christopher hitchens

[realibrad]

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

But that is not realistic. Even the flagellum would be impossibly long to look at all the possible mutations. I can look for specific mutations that would create one of the parts, but not the entire structure. I told you this and you agreed that me trying to explain an entire structure would not be needed, and that I would simply need to give you an example of a part. I did that, and now you say that the step I am giving you is not valid.

Tell me a part on the flagellum you think cannot be created. And dont say the motor, because that is filled with parts too.

 

[Moonbeam]

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.

My idea of weird is when you believe that the god that doesn't exist is an atrocious monster, but you wouldn't hate him if he were real.

 

[sandorski]

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.

He's not interested in doing so. It undermines his capacity to continue trolling you. Besides, he doesn't have a good argument against any of this. He just has a method at annoying others until they no longer are interested in talking to him. You 2 will continue this never ending circular discussion until one of you gets bored of it or a Mod just locks the thread because it's just a wart on the Servers.

The link I posted above is exactly what Buckshot is doing.

 

[norseamd]

nef

 

[buckshot24]

But that is not realistic. Even the flagellum would be impossibly long to look at all the possible mutations. I can look for specific mutations that would create one of the parts, but not the entire structure. I told you this and you agreed that me trying to explain an entire structure would not be needed, and that I would simply need to give you an example of a part. I did that, and now you say that the step I am giving you is not valid.

Tell me a part on the flagellum you think cannot be created. And dont say the motor, because that is filled with parts too.

Isn't it easier to believe that the type 3 secretion apparatus is a "devolved" flagellum?

Your example failed because it can't be reasonably extrapolated out to the formation of any brand new complex biological machine. Or do you think it can? Gene duplication is great and all but it really means nothing unless you're already of the belief that big picture evolution occurred.

 

[realibrad]

Isn't it easier to believe that the type 3 secretion apparatus is a "devolved" flagellum?

Your example failed because it can't be reasonably extrapolated out to the formation of any brand new complex biological machine. Or do you think it can? Gene duplication is great and all but it really means nothing unless you're already of the belief that big picture evolution occurred.

Are you going to give me a mutation you think evolution cannot make?

Again, rather then having me give out every possible mutation until I find one, how about you give me what evolution cannot do.

Could some flagellum be built from a previous flagellum with less parts, sure. Now that I have answered that, can you answer me?

 

[realibrad]

My idea of weird is when you believe that the god that doesn't exist is an atrocious monster, but you wouldn't hate him if he were real.

Might want to reread that thread. That is not what I said, and its kinda off topic from this thread. If you want to PM me, I might get to it tomorrow. I have a lab to do for school when I get home.

Stupid how an econ degree requires classes that have nothing to do with econ. Bleh.

 

[buckshot24]

Are you going to give me a mutation you think evolution cannot make?

I wonder how long it takes for you to take a hint? No I am not. A single mutation is totally besides the point. You believe these copying errors can build machines, not me. You make your case.

Again, rather then having me give out every possible mutation until I find one, how about you give me what evolution cannot do.

It isn't about single mutations.

Could some flagellum be built from a previous flagellum with less parts, sure. Now that I have answered that, can you answer me?

That isn't what I asked. Isn't it more reasonable to believe the type 3 secretion system is a degradation of the flagellum? It is far simpler and requires far less story telling.

 

[buckshot24]

I have a lab to do for school when I get home.

I hope it doesn't require any measurements.

 

[realibrad]

I wonder how long it takes for you to take a hint? No I am not. A single mutation is totally besides the point. You believe these copying errors can build machines, not me. You make your case.
It isn't about single mutations.
That isn't what I asked. Isn't it more reasonable to believe the type 3 secretion system is a degradation of the flagellum? It is far simpler and requires far less story telling.

But why do you believe that mutation cannot build machines. You keep saying it cant, and you talk in generalities. Do you have any specific reason for believing evolution is wrong, or its what you want to believe therefor you do?

Also, as I pointed out to you over a week ago, nothing is forcing you to talk to me. Everyone else here gave up and or you ignored them because of how they talked to you. But, here you are, now sounding a lot like them...ironic.

 

[buckshot24]

But why do you believe that mutation cannot build machines.

Why should I believe it? You're asking the wrong question.

You keep saying it cant, and you talk in generalities.

I'm saying there is absolutely no reason to believe that they can. You say they can, why?

Do you have any specific reason for believing evolution is wrong, or its what you want to believe therefor you do?

More questions? How about you show us why you think evolution can build these machines? It isn't my job to show that they can't. Prove your case.

Also, as I pointed out to you over a week ago, nothing is forcing you to talk to me. Everyone else here gave up and or you ignored them because of how they talked to you. But, here you are, now sounding a lot like them...ironic.

I disagree. I'm not calling you names.

 

[realibrad]

Why should I believe it?

There is evidence. If you dont believe the evidence is valid, can you explain why?

You're asking the wrong question.

Apparently, but you wont tell me what question I need to ask.

I'm saying there is absolutely no reason to believe that they can. You say they can, why?

Theory that is supported by testing and fossil record. We also have genetic testing that helps. All of these things build off of each other.

More questions?

I will keep asking questions until you tell me answers. I apparently do not know what question to ask, but you wont tell me, so its the most logical thing I can to do gain knowledge.

How about you show us why you think evolution can build these machines?

Evidence that supports the theory. Predictions that are verified by what we see. The same reason I believe the theory of gravity is mainly right. We have a theory that makes predictions that we then observe. Is there something that evolution predicts that we do not observe? If you have this, please tell the world and you will will all the monies.

It isn't my job to show that they can't. Prove your case.

Yep, and its amazing that you keep saying it as if that is somehow meaningful to what we have been talking about. You say that evolution cant do something it say it can. I give you evidence, but you say it does not support what I claim, but wont explain why it does not support my claims. I cannot reexamine my claim unless you help me understand why I am wrong. You have never once been asked to support my claim, just yours that I am wrong. Tell me what I have gotten wrong, so you can get somewhere.

Why would you spend all this time going in circles? You are not trying to learn anything, so what is your goal?

My goal is to understand why you believe what you believe.

I disagree. I'm not calling you names.

I don't know. To a 3rd party, calling me incompetent and clueless seems worse than name calling, because you are making character judgements. .


Anyway, just tell me what about evolution you think is flawed. Use specifics and show me where I am wrong. If not, then why spend any time here discussing this at all?

 

[buckshot24]

Enough with the endless questions. You failed. It's over and I see nothing new in your last post to help me understand your blind faith in the power of mutation and selection.

Thanks

 

[jackstar7]

Enough with the endless questions. You failed. It's over and I see nothing new in your last post to help me understand your blind faith in the power of mutation and selection.

Thanks

I can help. You're misusing the term "blind faith".

 

[sandorski]

I can help. You're misusing the term "blind faith".

He just Misuses. It's his talent.

 

[Moonbeam]

Enough with the endless questions. You failed. It's over and I see nothing new in your last post to help me understand your blind faith in the power of mutation and selection.

Thanks

Are you still looking for understanding? Maybe this will help. We are complex creatures created by the blueprint of our genes. Some genetic difference here, and we have blue eyes, some change there and we never get born. Our genes are the instructions that determine whether we are a microbe or a man. All these genetic codes are built with four letters that make proteins that time our development with what goes where and when. Genes make complex organisms every day. There are millions of genotypes that make millions of different kinds of complex organisms. Genes mutate and variations are subjected to selective pressure which caused differentiation and there has been billions of years of that change accumulating in the fossil record. These facts are written in the clay tablets of the Earth Bible.

 

[realibrad]

Enough with the endless questions. You failed. It's over and I see nothing new in your last post to help me understand your blind faith in the power of mutation and selection.

Thanks

In the spirit of Moonie...

You: Evolution does not work.

Me: Why you say that. Evolution makes predictions that we can test. When we do test or study it, the data fits the theory.

You: No it does not.

Me: Yes, here are some examples.

You: Those are not valid. You're making that up because your incompetence.

Me: What is not valid about my examples?

You: Don't shift the burden. You made the claim that evolution was valid.

Me: Yes, but I need to know why that is invalid so I can get you valid data.

You: You are asking the wrong questions.

Me: What questions should I be asking.

You: You have nothing new so it's over. Blind faith confirmation bias evolution is your religion.

How did I do Moonie?

 

[jackstar7]

In the spirit of Moonie...

You: Evolution does not work.

Me: Why you say that. Evolution makes predictions that we can test. When we do test or study it, the data fits the theory.

You: No it does not.

Me: Yes, here are some examples.

You: Those are not valid. You're making that up because your incompetence.

Me: What is not valid about my examples?

You: Don't shift the burden. You made the claim that evolution was valid.

Me: Yes, but I need to know why that is invalid so I can get you valid data.

You: You are asking the wrong questions.

Me: What questions should I be asking.

You: You have nothing new so it's over. Blind faith confirmation bias evolution is your religion.

How did I do Moonie?

Like a Lifer.

 

[buckshot24]

Are you still looking for understanding? Maybe this will help. We are complex creatures created by the blueprint of our genes.

That is in serious question. Something else is passing information along as well. This has been confirmed where the genome of one species of fish was placed into an egg of the other. Instead of getting the same species of fish who supplied the genome you get a mix between the two. This is much more complex than we currently understand.

 

[buckshot24]

In the spirit of Moonie...

You: Evolution does not work.

Me: Why you say that. Evolution makes predictions that we can test. When we do test or study it, the data fits the theory.

You: No it does not.

Me: Yes, here are some examples.

You: Those are not valid. You're making that up because your incompetence.

Me: What is not valid about my examples?

You: Don't shift the burden. You made the claim that evolution was valid.

Me: Yes, but I need to know why that is invalid so I can get you valid data.

You: You are asking the wrong questions.

Me: What questions should I be asking.

You: You have nothing new so it's over. Blind faith confirmation bias evolution is your religion.

How did I do Moonie?

Moonie would tell you that you are lying. This is not how it happened. I wasn't sure if you were a hack or not, I am now certain of it.

 

[Moonbeam]

That is in serious question. Something else is passing information along as well. This has been confirmed where the genome of one species of fish was placed into an egg of the other. Instead of getting the same species of fish who supplied the genome you get a mix between the two. This is much more complex than we currently understand.

Can you supply a link to that research? The implications are interesting, but such events do not happen in nature, I don't think. What would be very interesting, in my opinion, would be if the transfer of a nucleus from the same species to the same species but different donors lead to differences that could be detected from the same experiment with eggs from the same donor. That could suggest that more is going on if the data you say you have seen hasn't otherwise been explained.

So, I would say, that all that it is probably unlikely that you could remove the nucleus of a primitive animal egg replacing it with a human nucleus, that such an egg would be viable and able to become a human being. The egg itself has evolved to handle the DNA it contains as it is built by that DNA. Eggs from two species of fish may be similar enough to be viable is some cases, but maybe not always perfectly.

In short I see two many unknowns to overthrow the theory of evolution. Just my opinion.

 

[soulcougher73]

Moonie would tell you that you are lying. This is not how it happened. I wasn't sure if you were a hack or not, I am now certain of it.

To the list?

 

[fskimospy]

Can you supply a link to that research? The implications are interesting, but such events do not happen in nature, I don't think. What would be very interesting, in my opinion, would be if the transfer of a nucleus from the same species to the same species but different donors lead to differences that could be detected from the same experiment with eggs from the same donor. That could suggest that more is going on if the data you say you have seen hasn't otherwise been explained.

So, I would say, that all that it is probably unlikely that you could remove the nucleus of a primitive animal egg replacing it with a human nucleus, that such an egg would be viable and able to become a human being. The egg itself has evolved to handle the DNA it contains as it is built by that DNA. Eggs from two species of fish may be similar enough to be viable is some cases, but maybe not always perfectly.

In short I see two many unknowns to overthrow the theory of evolution. Just my opinion.

Yeah what he said sounds like bullshit to me.

 

[buckshot24]

Can you supply a link to that research?

http://www.biolreprod.org/content/72/3/510.full

The implications are interesting, but such events do not happen in nature, I don't think. What would be very interesting, in my opinion, would be if the transfer of a nucleus from the same species to the same species but different donors lead to differences that could be detected from the same experiment with eggs from the same donor. That could suggest that more is going on if the data you say you have seen hasn't otherwise been explained.

Sure, that would be interesting but this already indicates that the genome isn't the only source of heritable information.

In short I see two many unknowns to overthrow the theory of evolution. Just my opinion.

Only 2?:sneaky: