christopher hitchens

[soulcougher73]

More fluff and no evidence of this magical power of mutations.
Burden shifting again. I don't need to prove mutation and selection is impossible to account for biological machines.

Simply present your evidence that mutation and selection can actually do what you believe it can then. I have no burden of proof.
Because it is a story with unverifiable steps. I already told you how to show this is more than a story by pointing to known mutation events that produces something similar.
Have faith brethren, mutations are the answer and will produce the results we blindly and against all observation believe to have occurred.
Based on what we do observe mutations doing, there is no reason to believe ridiculously complex biomolecular machines could be the result of a bunch of copying mistakes. This is an axiomatic belief that must simply be assumed to be true despite the observable evidence.

So please, quit wasting my time with platitudes and fairytales and post some evidence that mutations can do what you believe they can.

Oh the irony of everything you said. If you only applied that same rationale to your bible/god lol Hypochristian!

 

[soulcougher73]

"Biological machines" exist, you are one. Every one of them has Mutations, you have mutations. They pass some of their mutations onto their children, you have passed some mutations to your children. This process repeats each generation for millions of years.

Change after so many mutations is inevitable.

OMG He bred? D:

 

[sandorski]

OMG He bred? D:

I just presumed. ()

 

[kage69]

He had a Debate/Discussion with AC Grayling where I thought Hitchens struggled. Not sure how much of a debate it was though, may have been more a discussion, nevertheless Grayling was a challenge.

Yeah the format of the exchange isn't a big deal, I'm more interested in an example bearing any similarities with rocksalt24's curious and dismissive take on the man.

I'll admit I'm more familiar with his wife than Grayling himself, but his humanist philosopher cred makes me think I missed out on a good exchange there! Investigating now, kudos.

 

[jackstar7]

More fluff and no evidence of this magical power of mutations.
Burden shifting again. I don't need to prove mutation and selection is impossible to account for biological machines.

Simply present your evidence that mutation and selection can actually do what you believe it can then. I have no burden of proof.
Because it is a story with unverifiable steps. I already told you how to show this is more than a story by pointing to known mutation events that produces something similar.
Have faith brethren, mutations are the answer and will produce the results we blindly and against all observation believe to have occurred.
Based on what we do observe mutations doing, there is no reason to believe ridiculously complex biomolecular machines could be the result of a bunch of copying mistakes. This is an axiomatic belief that must simply be assumed to be true despite the observable evidence.

So please, quit wasting my time with platitudes and fairytales and post some evidence that mutations can do what you believe they can.

I love satire.

B+ effort here.

 

[realibrad]

More fluff and no evidence of this magical power of mutations.
Burden shifting again. I don't need to prove mutation and selection is impossible to account for biological machines.

Here is where you and I get stuck. I say that ever step can be explained in evolution. Each part of a structure can be logically explained with evolution. You then counter with the claim that some structures are too complex to have been created by evolution through mutation. But, I bet that you will never be able to explain what you mean.

For example, you try to bring it to a top level, and say that a bacterial flagellum cannot be created through evolution. If I then try to break down every part of the structure and then explain how evolution could create each part in sequence, you would say that does not satisfy. That is because a single mutation that would be a step in the creation of the structure is not the structure. You really want an example of a complex structure forming in a lab, that can never happen. That is because the creation of something like a bacterial flagellum would take possibly thousands if not millions of years to form.

The problem is that what you are narrowly asking for as proof cannot happen due to the fact we do not live that long and have not been studying evolution long enough to observe an entire structure.

Simply present your evidence that mutation and selection can actually do what you believe it can then. I have no burden of proof.

Again, you do not seem to understand what burden of proof is.

Burden of proof-
the obligation to prove one's assertion.

Assertion-
a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.

You have and continue to make statements that you believe are facts. Ill show you below as you continue to make them

Because it is a story with unverifiable steps. I already told you how to show this is more than a story by pointing to known mutation events that produces something similar.

Not unverifiable steps. We can observe the expected steps and do with the eye example. You dismiss that because you believe that every eye is different and you believe there is not any data to show that they would have come from another. When we see mutations in eyes, you simply write that off as a mistake.

Have faith brethren, mutations are the answer and will produce the results we blindly and against all observation believe to have occurred.
Based on what we do observe mutations doing, there is no reason to believe ridiculously complex biomolecular machines could be the result of a bunch of copying mistakes. This is an axiomatic belief that must simply be assumed to be true despite the observable evidence.

And here is a great example of your claim. There is "reason" aka logic to believe that the structures could form through evolution. The rational is there, you just believe that it does not happen. Either way, you have made a claim that its illogical.

So please, quit wasting my time with platitudes and fairytales and post some evidence that mutations can do what you believe they can.

Your argument can be summed up as this...
The bacterial flagellum is too complex of a structure to have been created through evolution. Evolution says that each part would need to come from a mutation and then another mutation, and another. You do not believe that is logical.

Before anyone can give you anything, you need to explain why you think that is not a logical process. In nature, we see organisms with complex structures, and other organisms with that structure and stripped down parts that function in different ways. What you seem to have a problem with is that the organism with the simpler structure would not be able to get to a more complex structure through just mutations.

What do you disagree with that I have said?

 

[buckshot24]

Here is where you and I get stuck. I say that ever step can be explained in evolution. Each part of a structure can be logically explained with evolution.

This is the part that you aren't documenting and simply assuming. Show me similar documented mutations that achieve similar results. I've asked a few times now but you keep proving zero evidence to support your story.

You then counter with the claim that some structures are too complex to have been created by evolution through mutation. But, I bet that you will never be able to explain what you mean.

I've not said this at all.

For example, you try to bring it to a top level, and say that a bacterial flagellum cannot be created through evolution. If I then try to break down every part of the structure and then explain how evolution could create each part in sequence, you would say that does not satisfy.

You need to start documenting your fairy tales with some observed mutations or I won't believe them.

That is because a single mutation that would be a step in the creation of the structure is not the structure.

I want mutations that are an advantage and can be reasonably extrapolated out a millions of years. I don't need a fully formed structure in one step.

The problem is that what you are narrowly asking for as proof cannot happen due to the fact we do not live that long and have not been studying evolution long enough to observe an entire structure.

Hopefully you've been disabused of this false conclusion by now.

Not unverifiable steps. We can observe the expected steps and do with the eye example.

Then give us examples, why are you holding out on us?

You dismiss that because you believe that every eye is different and you believe there is not any data to show that they would have come from another. When we see mutations in eyes, you simply write that off as a mistake.

Oh, you're just assuming the eyes came about via evolution to show that they came about via evolution. You had my hopes up.

And here is a great example of your claim. There is "reason" aka logic to believe that the structures could form through evolution. The rational is there, you just believe that it does not happen. Either way, you have made a claim that its illogical.

Blind faith in the power of mutation and selection doesn't constitute "logic" but maybe you have some real evidence instead of wasting time...

If you want to keep going on like this you can do so without me. Post some evidence or we're done.

 

[WelshBloke]

If you want to keep going on like this you can do so without me.

Is this a promise?

Ultimately it's your decision to remain ignorant or not.

It's not an argument you're ever going to win basically because all anyone has to say is "OK, so if not evolution then what?" and then we can see if your theory is better. That's when you lose.

 

[realibrad]

This is the part that you aren't documenting and simply assuming. Show me similar documented mutations that achieve similar results. I've asked a few times now but you keep proving zero evidence to support your story.
I've not said this at all.
You need to start documenting your fairy tales with some observed mutations or I won't believe them.
I want mutations that are an advantage and can be reasonably extrapolated out a millions of years. I don't need a fully formed structure in one step.
Hopefully you've been disabused of this false conclusion by now.
Then give us examples, why are you holding out on us?
Oh, you're just assuming the eyes came about via evolution to show that they came about via evolution. You had my hopes up.
Blind faith in the power of mutation and selection doesn't constitute "logic" but maybe you have some real evidence instead of wasting time...

If you want to keep going on like this you can do so without me. Post some evidence or we're done.

Here you go. I just needed you to say that you needed to see a mutation, and not the structure like before.

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/bio343/papers/hexose_dupes.pdf

Discussion
We show here that a strain of yeast that has evolved
for 450 generations under glucose limitation has multiple
tandem duplications involving the high-affinity hexose
transport genes HXT6 and HXT7. Restriction site
analysis indicates that the duplicated genes have the upstream
promoter of the HXT7 gene and the coding sequence
of the HXT6 gene. These duplications were likely
formed by unequal crossovers between the tandemly
arrayed HXT6 and HXT7 genes during sister chromatid
exchange. The change we observe in copy number is
correlated with significant increases in mRNA detected
with the HXT6 probe. The multiply duplicated genes are
heterozygous in the evolved strain; thus, four duplicate
genes would result in twice as many high-affinity hexose
transport genes in the evolved strain as in the parental strain. This correlates well with the 1.8-fold increase
observed in HXT7/6 transcript. The evolved strain of
yeast has demonstrably greater fitness under glucose
limitation than the parental strain from which it is derived,
and this greater fitness appears to be due, at least
in part, to a significant increase in its ability to scavenge
glucose at low substrate concentrations. We have, therefore,
identified the genetic basis of one response to selection
in a glucose-limited environment

 

[buckshot24]

Here you go. I just needed you to say that you needed to see a mutation, and not the structure like before.

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/bio343/papers/hexose_dupes.pdf

I don't think I ever said "structure". Why don't you give me your reading of this so I understand what you're asserting with it.

 

[MongGrel]

Is this a promise?

One could only hope, but Chief Broken Record, AKA buckshot24, keeps returning.

 

[soulcougher73]

One could only hope, but Chief Broken Record, AKA buckshot24, keeps returning.

But.... Does the snake talk Mr. Darwin. That's what I wanna know..

 

[buckshot24]

One could only hope, but Chief Broken Record, AKA buckshot24, keeps returning.

I wasn't "inculcated" so CD isn't describing myself.

 

[sandorski]

I wasn't "inculcated" so CD isn't describing myself.

Funny thing, the inculcated are completely unaware of it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Funny thing, the inculcated are completely unaware of it.

I wonder what shira would say about that. I got the impression when I suggested there might be a pea under 39 mattresses, that folk who think they are happy maybe aren't completely, that he didn't go along with that. Naturally, I it makes a difference, I suppose, if you insist on trying to force somebody to believe they are inculcated rather than just suggesting the possibility.

 

[realibrad]

I don't think I ever said "structure". Why don't you give me your reading of this so I understand what you're asserting with it.

Please respond to the paper I linked.

We agreed on the word structure in the previous thread. Please don't be annoying and make me quote where this happened. The paper I linked showed very important mutations.

 

[buckshot24]

Please respond to the paper I linked.

We agreed on the word structure in the previous thread. Please don't be annoying and make me quote where this happened. The paper I linked showed very important mutations.

How would you extrapolate this gene duplication event into the formation of complex machines over many generations? This hasn't seemed to alleviate the blind faith I require to believe mutation and selection can build a man out of a microbe.

 

[buckshot24]

Funny thing, the inculcated are completely unaware of it.

Look in the mirror. Mutation and selection is a blind faith creator you have been brain washed into believing can do what you think it can do. The evidence just isn't there.

 

[realibrad]

How would you extrapolate this gene duplication event into the formation of complex machines over many generations? This hasn't seemed to alleviate the blind faith I require to believe mutation and selection can build a man out of a microbe.

Be honest, did you read the paper or just my quote?

 

[buckshot24]

Be honest, did you read the paper or just my quote?

I read more than the quote. I also found it from TalkOrigins, is that where you found it? Why do you think this is significant in the grand picture? How does this help show that complex biological machines could be created via copying errors?

Please don't try to get me to do all the work. I don't know if you've read the paper and that is why I'm asking you questions about it.

 

[realibrad]

I read more than the quote. I also found it from TalkOrigins, is that where you found it? Why do you think this is significant in the grand picture? How does this help show that complex biological machines could be created via copying errors?

Please don't try to get me to do all the work. I don't know if you've read the paper and that is why I'm asking you questions about it.

How much more did you read? A paragraph? Half? Please tell me more.

The reason why I linked this paper is because it shows not only the DNA getting longer, but the mutations observed happened very quickly and were in response to the environment. They reduced the energy in the system, so the organism mutated to better take in what energy there was by mutations that allowed for this. They changed their size and duplicated genes that were responsible for the consumption of the enrgy.

Do you need help understanding the paper?

 

[kage69]

He had a Debate/Discussion with AC Grayling where I thought Hitchens struggled. Not sure how much of a debate it was though, may have been more a discussion, nevertheless Grayling was a challenge.

I found the one about the allied bombing of Germany, was that what you were talking about? Was kinda looking to stay in context of the god question, involving creationists and the like. Grayling, being a humanist, doesn't seem to have any issues with science and evolution. He's certainly no Ken Hamm. He actually went and saw Ken's creationist museum too, to which his response was:

“I kid you not. My gast was flabbered the minute I set my foot across the threshold of that place. They have these sort of electronic vegetarian Tyrannosaurus rex playing with the children of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The really dismaying thing about it was the troops and troops and troops of small schoolchildren being taken through and presented with all this as fact. That seems to me to be a human rights crime.”

Heh.


So yeah, looks like my initial impressions about the topic/thread are holding up nicely. :biggrin: Had no idea you guys were so into modern dance! Hahaa

 

[sandorski]

I found the one about the allied bombing of Germany, was that what you were talking about? Was kinda looking to stay in context of the god question, involving creationists and the like. Grayling, being a humanist, doesn't seem to have any issues with science and evolution. He's certainly no Ken Hamm. He actually went and saw Ken's creationist museum too, to which his response was:

“I kid you not. My gast was flabbered the minute I set my foot across the threshold of that place. They have these sort of electronic vegetarian Tyrannosaurus rex playing with the children of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The really dismaying thing about it was the troops and troops and troops of small schoolchildren being taken through and presented with all this as fact. That seems to me to be a human rights crime.”

Heh.


So yeah, looks like my initial impressions about the topic/thread are holding up nicely. :biggrin: Had no idea you guys were so into modern dance! Hahaa

Been awhile since I watched it, so I don't really remember the content of it. I just remember that it was refreshing to see someone able to hold their own against Hitch. Grayling is also an Atheist, so those particular issues were not part of it.

 

[buckshot24]

How much more did you read? A paragraph? Half? Please tell me more.

The reason why I linked this paper is because it shows not only the DNA getting longer, but the mutations observed happened very quickly and were in response to the environment. They reduced the energy in the system, so the organism mutated to better take in what energy there was by mutations that allowed for this. They changed their size and duplicated genes that were responsible for the consumption of the enrgy.

Do you need help understanding the paper?

What you need to do is make your argument. You say this is relevant to a microbe turning into people via mutation and selection, how? How is this process going to build complex biological machines? A gene duplication, to me, doesn't seem to help you get to where you want to go. Why am I wrong?

I'd challenge your assertion that these mutations were in response to the environment. Mutations are basically random with some parts of the genome being more likely to mutate than others. But how do you think this mutation was in response to the environment. Or maybe you misspoke?

 

[realibrad]

What you need to do is make your argument. You say this is relevant to a microbe turning into people via mutation and selection, how? How is this process going to build complex biological machines? A gene duplication, to me, doesn't seem to help you get to where you want to go. Why am I wrong?

I'd challenge your assertion that these mutations were in response to the environment. Mutations are basically random with some parts of the genome being more likely to mutate than others. But how do you think this mutation was in response to the environment. Or maybe you misspoke?

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?