off of. Then you would need to see mutations that start building the parts of the machine. But, before you can have the parts being created, you need to have that foundation. Gene duplication is just one way to make space for mutation. As I said before, there are other ways evolution can build the foundation, but before you build the car, you need to build the factory, and that is what was shown.

You need more than more gene duplication events so time isn't the limitation here. Your blind faith isn't shared by myself.

You sure do need more than gene duplication. You need millions of things to happen. Those things also are not super frequent. For me to give you examples of when those things were observed would require far more time than I have in my lifetime. But, you said you did not need to see every step from a single cell to a person, so I am not sure why we are down this road again.

Cool, now you're a proponent of ID. We're making progress.

For cars sure. If you had evidence of ID, and it was more logical and fit the data then evolution, then I would be a proponent of ID. I am not afraid to be on sides that people dont like. Just jump into the Islam thread to see that.

No you won't, you'll give me more fairy tales but forget the "once upon a time" at the beginning and the "and they all lived happily after." at the end. You'll tell me a story and act like you're doing "science" while assuming every step along the way of your tale is possible and not show that they actually are possible.

"Stories" as you call it is an important part of science. You need a testable hypothesis built off of the data. The thing here is that my "story" is testable and fits the data. Tell me where my assumption is that has not been tested?

I'm not interested in your blind faith nor am I interested in further fairy tales. If gene duplication is the best you've got then you've got nothing. You tried, you failed. Mutation and selection can't be demonstrated to do what your religion requires.

Give me a step that evolution says needs to happen or has happened, that you do not think can happen or has happened.

Gene duplication is not the only thing I have given you. Its just the most recent thing you have dismissed without explaining a step that evolution cant do.

Gene duplication is needed for many things, so why you think this is not a valid step is still beyond me. We have not explained how an organism can mutate genes, and add genes to mutate more to do things. What is next?

 

[buckshot24]

You clearly asked for some of the steps evolution would need to take, and this is one of them.

Then you fail to tell us how gene duplication could eventually turn a microbe into a man.

You did not ask me for gene duplication but it seems reasonable as it would be one of the steps. This is why I have been asking you for a step you want to see. Just give me a step, and thats it. You dont have to do anything else, no work, nothing. Just give me something to work with.

It's obvious you have nothing. Give me your best shot.

No, I see the steps happening in nature. Assumption is not required. Unless you see a step that you think is an assumption, and if so please tell me.

You document exactly zero of them. Why are you wasting time?

So first you need the genetic foundation to be able to build mutations off of.

So your blind faith fairy tale can continue?

Then you would need to see mutations that start building the parts of the machine. But, before you can have the parts being created, you need to have that foundation. Gene duplication is just one way to make space for mutation. As I said before, there are other ways evolution can build the foundation, but before you build the car, you need to build the factory, and that is what was shown.

Show mutations can put together complex biological machines. Genes duplications aren't even close. So far you've relied upon your childish blind faith to fill in the gaps. You can have all the "space" in the world for mutations but you need to show that mutations can accomplish what you blindly believe they can do.

You sure do need more than gene duplication. You need millions of things to happen. Those things also are not super frequent.

How frequent? How frequent are the set of mutations that turned a type 3 secretory system into a bacterial flagellum?

For me to give you examples of when those things were observed would require far more time than I have in my lifetime. But, you said you did not need to see every step from a single cell to a person, so I am not sure why we are down this road again.

It isn't my fault that you have a blind faith in the power of mutation and selection. Perhaps you shouldn't have blind faith?

For cars sure. If you had evidence of ID, and it was more logical and fit the data then evolution, then I would be a proponent of ID. I am not afraid to be on sides that people dont like. Just jump into the Islam thread to see that.

Your idiotic answer to these complex biological machines is that with enough genetic copying mistakes you can build them. Cars aren't as complex as the things you believe genetic errors can create.

I agree with you on the Islam thing.

"Stories" as you call it is an important part of science. You need a testable hypothesis built off of the data. The thing here is that my "story" is testable and fits the data. Tell me where my assumption is that has not been tested?

No it doesn't. Quit with the fairy tales and justifying your willful blind faith with them.

Gene duplication is not the only thing I have given you. Its just the most recent thing you have dismissed without explaining a step that evolution cant do.

You gave me cells sticking together, fairy tales on eye evolution, and gene duplication mutations. Since I'm assuming this is the best you have, can we end this?

Gene duplication is needed for many things, so why you think this is not a valid step is still beyond me. We have not explained how an organism can mutate genes, and add genes to mutate more to do things. What is next?

We've exhausted this. You don't have any valid reasons. You tried, you failed. I have much better things to do than go back and forth arguing about your fairy tales and why you blindly believe mutation and selection was able to turn a microbe into a person. You're done.

 

[realibrad]

Then you fail to tell us how gene duplication could eventually turn a microbe into a man.
It's obvious you have nothing. Give me your best shot.
You document exactly zero of them. Why are you wasting time?
So your blind faith fairy tale can continue?
Show mutations can put together complex biological machines. Genes duplications aren't even close. So far you've relied upon your childish blind faith to fill in the gaps. You can have all the "space" in the world for mutations but you need to show that mutations can accomplish what you blindly believe they can do.
How frequent? How frequent are the set of mutations that turned a type 3 secretory system into a bacterial flagellum? It isn't my fault that you have a blind faith in the power of mutation and selection. Perhaps you shouldn't have blind faith?
Your idiotic answer to these complex biological machines is that with enough genetic copying mistakes you can build them. Cars aren't as complex as the things you believe genetic errors can create.

I agree with you on the Islam thing.
No it doesn't. Quit with the fairy tales and justifying your willful blind faith with them.
You gave me cells sticking together, fairy tales on eye evolution, and gene duplication mutations. Since I'm assuming this is the best you have, can we end this?
We've exhausted this. You don't have any valid reasons. You tried, you failed. I have much better things to do than go back and forth arguing about your fairy tales and why you blindly believe mutation and selection was able to turn a microbe into a person. You're done.

I am confused as to what you think mutations can or can't do. I know you said you believe mutations happen, so what do mutations do? What are the limits of mutations? When I ask for the limits, I do not mean they cant fly a boat off the moon. So, what is a Mutation and how does it happen?

 

[buckshot24]

I am confused as to what you think mutations can or can't do. I know you said you believe mutations happen, so what do mutations do? What are the limits of mutations? When I ask for the limits, I do not mean they cant fly a boat off the moon. So, what is a Mutation and how does it happen?

You need to show what they are capable of I don't need to tell you what they can't do. Keep your burden of proof where it belongs.

You're not going to be able to do it so just quit. It's over.

 

[fskimospy]

You need to show what they are capable of I don't need to tell you what they can't do. Keep your burden of proof where it belongs.

You're not going to be able to do it so just quit. It's over.

It's been interesting to watch you get more and more hostile as he paints you into a smaller and smaller corner. Now you're clearly just hoping he lets you off the hook and gives up.

I have to hand it to you realibrad: it took a long time and a lot of patience, but you finally got buckshot into a place where he just desperately wants to run away with his beliefs intact.

 

[buckshot24]

And once and for all, did you misspeak when you said the mutation was in response to the environment or did you get this wrong too?

 

[realibrad]

You need to show what they are capable of I don't need to tell you what they can't do. Keep your burden of proof where it belongs.

You're not going to be able to do it so just quit. It's over.

Back to the burden of proof thing huh.

Its actually kinda funny at this point, because you don't understand what that means. I think you picked that up as a debate tactic because most don't understand what it means, but it sounds smart.

I have made a positive claim. My claim is that evolution is evident and that mutations play a role. I have the burden of supporting that positive claim.

You have made the positive claim that Evolution is not true, because mutations cannot lead to new structures, machines ect. Had you said that you dont see the evidence, or logic, that would not be a positive claim. Sad/funny.

I have shown you had an organism did not have something in its dna, and then created something in its dna. I have shown you that the dna can mutate and change the organism. Shape, size, ability have all been shown to change.

I have given you a logical path for something like the eye and how it likely formed.

For me to go any further, I need to know what you think are the limitations of mutation in specifics. I keep giving examples of mutations and you keep saying they are not meaningful. There are countless examples of mutations, and me trying to find one that is valid to you is almost impossible. Maybe that is what you want, because it means nobody is likely to be able to provide you with anything. If this is the case, just tell me. If you really think there are mutations that need to happen but cant for evolution to be true, then please just tell me.

Again, I'm not attacking you, but you seem to be avoiding my question. Just one example is all I am asking for.

 

[realibrad]

It's been interesting to watch you get more and more hostile as he paints you into a smaller and smaller corner. Now you're clearly just hoping he lets you off the hook and gives up.

I have to hand it to you realibrad: it took a long time and a lot of patience, but you finally got buckshot into a place where he just desperately wants to run away with his beliefs intact.

You're next with your damn Keynesian economics. :twisted:

 

[realibrad]

And once and for all, did you misspeak when you said the mutation was in response to the environment or did you get this wrong too?

Nope. The paper was about non-random mutation. Something that has been tested before too.

Neat right?

 

[fskimospy]

You're next with your damn Keynesian economics. :twisted:

Haha, best of luck!

 

[realibrad]

Haha, best of luck!

Probably not possible because there is not a clear picture like there is with evolution. But, I'm sure we will still have fun trying. Progress!

 

[sandorski]

It's been interesting to watch you get more and more hostile as he paints you into a smaller and smaller corner. Now you're clearly just hoping he lets you off the hook and gives up.

I have to hand it to you realibrad: it took a long time and a lot of patience, but you finally got buckshot into a place where he just desperately wants to run away with his beliefs intact.

Buckshots argument in action

 

[buckshot24]

Nope. The paper was about non-random mutation. Something that has been tested before too.

Neat right?

So non-random mutations shows that random mutations can do something? Makes sense.

 

[buckshot24]

It's been interesting to watch you get more and more hostile as he paints you into a smaller and smaller corner. Now you're clearly just hoping he lets you off the hook and gives up.

I have to hand it to you realibrad: it took a long time and a lot of patience, but you finally got buckshot into a place where he just desperately wants to run away with his beliefs intact.

Whoever wrote this is delusional. This is seriously the most stupid thing I've read in quite some time.

None of Brad's fairy tales or hopeful thinking shows how complex molecular machines were created.

 

[realibrad]

So non-random mutations shows that random mutations can do something? Makes sense.

Why does it only have to be limited to random mutations? Mutation is not the only part of evolution. Its also an example of mutation, random or otherwise.


Please don't forget to give me an example of a mutation that cannot happen that evolution says can happen.

 

[fskimospy]

Whoever wrote this is delusional. This is seriously the most stupid thing I've read in quite some time.

None of Brad's fairy tales or hopeful thinking shows how complex molecular machines were created.

You edited out my name and are now acting like you don't know who wrote it? That's amazing, hahaha. How old are you, eight? The internet is often a stupid and childish place, but speaking of the most stupid thing that someone's read in quite some time... lol.

 

[buckshot24]

I have made a positive claim. My claim is that evolution is evident and that mutations play a role. I have the burden of supporting that positive claim.

Support it and don't worry about me. Your job.

You have made the positive claim that Evolution is not true, because mutations cannot lead to new structures, machines ect. Had you said that you dont see the evidence, or logic, that would not be a positive claim. Sad/funny.

There is no evidence that it can, none of what you have presented suggests otherwise.

I have shown you had an organism did not have something in its dna, and then created something in its dna.

No you didn't.

I have shown you that the dna can mutate and change the organism. Shape, size, ability have all been shown to change.

This has nothing to do with your central claim. Nothing at all. How are complex biological machines created via mutation and selection? Fairy tales?

I have given you a logical path for something like the eye and how it likely formed.

Fairy tale.

For me to go any further, I need to know what you think are the limitations of mutation in specifics.

How do molecular machines get built? Simple question and should be easy to answer. But it isn't because you don't have a valid answer. Mutation and selection is just assumed to have the magical power you believe it has.

There are countless examples of mutations, and me trying to find one that is valid to you is almost impossible.

They probably don't exist. Just present the best you have and quit asking me.

Maybe that is what you want, because it means nobody is likely to be able to provide you with anything. If this is the case, just tell me. If you really think there are mutations that need to happen but cant for evolution to be true, then please just tell me.

Mutations that build complex biological machines. How does this happen?

You can't even explain the formation of a single protein let alone the formation of 50 of them and having all of them fit together to make a meaningful machine that performs a function. Well, you can tell fairy tales about these things but that isn't science.

The gene duplication you presented cannot be legitimately extrapolated out to the creation of new complex biological machines. This is what I asked for and you yourself said millions of other things need to happen. It fails for that reason. What you are left with is your axiomatic blind faith in the power of mutation and natural selection, that's all. You can't demonstrate it to be true.

You say the duplicated gene can undergo further mutation, great. What can this mutation accomplish? You assume, blindly, that it can eventually lead to something meaningful. I don't. But single genes aren't your problem. You have multiple genes that need to come together and build these things. Showing a gene duplication is great and all but you haven't alleviated the faith required to believe the rest of the story. Remember, I don't share your faith in mutation and selection.

So far you've told me stories about eyes. You've told me that yeast can stick together. You've told me that gene duplication can make an already existent process to become more efficient. Then you say it was non-random which is another process you need to explain.

 

[buckshot24]

Please don't forget to give me an example of a mutation that cannot happen that evolution says can happen.

Please don't forget to present evidence for your own case.

 

[realibrad]

Please don't forget to present evidence for your own case.

I did, pages worth, and you said it was not evidence that you thought supported evolution.

So with that, I can only request that you explain what you think mutation cannot do specifically. Do you think that evolution cannot create X? Then I can break down the parts, and see if evolution can create a part. If I cant, then hey, I lose right.

But, you wont give me x, which is weird.

 

[buckshot24]

I did, pages worth, and you said it was not evidence that you thought supported evolution.

Then that is the best you have? I gave reasons for why I thought so.

So with that, I can only request that you explain what you think mutation cannot do specifically. Do you think that evolution cannot create X? Then I can break down the parts, and see if evolution can create a part. If I cant, then hey, I lose right.

But, you wont give me x, which is weird.

You're just going to tell further fairy tales.

I don't think it can create any complex biological machine. Especially machines that have 50+ proteins.

Explain how the bacterial flagellum evolved from the type 3 secretion system. And also explain how the "evolution" didn't go the opposite direction where type 3 is actually a degraded flagellum.