Proof

Originally posted by twhitehead
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."

i stated, all mutations are generally inferior, backed up by numerous references and Dobanskys own words, in which he stated, that almost without exception, the mutations were inferior. You may make reference to any of the references that i cited, that is, the actual content of the posts. i did not say some, i stated , all are generally inferior, as did Dobansky who actually conducted the experiments, 'almost without exception, all were inferior.' I did not say some you slaphead, i said all are generally inferior.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It is scientifically proven that mutations do not produce anything new.

Do you not realize that a mutation by definition, is something new?

Originally posted by twhitehead
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.

what is it about all are generally inferior that yet evades you? is most are generally inferior better for you? will you actually address the actual content of the post and the arguments that were being made if i change it to almost without exception, instead of all are generally inferior? will you, will it stop your petty pedantic arguments?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i stated, all mutations are generally inferior, backed up by numerous references and Dobanskys own words, in which he stated, that almost without exception, the mutations were inferior. You may make reference to any of the references that i cited, that is, the actual content of the posts. i did not say some, i stated , all are generally inferior, as ...[text shortened]... ption, all were inferior.' I did not say some you slaphead, i said all are generally inferior.

Now I am getting confused. Are you just trying to be funny here?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you not realize that a mutation by definition, is something new?

sigh, here we go, by definition? ok, why are the E coli bacteria that Noobster mentioned now new, by definition. Are they new variations, new strains, new species, have they changed into something other than E Coli.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now I am getting confused. Are you just trying to be funny here?

the references are there, see them.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh, here we go, by definition? ok, why are the E coli bacteria that Noobster mentioned now new, by definition. Are they new variations, new strains, new species, have they changed into something other than E Coli.

Not sure what you are saying: are you saying that, for something to be a “mutation”, it has to cause species change as opposed to a less drastic change?
If so, look up “mutation” and come back to us.
If not, then why do you say “have they changed into something other than E Coli. “? -that appears to be irrelevant as that would be a species change that is NOT required for something to be a “mutation”.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Not sure what you are saying: are you saying that, for something to be a “mutation”, it has to cause species change as opposed to a less drastic change?
If so, look up “mutation” and come back to us.
If not, then why do you say “have they changed into something other than E Coli. “? -that appears to be irrelevant as that would be a species change that is NOT required for something to be a “mutation”.

look Meester Hameelton, its like this. You say that evolution causes transmutation, that is something entirely different to adaptation, which is what we see for example in the E Coli and Malaria experiments, this is as far as Darwinism can go, adaptation, not transmutation. Do you understand now? Thus despite your protestations it is entirely relevant!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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!

I'll state it again, the process of speciation takes hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. Evolution is a very slow process. Bacteria to bodied animals took a few billion years. How do you expect a process that took billions of years to be recreated in the lab in about fifty years?

Also the link to Lenski's e-coli experiment wasn't a demonstration of speciation, but to show that mutations occur and they can be beneficial to the organism.

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)

this is not the issue i am contesting

Well why do you keep bringing it up then?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'll state it again, the process of speciation takes hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. Evolution is a very slow process. Bacteria to bodied animals took a few billion years. How do you expect a process that took billions of years to be recreated in the lab in about fifty years?

Also the link to Lenski's e-coli experiment wasn't a demonst ...[text shortened]... n of speciation, but to show that mutations occur and they can be beneficial to the organism.

well well well, it seems that these beneficial elements are rather, hoe can one say it kindly, artificially produced,

Each of these mutant strains has an antagonistic pleiotropy characteristic. An existing system is traded for an altered phenotype that is better suited to survive the specific stressful environment. Regulation is reduced to enable overexpression. DNA repair and DNA polymerase fidelity are reduced to enable increased mutation rates (increasing the probability of a “beneficial” mutation). A gene is inactivated by a process that concurrently activates a silent gene. Such trade-offs provide a temporary benefit to the bacterium, increasing its chances of surviving specific starvation conditions. However, these mutations do not account for the origin of the silenced genes, as their prior existence is essential for the mutation to be beneficial

Anderson, Kevin L. and Georgia Purdom. "A Creationist Perspective of Beneficial Mutation in Bacteria." Sixth International Conference on Creationism

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]this is not the issue i am contesting

Well why do you keep bringing it up then?[/b]

i dont, its you people, you are stating that adaptation is the same as transmutation, when its clear that it is not.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i dont, its you people, you are stating that adaptation is the same as transmutation, when its clear that it is not.

Twice you brought it up -

despite the fact that DNA is coded to resist and withstand change.

and

In fact, as has been demonstrated that DNA vigorously resists changes to its molecular structure even having a repair mechanism.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i dont, its you people, you are stating that adaptation is the same as transmutation, when its clear that it is not.

Do you know actually know how speciation occurs?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Twice you brought it up -

despite the fact that DNA is coded to resist and withstand change.

and

In fact, as has been demonstrated that DNA vigorously resists changes to its molecular structure even having a repair mechanism.

yes but that is not my gripe, my gripe is that we theists are being palmed off with
adaptation as if it were transmutation and then on top of that we are being told we
dont know what we are talking about, when clearly we do.