Quote:

The fitness of insularia was estimated in recent years after the decrease of industrial pollution. The trees are brighter, but probably not so bright as they were before, due to rest pollution. Therefore it is quite likely that the fitness of insularia is now higher than it was before the industrial revolution.



I'm not going to argue that. I was simply pointing out there there are much simpler explanations for why we found a melanic moth before the revolution (besides the same mutations accidentally happening over and over). I figured it was just because they either existed (in such small numbers as to make their discovery difficult) or the insularia existed, 'hiding' them. Sorry if I'm being repetative, its just that you guys like to reference okham's razor when it works for you, not against you.

Quote:

Anyway, I won't insist of the peppered moth being a proof for a beneficial mutation (at least unless I happen to find some study with some other information). So let's that be just a proof of natural selection.



That's what annoyed me so much about trying to research it. Every paper was like, "Why would anyone disagree with this, because they land on bark and it doesn't matter where," etc etc etc. There just isn't really any information about the details floating about.

Quote:

Yes, this is the essential question: which hurdles?



I'll get into this more with your monkeys example. But number one, if most mutations are detrimental, some of them are probably going to stick and start cycling through the population (albeit not as much, but if they aren't outright lethal). Secondly, you say its just a matter of time as some of the mutations build up. But mutations can't just constantly build up if they're detrimental. Some of them might stick, but those organisms are less fit. So if in rewriting an entirely new gene, it has to go through 20 different steps of uselessness or detrimentality, or outright lethality, then how can we possibly hope for it to ever reach its endpoint? If it can be said to have an endpoint.

But, I'll wait a bit to get more elaborate.

Quote:

Creationism requires some hurdles to prevent beneficial mutations, otherwise probability would dictate that they happen. So what hurdles should that be?



That's true. However, evolutionists require that organisms can wait around without too many detrimental effects while their DNA is scrambled over and over again to eventually write something new. This doesn't make sense to me. If I scramble eggs with a fork, I don't expect that if I scramble them long enough they'll become anything other than scrambled eggs. Of course, this is a bad parallel to genetics, but it illustrates my point.

Quote:

If I understand you right, you're denying that the mutation is beneficial because anti-oxidants, rather than produced in the body as through this mutation, can also be eaten.



No, what I'm saying is that since we already have the ability to consume and use anti-oxidants, the loss of HDLs is negative because now all we can take advantage of is anti-oxidants. Before we could have made use of both. That would be much more healthy.

This mutation is definately beneficial.

What I'm saying is that, its specific ability to target hot spots was already written in the protein. So its specific role wasn't really written. In fact, its anti-oxidant ability wouldn't even be considered beneficial if it weren't for this fact.

Targeting of hot spots - HDLs
Targeting of hot spots - anti-oxidants

This is where the difference in information lies. In order to acheive the anti-oxidant, the order of HDLs has to be lost. Without the prefix of those two examples (the 'targeting of hot spots') the loss of HDLs in favor of anti-oxidants would be considered hugely detrimental. This mutation via loss is only favorable because of the originally written DNA. Besides, you keep focusing on how awesome this mutation is. I won't disagree, its got some pretty good benefits to it, and its true benficiality is going to shine through in the medical field. However, nothing new was written. Order was lost to 'acheive' this ability. No matter how many times mutations like these occur, we will always remain humans.

Quote:

A modified apoA-I protein, unknown before, comes into existence



Its not really a different protein. The only change was the switched amino acid. Technically its the 'same' protein it was before, it just has a different role now. Normally this protein would be able to produce HDLs well enough, but it doesn't do that so well anymore. This protein wasn't written though, it was changed.

Quote:

It's not the loss of the HDL producing proteine that matters here.



The protein wasn't lost. It was given a new name in effect of its new function.

Quote:

Most lead to the loss of some proteines, but some, as you see, lead to the creation of something completely new.



Ok, this is where we differ. You think that because one amino acid was changed, and they gave it a new name that its a brand new protein. If I take one brick out of a wall and add a different brick, is it a different brick wall?

Notice the similarities between the two names. Its not like the protein was completely gone, just some of the data in the protein was lost. In the process it gained a new function.

Quote:

Imagine you want to write "creationism requires Voodoo.".



This example is SO toned down from reality its beyond funny. There isn't just a pool of DNA waiting to be written. You might be more accurate to say you want to rewrite the sentence

"Run over the ground."

to the sentence

"Fly through the sky."

Now, if you let monkeys randomly type at the keyboard, even if they get a letter right, it has to make sense in the overall picture. In other words ending up with the word 'Ruy' wouldn't be useful because even though its closer to 'Fly' it makes no sense. We can randomly get closer to a different sentence, but because the DNA is already ordered, it has to fit into the larger picture of the order because the creature is dependent on this pre-existing order to live.

Step 1:

"Ruy over the ground."

Animal is selected out. Return to origin.

Step 2:

"Run over the groons."

Animal is selected out. Return to origin.

This isn't exactly how mutations and DNA work, but its closer than your example.

Quote:

what else can a bacteria develop in a chemostat with a bacteriophage, other than resistence to that bacteriophage?



Its evolution, in the wrong direction. If pressure applied can only reduce the order of the genetics, then evolution has a huge hurdle to overcome, namely the constant degrading of DNA.

Quote:

What you could see, theoretically, in a lab is the evolution of a new fly or bacteria species. I don't know if this was observed so far, but I think it's entirely possible.



New species of fly wouldn't be that important. A new species of bacteria would be another thing. If we saw one bacteria become another, then creationists might have a problem. As it is, all pressures do is force bacteria to adapt within their range, or lose data to adapt.

This is a very simplistic example, but if I put pressure to select out cells with an 'A' and we have a cell with

ABCDEFG

and after applying pressure the creature becomes BCDEFG it doesn't matter. This just goes to show that organisms can survive by losing some of their DNA. Ok, let's move on to some real examples.

I'm not going to argue the nylon issue because its a lengthy, and complex problem. I will refer you to this. You can ignore it, or not. But since you like to reference talk origins, its only fair that I be able to reference this.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna work on my RPG. Good day.

Oh wait, one more thing.

Quote:

Still waiting to see a valid argument as to why Creationism would have to reject evolution in any way shape or form. It is a mystery to me as to how it even excludes the theory.



Creationism doesn't request a rejection of evolution, common sense does.

Quote:

Isn't natural selection just a small equation towards the change in evolution?



Its not an equation, its a variable in the equation.

"A + B * C / D = F" isn't quite the same as saying "D".

Quote:

It has always been my belief that the factors that lead to change in mutation or selective processes are as random and varied in nature as nature itself.



Nature is random? Its so well ordered, I don't see how you have any possible claim to this.

Quote:

Adaptation for survival would probably be the biggest ingredient towards change in evolution.



Maybe, if it did anything other than reduce order.

I don't know how much longer I can keep this up.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 05/01/06 20:38.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."