Willkommen, bienvenue, welcome, come on in. 
This is a page set up just for creationists to ask questions about evolution. While I am not a scientist I am a very knowledgeable layperson who has been studying not only evolutionary theory but also creationist objections to it for over 20 years. So barring access to an actual working evolutionary biologist or paleontologist (who generally feel that talking to creationists is a waste of their time) I am your guy.
First a few simple, and I think reasonable, ground rules (they are similar to my comment policy for my blog) which will be applied to everyone creationist or evolutionist:
1. No threats (direct or indirect) or name-calling; attack ideas not individuals.
2. No spamming; one question at a time please! Comments that are laundry-lists of objections to evolution will be shortened (edited) to the first question. You can ask your other questions after I have addressed the current one.
3. Ask a question; no speeches please, that is the prerogative of the author.
4. No link bombing; I am not here as a clearinghouse for other people’s blogs or pages. Ask your own questions.
5. No proselytizing; I am not looking to have theological discussions; this page is for questions about science.
6. Please keep the questions to evolutionary biology or directly related subjects such as paleontology. Questions about physics or cosmology (Big Bang Theory) are best taken elsewhere, as I have only a basic knowledge of those subjects. I may grant some leeway on this but do not push it.
[The rules may be updated at anytime, however new rules will not be retroactively enforced.]
I am a civil libertarian and thus a strong advocate for freedom of speech so I am strongly inclined to give people a lot of latitude. No one will be banned for merely asking questions or disagreement. However, this is my blog not a public space so if you want to post here take care to abide by my rules and heed my warnings.
Also please note that if I find your question worthy I may move my response to a blog posting.
OK, having made you welcome and explained the ground rules, I invite you to ask away in the comments section below.
Playing Chess with Pigeons 
Pingback: New page for creationist questions! | Playing Chess with Pigeons
Hi Troy,
Did the Creationists evolve into tumbleweed and intellectual cowardice, or is it quiet reound here?
And if so, why do we still have intellectual cowardice amongst tumbleweed?
LikeLike
Having thought about it a little I have decided that your comment is a little too close to name calling. Please refrain from making blanket statements about creationists being intellectual cowards. I want to make this a safe space for them (didn’t you see the cute, reassuring kitten above?).
Thanks.
LikeLike
Hi, Troy,
I understand and accept your points. However I still see nothing other than tumbleweed on the local scenery.
We both know, from previous dealings (FYI: yes, I was on CI$; BTW, have you heard from Jon Wolff in the last few years. Or even Martin Yirrel?) with C*ts that the ones with whom we can enter a constructive dialogue are NOT the ones at the core of the problem : the real problem is the ones who choose to not engage with the evidence.
To snip lots of ” blahblahblahblahblahblah…. “, we both know that there are a depressingly large number of C*ts who refuse to engage with evidence of any sort which may lead to counter-faith conclusions. To quote I-forget-whom, possibly Mencken, “You cannot reason someone out of a position at which they did not arrive by a process of reason.”
I see what you’re trying to achieve with this blog. Sadly, I suspect that it is doomed to failure.
Anyway, good to be back in contact, of sorts. Fight the good fight! I look forward to seeing you on Jerry Coyne’s “WhyEvolutionIsTrue” blog in future (sorry ; Jerry insists that it’s a “website”, not a “blog” ; it’s a Jerry-ism, as is the predilection for cats and near absence of d*gs).
Life could be worse – in America, you think of tumbleweed : in Scotland we have midges ; as lightweight, but much more persistent and annoying. And more numerous too!
(Now trying to remember Jon Wolff’s site … Google is my friend! I occasionally swap words with Les Howarth. Remember Marijke the island-dwelling mathematician? Cancer, I’m afraid. and our wrist-slapping he-who-must-be-obeyed “TLC” ; not had any contact for years.)
Regards,
Aidan
(In, IIRC, “sub-tropical Aberdeen)
THIS time, I remembered to tick the “new posts by email” box!
LikeLike
Hi Aidan,
Ah yes! Good times, good times…
Haven’t heard from Jon for years, never for Martin I’m afraid. Still talk to Ed Brayton (“St. Cynic”) now and again.
I am not expecting to convert the hard-core types, rather I write for the fence sitters and misguided but still reachable types. There is still hope for some.
That and I learn myself doing the research to write my responses. :-)
Take it easy my friend.
LikeLike
Hiya, guys! Long time no type — I check in here every now and then, but rarely have much of anything to say. Troy, I’ve tried to email you a few times over the years, but never got any response. I’m still on CIS — the current incarnation of CIS, that is, which is a set of web forums. I’m the contract-holder for SciMath now. Tom LeCompte left a couple of years ago, and they offered the contract to me; I took it because I couldn’t bear to see the old place shut down completely. We don’t get much traffic these days, a lot of the regulars are gone, but you’re both welcome to come by whenever you like. And bring some friends, too — as long as you keep it within the rules, I’d love to have some folks to discuss geology, fossils, dinosaurs, evolution, etc. with again!
— Jon Woolf
LikeLike
Hi Jon!
You have? Hmmm, I don’t remember that, I’ll have to check my spam folder. Every now and then Outlook dumps legit emails in there.
You’re kidding, that is still around?
I’ll take a look but I won’t promise to participate. I don’t spend much time in discussion forums any more. I only recently engaged a few creationists on Ken Ham’s Facebook page (because he posted pics of me “protesting” one of his shindigs) but other than that I usually stick to going after the “big guns” on my blog (when I can work my self up to it).
Anyway, good to hear from you Jon, I hope you’re doing well!
LikeLike
Hi Jon, Signed up again. Some old familiar names.
LikeLike
If I evolved from a monkey, then why don’t I like bananas?
Thanks,
Daniel
LikeLike
If you’re serious (and not a Poe) let me know and I will answer.
LikeLike
John-who-is-also-Daniel asked something directly out of the Creationist Training Manual (Harun Yaya edition #3) :
Well, that doesn’t really fit within the purview of
but it seems like some sort of attempt. So here are some relevant parts of the answer.
(1) you have only tried one sub-species of banana (almost certainly the productive but weak-tasing variety called “Cavendish”) ; there are hundreds of wild-growing varieties and several separate species of banana which are much more well-known to the monkeys from which your ape ancestors evolved, which may be more amenable to you. However, I’ve never seen anything other than the insipid “Cavendish” on sale outside Africa. Even within Africa, the “Cavendish” is becoming more common, even tough they taste pallid and are terrible to cook. Our cooks at work refuse to touch “Cavendish” because it taints the oil in the frier.
(2) You’re an ape, which is a sub-group of “monkeys”, themselves a sub-group of primates, themselves a sub-group of mammals, themselves a sub-group of amniotes, themselves a sub-group of the tetrapods, themselves a sub-group of the teleost fishes, themselves a sub-group of the jawed-vertebrates (Gnathostomata), themselves a sub-group of the skulled vertebrates (Craniata), themselves a sub-group of the vertebrates (assuming that you have now got a backbone, or had one while an embryo), themselves a sub-group of the animal “kingdom” ; surely somewhere in that proud lineage, there are characteristics which you do like.
(3) Many “monkeys” don’t particularly like bananas too – they can be quite a bad food for them. Leaf-eating probiscus monkeys, for example, don’t like bananas much either. You should check with a zoo’s Primate House keeper if you’re in charge of looking after a “monkey” (they’ll want to know which of the several hundred species you’re feeding).
What is it that you object to about being evolved from a monkey? Do you not like having opposable thumbs? Backache? A complex social life? These are all traits typical of primates, as we all are.
LikeLike
Or, I could point out that Daniel/John did not as an individual evolve from a monkey but rather humans as a species share a common ancestor with monkeys (that was probably monkey-like) and there is no expectation that just because many modern monkeys may like bananas that we necessarily should, though most of us do (I believe bananas are the most popular fruit in the U.S. at least).
Also:
You probably want to say “sub-group of the Teleostomi“, so as not to confuse them with the Teleostei, which we are definitely not descended from.
I don’t know who the hell thought it was a good idea to name a clade of “fishes” “Teleostomi” in the first place. The confusion this would cause should have been obvious. Personally I wouldn’t use it and in this sort of context would stick with Gnathostomata/Osteichthyes/Sarcopterygii/Tetrapoda (YMMV).
LikeLike
Yep, sorry, I got my inner fishes confused. All hail to the Rules of Zoological Nomenclature!
LikeLike
Vertebrates are a subgroup of the craniates, not the other way around. Recall that hagfishes have skulls but no vertebrae (although they do have a notochord).
LikeLike
Okay, so now your saying I evolved from a fish to? Then why can’t I swim or breath underwater?
-Daniel (son of John)
LikeLike
Well, if you can’t swim underwater then you’re rather unusual for a human; most humans have that ability, they just need to learn how to use it. As for breathing underwater, humans can’t do that anymore for the same reason that flightless cormorants can’t fly anymore: our ancestors lost that ability (gradually, over many generations) because they didn’t need gills anymore and/or they needed some other organ or ability more. As Heinlein said, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
LikeLike
You didn’t evolve from a fish, you still are a fish. As are all other mammals.
When Neil Shubin wrote his book about the discovery of Tiktallik, he named it “Your Inner Fish” for perfectly good reasons of classification, as well as to make a good pedagogical talking point.
LikeLike
“You didn’t evolve from a fish, you still are a fish.”
So not only are you claiming to be an Ape, you also force yourself to believe that you are a Fish?
Since Evo’s also believe that your “Ancestor” was a “worm like creature” do you claim to be a worm
as well?
“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.
When this happens, many people will pose the question, “How did this ever happen?”
(Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)
LikeLike
Sorry, link for “Your Inner Fish“
LikeLike
I find this comment threat rather entertaining.
I would like to take issue with the quote gravelinspector-Aidan repeated earlier: “You cannot reason someone out of a position at which they did not arrive by a process of reason.”
I have heard this quote bantered around often in the scientific and free-thinker communities but I think it is completely false.
Many of us free-thinkers, humanists and lay-science enthusiasts were once religious. I dare say that very few (almost none) of us had arrived at our faith position through reason. It was usually something we inherited and were indoctrinated with from our childhood.
We have, however, used reason to abandon our previous position and embrace science.
I think it is a worthy cause to try to help sincere people who may be struggling with the creationist’s indoctrination to understand real science.
LikeLike
When I use that quote, I’m using “reason” as a transitive verb (“I am using the process of ‘reason’ ON you…”), not as an intransitive or reflexive verb (I forget the term in English, but by contrast “I am using the process of ‘reason’ back onto myself to …”).
My experience is that once someone comes out in public as a Creationist, then they’ve made a commitment to using unreason (some call it “faith”) as a guiding principle in their lives. And I’ve never actually seen one reasoned out of that position. Which rather undermines Troy’s idea for this forum.
[Tumbleweed drifts past. It’s an invasive plant in America, did you know?]
There may be such examples – you’ve got a bigger population of Creationists in America to select from, so you’ve probably got more extremes, both at the deranged and reasonable ends of the spectrum – but of the ones I meet, they’re simply a waste of time. Pouring unending and instant scorn upon the whole concept of religion at it’s first appearance in a situation seems more effective, by denying the “oxygen of publicity” to the mental terrorists.
Of course, I’ve no way of knowing what they’re doing at home to their children (or other people’s), but since I don’t even know if they’ve got children … well, “Meh”.
LikeLike
I see your point.
I would just state that, although not really a public figure, I was quite outspoken about my faith and religion before I saw so much evidence for evolution and real science. (What was I thinking? I’m face-palming about myself!)
Also, Seth Andrews, who has a YouTube channel called The Thinking Atheist, was also a radio host for an evangelical Christian radio station before he started using his critical thinking skills.
What I would say is that many, if not most people become more entrenched in their position over time. But there are those of us, wanting to be true to our intellect and honest to others, who come to a sort of epiphany after having a lot of evidence piled on us. It is a process that takes time.
I could be wrong, but I’d venture to say that many of the people who like to argue the creationist viewpoint on blogs and YouTube will eventually get tired of fighting that uphill battle an even decide to be honest and then switch sides. … And even if they don’t, I think there are dozens, if not hundreds of people reading those posts who will be influenced by well formulated responses to their idiocy and pseudo-scientific dribble.
Regards.
LikeLike
Hi Troy, Just found your site and figured I should ask a few questions. First, to clarify, I am a college student, almost through with my history degree (as a major), I have a minor in geology, and I have taken enough courses to almost have minors in philosophy and anthropology (just establishing that I am not an uneducated internet troll…. at least not completely). This does not make me an authority on the debate between evolution and creationism, but I have studied enough to be fairly well versed in the arguments that each side uses. I was home-schooled by choice and was taught evolution and creation equally (no snide remarks about home-schoolers please, that is another debate for another time). Once I started college (yes it is a secular school) I decided that I had better pick a side on the debate (my parents were public school teachers before they taught me, and they left the choice, between creation/evolution, up to me). I studied the sides and decided to pick the side that, I believe, has the least number of holes in its arguments. I decided to become a creationist, but I still see both sides and am willing to keep my mind open to all possibilities. Therefore, I like to ask questions of those that consider themselves to be knowledgeable in this debate, so as to get both sides. I am aware that you do not have a PHD or a doctorate but I have spoken with those that do possess them, and as I said, I like to get the “whole picture.” So, I am going to ask a few questions that I have not seen already answered (on this site): Question 1: How do you define science (yes, I am talking about the AIG argument between “testable/repeatable science” and “historical/perceived science”)? I do mean you specifically, as different words mean different things to different people, and “standard definitions” do not always fully encapsulate this idea. Question 2: Why do scientific laws exist: gravity, thermodynamics, etc. if no one created them (yes it does seem like a silly question, but believe it or not, I have found this question to be helpful)? Question 3: How do you believe that things such as a conscience, idea of self-awareness, and the ability to fully reason came to be? Yes, this is a philosophical question, because philosophy is the first “science” and was the root of all the other disciplines. In addition, evolution influences much more than biology, geology, and physics (to name a few of the traditional sciences) in its scope, and all aspects of the theory need to be considered. Especially since the idea of “origins” is one of the three fundamental questions of philosophy (IE: Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going?). I am aware that this is a lengthy post, but I believe that this issue is worth the time.
With respect,
Stephen
By the way, I have heard your comparison of “playing chess with pigeons” before (in relation to evolutionists). Is that saying original (to you) or did you get it from elsewhere? If so, where?
LikeLike
Hi Stephen,
Sorry for the delay. I have moved my responses up to the main blog page you can see them and reply there.
LikeLike
I can only imagine that the teachers hired for your home school were truly appallingly poor (and poorly trained and equipped) science teachers. Couldn’t your parents hire some proper teachers to teach you? I had several friends who started their science teaching (post-PhD and teaching certificate) by doing home tutoring for a number of pupils scattered across the county, and their fees were reasonable.
Because, for many laws, it doesn’t seem possible for the universe that we know of to exist without these laws. For example, given the existence and behaviour of integers, and the behaviour of large numbers, then to NOT have the First Law of Thermodynamics, you would have to have some Maxwellian Demon (Troy – do you remember Marijke?) running around moving high velocity particles in one direction and low velocity particles in the other direction. Similarly, gravity is a consequence of the structure of space-time, as far as we understand. (Obviously, some parts of the universe are still not fully understood, though we can describe with high precision what things do, we haven’t fully settled how or why they behave like that.)
No, it’s a question of neurochemistry and psychology. I am not a biologist of any sort, and I do not claim for a second to know how these things work, but I see no reason to treat them as philosophical questions. Incidentally, and related, which organisms do you consider to be capable of fully reasoning, and do you support eating them, or using them in medical experiments?
I was going to nominate anything as being the “first science”, I’d have looked at the materials science which was necessary – as an intuitive interpolation from observed events – for our pre-human ancestors on the savannahs of East Africa to start turning lumps of rock into hand axes. If you want, the science of flint knapping (though the first workers in the subject were neither human, nor using flint).
In order, your mother’s womb (possibly via complications such as surrogacy or adoption, but medical science still requires a womb for some months, at the moment) ; your reason for existence is to pass your genes on to the next generation (you are not required to carry out this “reason for existence” ; you owe your genes nothing since they are non-sentient. Similarly you owe the floor nothing for stopping you from falling through it.) ; you are going to die (you can choose to a degree what organisms eat your flesh after you’ve died, and delay it a short while – up to a few millennia – but you’re worm-food. As am I, and everyone else.)
I hadn’t, and I’ve known Troy for what – the thick end of 20 years?
(I can’t reply on the front page.)
LikeLike
There is something vaguely familiar about the name but I cannot really say that I do.
??? I don’t know why that would be. Are you not seeing the “leave a reply” box, or what?
LikeLike
Odd, now I do get reply-links on the main page. I had changed settings in AdBlock, so something may have got stuffed.
Marijke was a CIS-SciMath person – heavily into physics and maths. After some encouragement from Tom Le Compte (I think), she retuned to college from her island retreat on Coll to Birmingham University. I’m not sure if she was doing a PhD or a Masters, but she was doing OK. After I left CIS, I kept occasional contact until a bout of repeated burglaries (7 in 10 days) and a nervous breakdown, I lost track of people
Was. She died of cancer in about 2005.
LikeLike
Well that was all sorts of disheartening… :-(
I am sorry to hear about Marijke and I hope you are dealing with less theft and stress these days.
LikeLike
Yeah, it was a disappointment. Would have been good to meet one day. But that’s life.
LikeLike
I think your argument applies to the Second Law of Thermodynamics rather than the First.
LikeLike
You’re right that the second law is basically pure number theory. To get to the first law you need to include the cost of measurement of particle temperature, and a rather more sophisticated argument about how to decide which particles to segregate into the ‘hot’ tank, rather than the ‘cold’ tank.
I probably had to go back to check that, but then forgot to correct the law number.
LikeLike
Pingback: Answering Creationist Questions | Playing Chess with Pigeons
Got a question via e-mail related to my “gill slit” article:
Hello B.M. I am not entirely sure what you are getting at when you ask for a “non-functional” and “non-vestigial” homologous structure between the gills of fish and derivative structures in tetrapods. Why would it have to be either non-functional or non-vestigial? Without understanding what you are getting at there I am not sure how to answer your question.
As for what lies between gills in the ancestors of tetrapods and said derivatives in tetrapods (not factoring in your qualifications), I would think we would want to look at the earliest tetrapods in the fossil record and living amphibians for clues.
Both lines of investigations have limitations of course. With fossils we are limited mostly to hard parts (and we are talking about a lot of soft tissue stuff here) and with living amphibians we are looking at animals with hundreds of millions of years of evolution between them and the transition we are interested in (though they seem to have changed the least in this particular area).
So if you could clarify I might be able to be more specific.
Thanks.
LikeLike
.
I have a REASONABLE question that I would like answered if you wish ANYONE to take Evolution seriously..
.
Man has 10 INTERDEPENDENT VITAL Organs and support systems. FACT
.
Man NEEDS all 10 of his VITAL Organs or he dies. FACT
.
Either those 10 VITAL Organs came together ALL AT ONCE (Creation) OR they Evolved separately.. FACT
.
If they “Evolved” Separately they must have had an order of Evolution FACT
.
For “Evolution” to be even considered to qualify as a hypothetical hypothesis There MUST BE a PLAUSIBLE or FEASABLE Explanation as to the evolutionary order that would be possible. For Example.. What comes First? Man is Irreducibly Complex (BY DEFINITION)
.
Stomach? Skin? Heart? Lungs? Brain? Upper Intestine? Liver? Lower Intestine? Pancreas? Kidneys? Remove just ONE and Man Dies.. And Bye Bye Evolution.
.
So which one do we start with..? Here, let me help you out.. 1 Skin? 2 Stomach? 3 Brain? 4 Heart? You see… Whatever way you start you cause more problems for the myth.. Because ALL 10 NEED TO BE THERE.. TOGETHER, WORKING IN TANDEM, AT THE SAME TIME
.
Atheists like to point out Lungfish or Nematodes that dont have all ten organs as if that helps their case. IT DOES NOT… Lungfish and Nematodes are ALSO IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!! So unless you can show a FEASABLE OR PLAUSIBLE Pathway for them to turn into a Human, they are a NON SEQUITUR…
.
THEREFORE
.
If UCA for all flora and fauna were to somehow be true, and If we slowly go back in time, Our “Ancestor(s)” would, at some point, have 9 Interdependent vital organs, then 8, then 7, then 6 5 4 3 2…
.
THE MATH IS NOT HARD HERE!.
.
Allow me to give you a BIG head start.. I will allow you to start out with Abiogenesis (Quite generous don’t you think?) AND a bag of skin…. Now you have 1 billion years to turn it into a Man… What are the next “Steps” in the Evolutionary ladder? Come on.. Just give me something!!! Let us analyze it together using logic and critical thinking…. You guys are starting to make me think this really isn’t about “Science” Anymore, Rather a Religious belief in godless Metaphysical Naturalism,..
.
A Microbe has ZERO interdependent interlocked VITAL Organs and their support systems. A Microbiologist has TEN interdependent. interlocked. VITAL Organs and their support systems.
.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THE MATH IS SIMPLE HERE.
.
On the billion year journey from Organless Microbes to Organ Dependent (10!) Microbiologists there had to be an ORDER (Unless you believe that ALL TEN “Evolved” at the EXACT SAME MOMENT) AKA Creationism.. STOMACH- SKIN- HEART- LUNGS- BRAIN- UPPER / LOWER INTESTINE LIVER PANCREAS – KIDNEYS
.
The inability to answer this simple question is what reduces the Microbes to Microbiologists fairytale to the joke that it is…
.
THE PROBLEM IS.. All of the Observable Creatures that we see are fully formed, complete, and complex that merely Vary or Adapt…. For example.. there are 5000 “Species” of Ladybugs. 2000 “Species” of Chiclids” 9000 “Species” of Birds, 6000 “Species” of Lizards..Where is the Evolution? Nowhere…(I could go on all day) But here is the catch… By going back into the Nebulousphere of “Long ago and far away” they are trying to use slow minute changes to account for a Microbe turning into a Microbiologist.. What good is a barely or partially formed VITAL organ?? My thesis here puts everything in perspective… As of now.. NO ONE has even TRIED to answer it.. Like to try?
LikeLike
So, I take it that your reading on the subject of biology has proceeded no further than the ultra-condensed version of Behe (“irreducible” is a dead give away) and you still think that your question has never been considered before. It might help you to step out of the “walled garden” of DiscoTute misrepresentations, but I doubt you’ll do that.
So, I’ll throw your question back in your face with your own “lived experience”. Remember when you were a single-celled egg? And you had no “STOMACH- SKIN- HEART- LUNGS- BRAIN- UPPER / LOWER INTESTINE LIVER PANCREAS – KIDNEYS” – nothing but one cell. Which of your organs developed first, and why didn’t you then die since you didn’t have all 10 of your interdependent systems (actually, the number is more in the hundreds, but I’ll not expect you to learn enough biology and biochemistry to be able to get to that)? And the answer is … the foetus which later became you lived in a different environment to the one in which you live, where those systems are necessary.
When you’ve spoken to your speech-director at the Discovery Institute feel free to copy and paste their failed answers here.
LikeLike
“Remember when you were a single-celled egg? And you had no “STOMACH- SKIN- HEART- LUNGS- BRAIN- UPPER / LOWER INTESTINE LIVER PANCREAS – KIDNEYS” – nothing but one cell.
Now that is just brilliant.!!. How long did it take for you to come up with such a stupefying analogy?? Now you want to make people believe in “500 Million Year Old” Pregnancies in order to make the Fairytale of Evolution plausible?” I thought that 9 months was hard enough gestation period on a poor woman!! By the way.. I wonder who would win if we played a game of chess…. LOL No.. just kidding.. The result would be the same as it will end up being in this debate if you don’t flee the scene.. (Which I predict WILL happen) Sooner or later it always ends the same with the self proclaimed “Accidental Apes” LOL..
LikeLike
So, you don’t have an answer to the problem of development posed by every single multi-celled organism that you’ve ever encountered. I won’t fall off my chair in astonishment at the noise.
Shrug. Been fighting this game since the mid 1990s, online (as Troy knows, from observation). I’ll see you go off into abusing the brains of your family when you get upset here. Bye for now.
Sithrak has a spit oiled for you.
LikeLike
Hi Jim, I’m a little preoccupied at the moment but I will respond in due course.
LikeLike
OK. Take your time.. I know you can do better then the embarrassing answer that gravelinspector-Aidan did.. Wow was that embarrassing.. He obviously didn’t think it through very well before he posted did he?… I wonder who he thinks he was talking to? a 15 year old biology student??
Kind Regards Jim Thinnsen
LikeLike
Oh no, nowhere near that advanced.
LikeLike
WOW.. Your answer belies your scientific acumen.. LOL
BACTERIAL RESISTANCE? *By Jim Thinnsen
So, I’ll just debunk this nonsense. The bacterium that become resistant to the antibiotic is not the result of a mutation increasing information to the genome as evolutionary theory predicts, but rather a loss of sensitivity or less fitness in another way.
This happens due to a point mutation that changes the site of the ribosome so the drug molecule cannot attach to it therefore, it prevents the drug molecule attaching to the sites of the ribosome and interfering with the making of the proteins. Any one of several changes in the attachment site on the ribosomal site is enough to spoil its match with the mycin, this means that change in any one of several DNA nucleotides in the corresponding gene can confer resistance for the bacterium.
As a result, the ribosome loses specificity of the protein. Even though resistance is gained, it’s gained not by adding something, but by losing something in exchange for the resistance. Another mechanism in which the bacterium can be resistant to the drug is by sacrificing enzymes (also loses or degrades genetic information due to the loss of catalyst for biochemical reactions) that alter the drug from being active and thus making the bacterium practically less fit in some other way.
Here’s an article from nature supporting what I say about adaptation though loss-of-function mutations.
http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v14/n9/full/nrg3557.html
What about E.colI and its new ability to take citrate?.
The citric acid, tricarboxcylic acid (TCA), generates and utilizes citrate in its normal oxidative metabolism of glucose and other carbohydrates. And E.coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation.
This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell. This suite of genes (operon) is usually only activated under anaerobic conditions. So, an existing transporter gene, such as the one that normally takes up tartrate, which does not normally transport citrate, mutated such that it lost specificity and could then transport citrate into the cell. The transporter gene lost the ability to regulate when it was going to let the citrate inside of the cell
And at last, let me refute the lie that the darwinists feed us… which is nylon-eating bacteria.
This was also a lost of specificity similar to E.coli that happened due to a frame-shift mutation. Nylonase usually breaks down a very similar substance that is composed of multiple strings of carbon based molecules, the basic components used to make nylon come from coal and oil, which originally come from decayed carbon rich organic matter, and many molecules in living things are long strings of carbon based molecules as well, this means that with a lost of a specificity (frame-shift mutation), it could also allow nylon. This is what happened and the mutations was passed along through plasmids. In fact, Nylonase now takes different molecules that cause it to degenerate because it has lost its specificity. This is really bad for the bacterium because the ability of the enzyme to allow it to filer out the molecules that caused it to degenerate is now LOST
This is from the Journal of Biological Chemistry. “ 6-Aminohexanoate-dimer hydrolase (EII), responsible for the degradation of nylon-6 industry by-products, and its analogous enzyme (EII′) that has only ∼0.5% of the specific activity toward the 6-aminohexanoate-linear dimer, are encoded on plasmid pOAD2 of Arthrobacter sp. (formerly Flavobacterium sp.) KI72.”
LikeLike
Hello Troy… I should probably let you know that if you have a deep seated emotional attachment to the TOE for philosophical reasons and need to keep believing it is true due to the Implications of it.. I am the LAST person you want to have this discussion with… you would be much better off just dropping it like a hot potato.. ..don’t say I didn’t warn you!.. BTW… since you like chess, Here is one of my games from a US Open against a player currently ranked #7 in the world.. https://www.redhotpawn.com/chess/grandmaster-games/viewmastergame.php?pgnid=123188&subject=James_A_Thinnsen_vs_Hikaru_Nakamura
LikeLike
LikeLike
Laugh away Darwinist… We shall see if you think I am “cute” or not after we are through.. You got evidence for UCA for all flora and fauna that conforms to the scientific method? Let’s have it.. I will get the popcorn… This is going to be good!! Don’t worry.. I won’t hold my breath.. Haha You must think that this is all new territory for me.. right sport?
“Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.”
(Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world)
LikeLike
[Makes popcorn]
This isn’t going to be pretty. Troy will win – the only question is if he takes one hand out of his pocket. Two hands would be overkill.
Where’s the hose for washing the walls?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Metaphysical Naturalism *By Jim Thinnsen
This whole fairytale of Metaphysical Naturalism (Big Bang / Abiogenesis / UCA ) has nothing to do with Science.. And never did.. REAL Scientific Rigor doesnt require “Mulligans” to help their hypotheses along.. Ignoring Scientific Laws and principles like these ONLY for Philosophical Reasons is NOT SCIENTIFIC..
Law of Cause and Effect, You have to violate this AT LEAST ONCE!
Law of Biogenesis, You have to violate this AT LEAST ONCE!
LAW of “No Free Lunch” FLOT You have to violate this AT LEAST ONCE
Law of Entropy,, We OBSERVE Disorder NOT Order… SLOT Must be CONTINUALLY VIOLATED
Information Science..Receiver of Info ALWAYS requires a Sender CONTINUALLY VIOLATED
This is not about science and truth.. And it never has been.. It is about the IMPLICATIONS of it..
Richard Dawkins summed it up perfectly..
“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist”
LikeLike
Jim, you are pretty much violating rules 2 & 3 of the page at this point, please refrain from posting further questions/comments until we have dealt with your first (overly long question). Thanks.
LikeLike
Fair enough. Do you think that maybe Gravelinspector should also heed your advice unless he has something constructive to add to the topic.. (BTW last time I checked Ad Homs don’t qualify) The question I asked may seem long but is quite simple… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Which vital organ(s) from microbe (which has zero) to microbiologist (which has 10) could have “Evolved” 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th etc… A Plausible Order …
LikeLike
1) I believe Aidan was done (hence the popcorn), and he isn’t asking questions. You might note that I have asked him to dial things back in the past (on this page) so don’t think I have double standards here.
2) Snark is not the same as an ad hominem (a fallacious form of argument).
3) You just proved my point by restating your initial question in a more concise manner.
LikeLike
blocked?
LikeLike
No.
LikeLike
I don’t think Thinnsen is worth wasting time on. Typical god-squaddy, posting screeds made up in the past, with no connection to his previous question. His strategy is to try to occupy our time with his guff. Once he’s ended up getting himself blocked here, hell just move onto another site. Or come back under another name.
Interesting article on the radio about the genomics of Cheddar Man. If you can get BBC iPlayer, look for “Inside Science” on Radio 4.
LikeLike
I guess Jim’s now gone back to his creationism buddies and is whining how the nasty evolutionists were mean to him…
I found this blog by accident, can’t remember what I was searching for now. Not sure I’ll come back too often, my stupidity threshold is too low!
LikeLike
Don’t you find it just a little ironic that on a site called “Pigeonchess” One of the strongest Chessplayers in the US is mocked simply because he doesn’t believe that he is an accidental ape that evolved from pond scum for no reason? LOL BTW So just so I can try to understand.. During the course of “500 Million Years” While Living in the same environment at the same time, while SOME Jellyfish were evolving into Humans, OTHER Jellyfish were evolving into.. Jellyfish.. (“living fossils”) And you believe I am being unreasonable for pointing out the silliness of such a religious belief? “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist” Richard Dawkins
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com
LikeLike