I haven't made it through the whole site yet, because nearly everything I have read so far is so full or misinformation and a complete lack of understanding of the basic principles of evolution that I just get too frustrated.

For example, the idea that there should be "transitional species" with incompletely formed features. Garbage. A species is not "trying to evolve" to anything. It isn't "trying to make that ear but hasn't finished yet". It may start with some very primitive bone structures containing pressure sensitive moieties, then later improve these structures to detect smaller changes in frequency or amplitude of sound. It is a continuum, and each step along the way is an improvement over what was there previously.

These are basics. The "Why Do You Believe In Evolution" series on your homepage is so full of misinformation that it would take a tremendous amount of time to point it all out and explain, as I've tried to do above. So I wish you good luck. I expect you'll have a lot of creationists visiting this message board agreeing with everything you've said, and complementing you on such a well laid out argument. But you will not change anyone's mind who has even a cursory knowledge of evolution, because your errors in reasoning are so obvious. Again, good luck, I will try to check back here occasionally, but really I'm hard pressed to justify the time I've already spent here.

1. Please explain how ONE chance mutation would lay the genetic foundation for the ability to sense pressure.
2. Please explain how THE SECOND mutation miraculously found and built on the first to further evolve to possess that abilty (not funcational yet).
3. Please explain what 'drives' a mutation to create a complex genetic sequence that incrementally and progressively changes with each mutation without having any game plan.
4. Please explain why the first to the subsequent mutations necessary to allow for a fully operational 'sense' would be preserved by natural selection.

From out site:
Only changes in the germline (cells passed on to the next generation) are relevant to evolution, but molecular change in germ cells have been found to harm overall genetic fitness, not improve it.
“In short, the notion that molecules of germ cells … are in states of perpetual change is not, in our present understanding of cell biology, tenable. This doesn’t mean that “molecular change” does not occur; only that mechanisms provoking such change in germ cells are likely instantaneous and stochastic and probably often lethal (Maresca and Schwartz 2006) – which will preclude their persistence into future generations.”
Jeffrey H. Schwartz / Bruno Maresca, Do Molecular Clocks Run at All? A Critique of Molecular Systematics (See PDF)

“The copying is far more precise than pure chemistry could manage—only about 1 mistake in 10 billion copyings, because there is editing (proof-reading and error-checking) machinery, again encoded in the DNA.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/dna.asp?vPrint=1

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I haven't made it through the whole site yet, because nearly everything I have read so far is so full or misinformation and a complete lack of understanding of the basic principles of evolution that I just get too frustrated.

For example, the idea that there should be "transitional species" with incompletely formed features. Garbage. A species is not "trying to evolve" to anything. It isn't "trying to make that ear but hasn't finished yet". It may start with some very primitive bone structures containing pressure sensitive moieties, then later improve these structures to detect smaller changes in frequency or amplitude of sound. It is a continuum, and each step along the way is an improvement over what was there previously.

These are basics. The "Why Do You Believe In Evolution" series on your homepage is so full of misinformation that it would take a tremendous amount of time to point it all out and explain, as I've tried to do above. So I wish you good luck. I expect you'll have a lot of creationists visiting this message board agreeing with everything you've said, and complementing you on such a well laid out argument. But you will not change anyone's mind who has even a cursory knowledge of evolution, because your errors in reasoning are so obvious. Again, good luck, I will try to check back here occasionally, but really I'm hard pressed to justify the time I've already spent here.

This is all really, really basic stuff. I don't have a degree in ear anatomy, however, we know that sound, or pressure oscillations, are transmitted into electrical signals through the opening and closing of mechanically gated auditory hair cells. In short, pressure waves in the inner ear push fluid against a hair cell, which causes a small opening in the cell, into which flow positively charged ions. This receptor potential starts an action potential, or nerve signal. This mechanically gated structure probably evolved from other pressure sensing structures, such as those present in our skin. You can poke an earthworm, and its mechanically-gated ion channels open, sending a signal to the brain, causing the worm to shrink up or squirm. These are more primitive sensing devices, but actually the mechanically-gated ion channels in a worm are the same ones that you and I have. In our ear, we have simply evolved more sensitive apparatuses that amplify small changes in pressure, i.e. sound. What did these mechanically gated ion channels originally evolve from? I'm not sure that answer is known yet. I could imagine that the ability to sense pressure was developed very early on, since organisms that could sense pressure would have a far greater chance of survival. So the first pressure-sensing devices were undoubtedly very primitive and probably didn't resemble anything we have now. It could have been something as simple as a short chain of amino acids embedded in a cell membrane which, when pushed on (by a small vibrating bone, for example), created a hole in the membrane that allowed ions to flow in, starting the signaling cascade. Short chains of amino acids were certainly around very early on, and any lipophyllic sequences would embed in a cell membrane.

Importantly, although this is not a fully developed ear, it is functional. This gets to your second question; the part you wrote in parentheses demonstrates your lack of understanding of basic evolutionary principles. Again, although the "ear" I have described above is very primitive, it works a little. It is functional. Mutations from there on out would simply allow the "ear" to become more sensitive. For example, perhaps a second, larger bone grows in the same general vicinity. Now the organism can differentiate between low frequencies and high frequencies. Again, this "ear" is still very primitive, but it is functional and offers an advantage over organisms that do not possess it.

As for your third question, there is no "drive" to create a complex genetic sequence. However, a larger amount of genetic material makes an organism more able to adapt: there are a larger number of subtle genetic changes (mutations) that might allow one part of an organism to adapt to an environmental stress, while the other parts that don't need to change stay the same. So that is why more genetic material is better (to a point...all of this material must be copied with each cell division, which is energetically costly). However, again, there is no game plan. An organism adapts to its environment. It is not trying to reach some magical endpoint. If a mutation leads to greater reproductive fitness, it sticks. Otherwise the mutation dies with the organism.

I hope I have already spoken to your fourth point, however at the risk of being redundant, let me say again, the first mutation led to some kind of "sensing device". Although undoubtedly primitive and barely functional, it helped the organism survive. Each subsequent mutation simply improved the function of that sensing device. The device did not suddenly become functional. It was function all along, it just got better. This is one of the most basic tenets of evolutionary theory, and it's one that you continually get wrong on your website. In fact, about 75% of what I've read on this site demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of this very basic principle. It's nauseating.

The first quote you list is difficult to make sense of as no context is provided. I bet the vast majority of readers on this site do not know the meaning of the word "stochastic". Actually, I really have no idea how that quote is relevant to this argument.

Second quote: Ummm, the copying IS pure chemistry. What else would be going on? Do you think the divine hand of (___) is reaching down to guide this process?

Excellent work, sir. However - watch her reply. She'll twist what she was looking for into something that either she never asked for or for something that's not answerable in any scientific way...

But I just had to point out how very thorough your answer was... well done.

Thank you for your very articulate explanation of how sound is transmitted. However, we were hoping you could actually explain how chance mutations would ‘create’ the ability to sense pressure (let alone a fully developed ear capable of receiving audible sounds).

Mimicking the typical evolutionary attempt to explain evolution, you usage of the following phrases reflect your poor understanding of genetics and comprehension of scientific discovery:
“I could imagine”
“It could have been something as simple”
“ … it works a little. It is functional.”
“far greater chance of survival”
“Mutations from there on out would simply …”
“a larger amount of genetic material makes an organism more able to adapt”
“the first mutation led to some kind of "sensing device"”
“the copying IS pure chemistry. What else would be going on? Do you think the divine hand of (___) is reaching down to guide this process?”

1. There is no such thing as the word ‘simple’ in the field of genetics.

2. “A larger amount of genetic material” does nothing to create NEW genetic instructions. NEW complex and precise gene sequences are necessary, not just existing ones or ones corrupted by mutations.
(From http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/genetics.html
Evolutionists point to an increase of information in DNA as proof for evolution, but NEW information is needed to create novel changes, not just duplicate information.
“Epulopiscium fishelsoni is the world’s largest bacterium. It is half a millimetre long and weighs in at a million times the mass of a typical bacterium. In fact no-one believed it was a bacterium until genetic tests proved it. And it has a whopping 25 times as much DNA as a human cell. The number of multiple copies of one of its genes has been counted and found to be no less than 85,000.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/DNAduplication.asp

3. “ … it works a little. It is functional.”
If you believe that a couple chance mutations can create a ‘functional’ new feature, you’ve been reading too much science fiction.

Since you do acknowledge that “sound, or pressure oscillations, are transmitted into electrical signals through the opening and closing of mechanically gated auditory hair cells” why don’t you take us through chance mutations of ONE mechanically gated hair cell, chance mutations of the ‘wiring’ for the electrical signals that transmit to the brain, and then chance mutations of the receptors that receive and react to the signals in order for it all to ‘function’? And, why don't you throw in the mutations needed to connect everything together while you're at it.
These links might help you with the mechanics of it all:
http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050318-4.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=bnchm.box.3378

4. In regard to your refreshing admission,
“What did these mechanically gated ion channels originally evolve from? I'm not sure that answer is known yet.”
When you guys figure it all out, why don’t you THEN put such nonsense out there as fact.

5. In regard to your final comment:
“Ummm, the copying IS pure chemistry. What else would be going on? Do you think the divine hand of (___) is reaching down to guide this process?”

Yes, copying IS pure chemistry. Copying and creating NEW INFORMATION in FULLY FUNCTIONAL GENES reflect the evolutionist’s delusion … and the creationist’s awe of God.

"the following phrases reflect your poor understanding of genetics and comprehension of scientific discovery:"

Amusing.

I don't see how all of the quotes you listed relate to one another. For example, I wrote "I could imagine" because I don't have the answer. I don't pretend to have the answer. However I have written a plausible hypothesis that can be tested. On the other hand, I wrote "the copying IS pure chemistry..." which is simply a factual statement. Again, I don't see how those two quotes are related, how the quotes in between are related, or what your purpose was in listing all of them. I disagree that each quote demonstrates a "poor understanding of genetics and comprehension of scientific discovery". That's the amusing part. Let me make this clear, I don't have all of the answers; there is so much that remains unknown. The difference is, when I don't know something, I say I don't know it, I put forth a plausible, testable explanation, and I test it. When you don't know something, you throw up your hands and say, "Please don't dig any deeper, because this lack of understanding proves that there is a god."

So, you tacitly acknowledge that 75% of what is written on this website is based on misinformation and a complete lack of understanding of the basics of evolution. Good, we're making progress.

A couple of clarifications: the theory of evolution does not explain the origins of life. Many of the questions you ask relate directly to how things began, and the answers to these questions are unknown. But many people are working to understand them. Again, one can throw up their hands and say "There must be a god!" or one can dive in and try and get some answers, which is challenging and takes time. Which is another thing you seem to not understand.

I keep rereading the "poor understanding of genetics" line. That cracks me up. Well, it is true, I don't know everything.

Onward with your questions:
How did a chance mutation create the ability to sense pressure? I think I answered this, however perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The answer is unknown. Furthermore, your question is more closely related to the "origins of life" question than it is to the evolution question. Several questions need to be answered before one can attempt to answer the one you have posed. For example, what were the first replicators? How did a cell membrane evolve? What is the origin of membrane potential? What was the first mechanically-gated ion channel? The answer to the first question is not known. The answer to the second question is actively being researched. The answer to the third question is certainly unknown. And all 3 of these questions probably need to be answered in order to get at the fourth question. So, we can either say, "I don't know, but these are fascinating questions, so let's formulate a plan to answer them", or we can say "I don't know, therefore god exists".

Are we clear on how a primitive "hearing device" evolves into an ear by stepwise progression through a series of increasingly sophisticated functional "ears"? No? Let me first explain, as I previously tried to do, that your website misses one of the fundamental tenets of evolution: that each step along the way from a primitive device to a complex and sophisticated device involves a functional device, one that is slightly better than what it replaced. It is NEVER a case of several complex changes occurring then, bam! you have an ear. That is preposterous. Yet a large number of quotes on your home page claim that the theory of evolution supposes just that! So you see, that is where my claims that - (1) this website is garbage and (2) it is full of misinformation - comes from. Getting back to the point, a primitive hearing device could evolve into a complex hearing device through a series of gradual changes, each improving on the device it replaced. I don't know what the molecular structure of the first "ear" was; it's a very interesting question. However (again, this is not known, but it is a testable hypothesis), genes are known to duplicate (for example, a subset of the population has an extra vertebrae, a subset has an extra finger, a subset has an extra toe, etc.). Therefore, you can postulate the existence of an extra bone in the "ear" of a primitive organism. This second bone could be bigger or smaller than the first, giving the ability to differentiate between frequencies. A single point mutation could change the density of this bone, making it more sensitive to smaller changes in frequency and amplitude. Do you want me to take this further? If you're looking for the genetic code that makes an ear, and for exactly which codon mutated in order to create a second bone, this information is not known, and it won't be known for a long time. Again, it is very difficult to know how the first pressure sensing devices worked. However, the theory of evolution postulates how a series of simple changes can build on each other, as I've hypothesized above, to create something that is more complex.

1. There is plenty that is simple in the field of genetics.

2. New genetic instructions are created by gene duplication. For example, extra vertebrae, fingers, toes, etc. A mutation does not render DNA corrupt. Yet another complete pile of rubbish on your homepage. Mutated DNA is copied in exactly the same way that "wild-type" DNA is copied. It's not as if a new (mutant) base pair is somehow marked with red ink. The mutant base pair is incorporated into the organisms genome, and either the mutation is favorable (the organism reproduces), or it's not (the organism dies). But the idea that mutations somehow render DNA unusable is just absolute garbage. "Corrupted by mutations". Unbelievable.

Again, do you want me to carry this further? Do you need me to explain how a single point mutation could then make a new finger bigger or smaller, and how that new finger could offer advantages over organisms that only have, for example, one finger?

I'm not sure where you're going with the bit about the bacterium. Although it strikes me as ironic that the whole field of genetics wouldn't even be around if, 150 years ago, people had thrown up their arms and said, "We don't understand heredity, therefore god exists!" Funny.

3. Again, I can't tell you much about the origins of life. This is an active area of research. The theory of evolution does not explain how replication first happened, or what the very first building blocks of life were. It instead postulates how very simple organisms (however you define them) can evolve into things much more complex. We don't even know if DNA was the first genetic building block, so how can I possibly tell you how a chance mutation created a functional hearing device? I think I was quite clear in saying that my explanation was a hypothesis. If you believe that a couple of mutations can't dramatically change the function of a structure, or the chances of an organism's survival, then you haven't been reading enough science.

The second part of point 3 is really kind of silly, because obviously only a specialist who has performed a sequence alignment between several types of ion channels would be able to answer the question. Nevertheless, I will attempt to explain a couple of parts of this. An introductory neurophysiology textbook would certainly do a better job than I can, however. Ok. We have several different types of ion channels that control signaling in our central nervous system. These include the sodium channels (they pass sodium ions through the cell membrane), potassium channels, calcium channels, and nonspecific cation channels, among others. Each of these proteins serves the same purpose: to allow a specific type of ion to pass through the cell membrane, which would normally be impermeable to a charged species (an ion). Many of these ion channels have similar structures. For example, the voltage gated (i.e. they open and close in response to changes in membrane potential) ion channels are generally made up of 24 alpha helices, organized in 4 domains, each containing 6 alpha-helices, which organize into a structure with a pore that passes a particular ion, and a gating device which opens and closes in response to (in this case) voltage. You can lay out the sequences of these proteins, each having on the order of 1600 amino acids, and see that there are vast similarities in each type of ion channel. Which is amazing, considering that one type of channel passes sodium ions from the outside of the cell to the inside, while another type passes potassium ions from the inside to the out. That is, they have quite different and specific functions. Yet, at the molecular level, they are very similar. Even more amazing, you can take a voltage gated sodium channel, and with just 3 mutations, you can change it into a functional voltage-gated calcium channel! 3 mutations and you completely change the function of that protein. I think that's amazing. Furthermore, you may have heard of paralytic shellfish poisoning? You eat infected clams at the wrong time of year and you keel over? Well, the toxin that creates the problem is called saxitoxin, and it blocks the voltage-gated sodium channel, so that, in essence, signals can no longer be sent through you central nervous system. The interesting part is that most clams will die if they are exposed to saxitoxin. However, a subpopulation of clams that live in areas of paralytic shellfish poisoning outbreaks have evolved a single point mutation, a glutamate to aspartate mutation, that makes them completely insensitive to saxitoxin! To summarize this section, the complex machinery of the central nervous system (sodium channels, potassium channels, nonspecific ion channels, etc.) is all evolved from a single, or small number of ion channels, whose functions have differentiated through a very small number of mutations, in order to make the system more efficient. Furthermore, a single point mutation can dramatically alter an organisms chances for survival.

I have not answered all of your questions, because some of the answers are not known, and most of them would take an inordinate amount of time, beyond what I have already spent, to answer. However, if you pare down some of your questions, I will try to write further on these issues.

The links you posted are exactly in line with what I already wrote. Why are they included?

4. I hope I have already made this point, but in case I did not, scientists do not have all of the answers. However, when we come upon a problem that looks like it is worth solving, we try to solve it, instead of claiming that our lack of knowledge proves the existence of god. Furthermore, again basics here, theories cannot be proven, they can only be disproven. It amazes me that you would write (I think several times on your website) that because the theory has not yet been proven it must be junk. Let me say that again, a theory can NEVER be proven, it can only be disproven. The theory of evolution would be very easy to disprove, for example if you found a human skull in a fossil source predating humans. But that hasn't happened.

5. Wait, so here you admit that copying IS pure chemistry, yet the first quote you put up ("The copying is far more precise than pure chemistry could manage") says just the opposite. Ok. Well, again, I'm glad we're making progress.

Your comment sums it all up:

Brian:
"How did a chance mutation create the ability to sense pressure? I think I answered this, however perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The answer is unknown."

Again, when you guys are able to prove your nonsense, let us know.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"the following phrases reflect your poor understanding of genetics and comprehension of scientific discovery:"

Amusing.

I don't see how all of the quotes you listed relate to one another. For example, I wrote "I could imagine" because I don't have the answer. I don't pretend to have the answer. However I have written a plausible hypothesis that can be tested. On the other hand, I wrote "the copying IS pure chemistry..." which is simply a factual statement. Again, I don't see how those two quotes are related, how the quotes in between are related, or what your purpose was in listing all of them. I disagree that each quote demonstrates a "poor understanding of genetics and comprehension of scientific discovery". That's the amusing part. Let me make this clear, I don't have all of the answers; there is so much that remains unknown. The difference is, when I don't know something, I say I don't know it, I put forth a plausible, testable explanation, and I test it. When you don't know something, you throw up your hands and say, "Please don't dig any deeper, because this lack of understanding proves that there is a god."

So, you tacitly acknowledge that 75% of what is written on this website is based on misinformation and a complete lack of understanding of the basics of evolution. Good, we're making progress.

A couple of clarifications: the theory of evolution does not explain the origins of life. Many of the questions you ask relate directly to how things began, and the answers to these questions are unknown. But many people are working to understand them. Again, one can throw up their hands and say "There must be a god!" or one can dive in and try and get some answers, which is challenging and takes time. Which is another thing you seem to not understand.

I keep rereading the "poor understanding of genetics" line. That cracks me up. Well, it is true, I don't know everything.

Onward with your questions:
How did a chance mutation create the ability to sense pressure? I think I answered this, however perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The answer is unknown. Furthermore, your question is more closely related to the "origins of life" question than it is to the evolution question. Several questions need to be answered before one can attempt to answer the one you have posed. For example, what were the first replicators? How did a cell membrane evolve? What is the origin of membrane potential? What was the first mechanically-gated ion channel? The answer to the first question is not known. The answer to the second question is actively being researched. The answer to the third question is certainly unknown. And all 3 of these questions probably need to be answered in order to get at the fourth question. So, we can either say, "I don't know, but these are fascinating questions, so let's formulate a plan to answer them", or we can say "I don't know, therefore god exists".

Are we clear on how a primitive "hearing device" evolves into an ear by stepwise progression through a series of increasingly sophisticated functional "ears"? No? Let me first explain, as I previously tried to do, that your website misses one of the fundamental tenets of evolution: that each step along the way from a primitive device to a complex and sophisticated device involves a functional device, one that is slightly better than what it replaced. It is NEVER a case of several complex changes occurring then, bam! you have an ear. That is preposterous. Yet a large number of quotes on your home page claim that the theory of evolution supposes just that! So you see, that is where my claims that - (1) this website is garbage and (2) it is full of misinformation - comes from. Getting back to the point, a primitive hearing device could evolve into a complex hearing device through a series of gradual changes, each improving on the device it replaced. I don't know what the molecular structure of the first "ear" was; it's a very interesting question. However (again, this is not known, but it is a testable hypothesis), genes are known to duplicate (for example, a subset of the population has an extra vertebrae, a subset has an extra finger, a subset has an extra toe, etc.). Therefore, you can postulate the existence of an extra bone in the "ear" of a primitive organism. This second bone could be bigger or smaller than the first, giving the ability to differentiate between frequencies. A single point mutation could change the density of this bone, making it more sensitive to smaller changes in frequency and amplitude. Do you want me to take this further? If you're looking for the genetic code that makes an ear, and for exactly which codon mutated in order to create a second bone, this information is not known, and it won't be known for a long time. Again, it is very difficult to know how the first pressure sensing devices worked. However, the theory of evolution postulates how a series of simple changes can build on each other, as I've hypothesized above, to create something that is more complex.

1. There is plenty that is simple in the field of genetics.

2. New genetic instructions are created by gene duplication. For example, extra vertebrae, fingers, toes, etc. A mutation does not render DNA corrupt. Yet another complete pile of rubbish on your homepage. Mutated DNA is copied in exactly the same way that "wild-type" DNA is copied. It's not as if a new (mutant) base pair is somehow marked with red ink. The mutant base pair is incorporated into the organisms genome, and either the mutation is favorable (the organism reproduces), or it's not (the organism dies). But the idea that mutations somehow render DNA unusable is just absolute garbage. "Corrupted by mutations". Unbelievable.

Again, do you want me to carry this further? Do you need me to explain how a single point mutation could then make a new finger bigger or smaller, and how that new finger could offer advantages over organisms that only have, for example, one finger?

I'm not sure where you're going with the bit about the bacterium. Although it strikes me as ironic that the whole field of genetics wouldn't even be around if, 150 years ago, people had thrown up their arms and said, "We don't understand heredity, therefore god exists!" Funny.

3. Again, I can't tell you much about the origins of life. This is an active area of research. The theory of evolution does not explain how replication first happened, or what the very first building blocks of life were. It instead postulates how very simple organisms (however you define them) can evolve into things much more complex. We don't even know if DNA was the first genetic building block, so how can I possibly tell you how a chance mutation created a functional hearing device? I think I was quite clear in saying that my explanation was a hypothesis. If you believe that a couple of mutations can't dramatically change the function of a structure, or the chances of an organism's survival, then you haven't been reading enough science.

The second part of point 3 is really kind of silly, because obviously only a specialist who has performed a sequence alignment between several types of ion channels would be able to answer the question. Nevertheless, I will attempt to explain a couple of parts of this. An introductory neurophysiology textbook would certainly do a better job than I can, however. Ok. We have several different types of ion channels that control signaling in our central nervous system. These include the sodium channels (they pass sodium ions through the cell membrane), potassium channels, calcium channels, and nonspecific cation channels, among others. Each of these proteins serves the same purpose: to allow a specific type of ion to pass through the cell membrane, which would normally be impermeable to a charged species (an ion). Many of these ion channels have similar structures. For example, the voltage gated (i.e. they open and close in response to changes in membrane potential) ion channels are generally made up of 24 alpha helices, organized in 4 domains, each containing 6 alpha-helices, which organize into a structure with a pore that passes a particular ion, and a gating device which opens and closes in response to (in this case) voltage. You can lay out the sequences of these proteins, each having on the order of 1600 amino acids, and see that there are vast similarities in each type of ion channel. Which is amazing, considering that one type of channel passes sodium ions from the outside of the cell to the inside, while another type passes potassium ions from the inside to the out. That is, they have quite different and specific functions. Yet, at the molecular level, they are very similar. Even more amazing, you can take a voltage gated sodium channel, and with just 3 mutations, you can change it into a functional voltage-gated calcium channel! 3 mutations and you completely change the function of that protein. I think that's amazing. Furthermore, you may have heard of paralytic shellfish poisoning? You eat infected clams at the wrong time of year and you keel over? Well, the toxin that creates the problem is called saxitoxin, and it blocks the voltage-gated sodium channel, so that, in essence, signals can no longer be sent through you central nervous system. The interesting part is that most clams will die if they are exposed to saxitoxin. However, a subpopulation of clams that live in areas of paralytic shellfish poisoning outbreaks have evolved a single point mutation, a glutamate to aspartate mutation, that makes them completely insensitive to saxitoxin! To summarize this section, the complex machinery of the central nervous system (sodium channels, potassium channels, nonspecific ion channels, etc.) is all evolved from a single, or small number of ion channels, whose functions have differentiated through a very small number of mutations, in order to make the system more efficient. Furthermore, a single point mutation can dramatically alter an organisms chances for survival.

I have not answered all of your questions, because some of the answers are not known, and most of them would take an inordinate amount of time, beyond what I have already spent, to answer. However, if you pare down some of your questions, I will try to write further on these issues.

The links you posted are exactly in line with what I already wrote. Why are they included?

4. I hope I have already made this point, but in case I did not, scientists do not have all of the answers. However, when we come upon a problem that looks like it is worth solving, we try to solve it, instead of claiming that our lack of knowledge proves the existence of god. Furthermore, again basics here, theories cannot be proven, they can only be disproven. It amazes me that you would write (I think several times on your website) that because the theory has not yet been proven it must be junk. Let me say that again, a theory can NEVER be proven, it can only be disproven. The theory of evolution would be very easy to disprove, for example if you found a human skull in a fossil source predating humans. But that hasn't happened.

5. Wait, so here you admit that copying IS pure chemistry, yet the first quote you put up ("The copying is far more precise than pure chemistry could manage") says just the opposite. Ok. Well, again, I'm glad we're making progress.

It seems pretty clear from your comment that you didn't actually read any of my response. In particular, you seem proud of the fact that I admitted that neither I nor science has all of the answers. Ironically, I made the point several times that, if we had thrown up our hands 150 years ago and quit with an "I don't know", we wouldn't have a very large body of knowledge that we have now. The fact that we don't know is exactly what makes science interesting. It gives us tools to better understand, instead of giving up.

I further stated several times that a theory cannon be proven, it can only be disproven. Yet you still challenge me to prove the theory.

So, I guess you didn't read my response. Which is strange considering there seems to be a team of you. I guess you have given up? Very common, sadly, that instead of trying to understand, you give up and say "god made it happen".

1. Response to your comment:
“you tacitly acknowledge that 75% of what is written on this website is based on misinformation and a complete lack of understanding of the basics of evolution.

First, please cite exactly where we “tacitly” acknowledged that. Also, you MUST be specific on what “misinformation” you are referring to so we can review any that you might propose. While we appreciate anyone correcting us so that our site remains truthful, generalities only prove you have NO evidence of misinformation. (Your complaint with the word ‘corrupted’ is addressed directly below.)

The following is our website’s use of the word ‘corrupted’:
(From http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/mutations.html )
“And, until the new trait or feature is completed and considering its new corrupted and non-functional DNA, why would the new organism be considered more fit?
From the Centre of Genetics Education:
“However, some changes to the genetic code cause the message to be changed so that it is no longer understood by the cell: the gene is broken or faulty. Changes that make the genes faulty are called mutations. If the message to the cell comes from a faulty gene, the cell will either not make the correct protein product, will make it in reduced amounts or will not make it at all. Faulty genes (mutated genes) may cause a problem with the development and functioning of different body systems or organs and result in a genetic condition.”
http://www.genetics.com.au/factsheet/02.htm
(Please notice the key word being ‘faulty.’)

2. You reiterate that there is NO reasonable explanation OR proof for the creation of a new apparatus (the components necessary to sense pressure) by mutations:
"I don't have the answer. I don't pretend to have the answer."
"How did a chance mutation create the ability to sense pressure? I think I answered this, however perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The answer is unknown.”
“How did a cell membrane evolve? What is the origin of membrane potential? What was the first mechanically-gated ion channel? The answer to the first question is not known. The answer to the second question is actively being researched. The answer to the third question is certainly unknown. And all 3 of these questions probably need to be answered in order to get at the fourth question.”

3. But then, you recant and twice present (too long to copy) science fiction-like scenarios of how evolution could create a pressure sensitive apparatus. You claim to “have written a plausible testable hypothesis” and “a plausible, testable explanation” so please provide your formulated conclusions and we’ll go over it and assess them for you.

4. Response to your comment:
” your question is more closely related to the "origins of life" question than it is to the evolution question.”

Are evolutionists now claiming that evolution by mutations and natural selection is the study of abiogenesis and NOT related to evolution?
If so, it’s obvious that you guys have finally thrown in the towel and we thank you for your final resolve that evolution is fiction, NOT fact.

5. Response to your comment:
“Do you need me to explain how a single point mutation could then make a new finger bigger or smaller …”

Smaller or bigger fingers are NOT caused by mutations because they are variations and adaptations that DO NOT result from copying errors (mutations):
“… there are often small differences between individuals in the information contained in our coding DNA: our genes. If we didn't have these differences, everyone would look the same … Generally these differences do not make any impact on our health and are called polymorphisms (poly means many; morphisms means forms). They are quite common. So while the genetic code may be slightly changed by having a polymorphism, the change has not significantly altered the gene message: the information is still understood by the cell.”
http://www.genetics.com.au/factsheet/02.htm

6. Response to your comment:
“Are we clear on how a primitive "hearing device" evolves into an ear by stepwise progression through a series of increasingly sophisticated functional "ears"? No? Let me first explain, as I previously tried to do, that your website misses one of the fundamental tenets of evolution: that each step along the way from a primitive device to a complex and sophisticated device involves a functional device, one that is slightly better than what it replaced. It is NEVER a case of several complex changes occurring then, bam! you have an ear.”

Did you forget that you already conceded that even evolutionists don’t know how evolution works? (Go back to #2.) What you failed to do is back up your theory by first proving that the incremental steps can and have occurred. When you accomplish that, then you can attempt to prove those ‘evolved’ features continue to evolve into even more complex features.

7. Response to your comment:
“It amazes me that you would write (I think several times on your website) that because the theory has not yet been proven it must be junk. Let me say that again, a theory can NEVER be proven, it can only be disproven.”

Gravity is provable due to real time observation of the effects of it. What you are referring to is that evolutionists believe that evolution hasn’t been ‘falsified,’ so it is true. However, creation was believed to be fact long before the theory of evolution was invented. Using that same argument, because creation has never been falsified, creation is still true.
(To give you more clarity on the term ‘falsifying’ go to:
http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp and scroll to: AN UNFALSIFIABLE TAUTOLOGY?)

8. Response to your comment:
“The theory of evolution would be very easy to disprove, for example if you found a human skull in a fossil source predating humans. But that hasn't happened.”

Your timing couldn’t have been worse (for you):
“The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors. The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20178936/

*Yawn*

1. Here are some examples of misinformation:
a. Your billboard. It implies that a monkey may suddenly develop human hair, then human eyes, then a human face. Nonsense and misleading to the general public. Evolution does not suggest this kind of transformation in any way.
b. The idea that because evolution lacks scientific proof it must be false. I have gone over this too many times already.
c. "Fossils are always found fully formed, having no partially formed features." Total garbage. As I've spelled out numerous times, an organism is not trying to evolve a particular feature. The idea that a partial nose or wing stub or whatever should show up in the fossil record is nonsense. "Can you give an example of JUST ONE fossil that display organisms with features ‘in transition'?". This is absurd and not congruent with evolutionary theory.
d. "accumulations of mutations retained in an organism’s DNA (genetic code) produce an overall genetic weakness that causes death and disease, not increased ‘fitness.’" Nonsense. See the clam mutation I outlined above.
e. "until the new trait or feature is completed and considering its new corrupted and non-functional DNA" Complete garbage. Again, a new trait is not trying to achieve some magical end. Furthermore, as stated previously ad nauseum, mutations do not render DNA non-functional. You are deliberately trying to mislead the majority of the public who are not versed in genetics.
f. "A year ago, biologists looking over newly sequenced genomes from more than a dozen microorganisms thought these data might support the accepted plot lines of life's early history. But what they saw confounded them." True, and totally out of context. Genetic sequencing is a very new technology, and is the only unambiguous means of classifying organisms. It is much more precise than previous methods, therefore many species that were thought to be closely related based on physical features actually are more distantly related. Totally consistent with evolutionary theory.
g. "The important point is that science has now quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (.0000001%) of an animal's genome is relentlessly fatal!” Total garbage. A single point mutation can drastically INCREASE an organism's chances for survival. I've already gone over this.
h. "After a number of changes appear in an existing feature, the genetic capacity for additional change literally runs out." Total garbage. An existing feature will evolve until further change does not improve that organisms chances for survival. Which is why we're not all 10 feet tall.
i. "Everything should be in perpetual transition and we should see a hodge-podge of everything - No defined trees, flowers, insects, fish, amphibians, mammals, birds, etc." Absolutely absurd. Each organism has adapted to its particular environment. There are many environments on this planet and many species.

I am bored with this exercise. But trust me, the garbage on this website is almost endless.

To reiterate, your idea that a mutation somehow corrupts DNA is garbage. Sometimes a mutation improves an organism's chances for survival, sometimes it decreases its chances. However, the DNA is still DNA. Your use of "corrupted and non-functional" is wrong and misleading.

2. I NEVER said "there is no reasonable explanation", look at the quotes you listed! I said I don't know what the answer is. I can't believe I have to spell this out for you. 400 years ago no one knew that the earth revolved around the sun. And the church banned Galileo's teachings because they didn't fit with the church's beliefs. 75 years ago, the term DNA did not exist. I will not continue down this avenue. It is too trivial.

3. Unbelievable. I can't believe I'm even going to dignify this comment with a response. Well, I'll make it short. I wrote, I don't even know how many times, that the answer to your question is not known. I did not pretend that what I was writing was fact. I stated clearly that what I was writing was an illustration that helps explain some concepts that you don't seem to understand. I will not pursue this further.

4. Once again you intentionally try to mislead. As I made very clear in my last post, the theory of evolution does not explain the origin of life. Actually, here are my exact words:
"the theory of evolution does not explain the origins of life."
Yet somehow you turn that into:
"Are evolutionists now claiming that evolution by mutations and natural selection is the study of abiogenesis...?"
Put more clearly, what I said is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you just wrote. Again, in case this is not yet clear enough for you, abiogenesis is the study of generating life from nonliving things, and is sometimes used synonymously with studies on the origin of life. Evolution does not explain the origin of life. It is NOT the study of abiogenesis. I don't know how to make this more clear.

5. I was not referring to polymorphism. Although polymorphism works just fine for this case, and since you seem comfortable with the idea that the new finger could be bigger or smaller through this mechanism, we'll stick with that. So, fine, polymorphism could account for differences in size of the new finger, and natural selection would favor the best-adapted size over time. Does that make you more comfortable?

6. Oh, I forgot that I conceded that evolutionists don't know how evolution works. Oh wait, that's because I DIDN'T make that statement at all! Once again you try to mislead. I am not going to go through all of this again. I feel like I'm talking to a wall. Even you know how point mutations can and do occur in an organism's genetic code. I showed how a single or small number of mutations can dramatically alter the function of a protein and greatly increase an organism's chances for survival. I am not going to go through that again.

Further, I did not put forth a theory. Please look up the definitions of "hypothesis", "theory", and "law". Soon.

I am pleased that you have finally improved your understanding of evolution. Yes, it supports the idea that incremental changes over time, through a series of functional intermediates, is what leads to new features. Evolution does not support the idea of "partial features", and it certainly does not support the occurrence of a large number of changes suddenly creating an entirely new feature. Please revise your website accordingly.

7. Gravity is a law. Have you heard of the "theory of gravity"? No, of course not, that's because it's a law. Please look up the definitions of "hypothesis", "theory", and "law". Soon.

Yes, neither creation nor evolution have been proven. However, we can talk about two things: the amount of evidence that supports each hypothesis, and the probability of each hypothesis being true (based on the evidence). This would actually be an interesting discussion and if you start it as another thread I'll probably participate, however I think that will detract too much from what we're arguing here.

8. You seem to like that lead in, "Your timing couldn't have been worse (for you)", as if what you're about to say will be so devastating. So, let's take a look at the article you are referring to. From Spoor et. al., Nature, 2007. The very first line of the abstract reads:
"Sites in eastern Africa have shed light on the emergence and early evolution of the genus Homo."
Hmmmm. Now based on your statement, I though that in fact a human skull must have turned up in a bed of fossils that predates humans, formally disproving evolution. But actually, what you have provided is an account of new developments in who our ancestors were. Once again (how many times have I said this), you deliberately try to mislead. You imply that this article, from a highly reputable journal, somehow refutes evolution. When in fact, the very premise of the article is how we evolved and who we evolved from. This would be funny if it wasn't so disgusting. Please be honest, did you just not read the article, or did you read it, but then decide to intentionally mislead, hoping that either I wouldn't read the article or wouldn't respond? Really, I'm curious, which is it?

a. Yes, you described it perfectly. It was meant to reflect the nonsense of evolution.

b. Evolution has no proof, cannot be observed or tested, and has no substantiated facts supporting it. You can go over it again, but you can't make evolution anything other than a fanciful delusion.

c. Thank you for the admission.

d. The clam mutation is a deleterious mutation. The subpopulation of clams actually LOST the ability to metabolize saxitoxin. Are you now claiming that deleterious mutations will go on to evolve more complex organisms? (The following quote is from ‘Nature.’)
“Resistance is caused by natural mutation of a single amino acid residue, which causes a 1,000-fold decrease in affinity at the saxitoxin-binding site in the sodium channel pore of resistant, but not sensitive, clams.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/abs/nature03415.html
(The keyword being ‘decrease.’)

e. In regard to your comment,
“mutations do not render DNA non-functional. You are deliberately trying to mislead the majority of the public who are not versed in genetics.”

You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in pointing this error out. While it was meant to directly relate to the specific mutated gene within DNA, the DNA as a whole is obviously still functional. The correction has been submitted and should be done on Monday. Thank you for pointing this out.

In regard to your comment,
“Again, a new trait is not trying to achieve some magical end.”

Then, please explain in detail why the initial mutation (in relationship to the pressure sensitivity apparatus) would cause the organism to be ‘more fit’ and reproduce itself at a high enough rate to pass that mutation on (natural selection).

Also, do you believe that an increase in bone mass or a cell membrane has function by itself? If so, please explain in detail how you arrived at that conclusion.

f. It’s interesting how evolutionists ALWAYS claim, “Totally consistent with evolutionary theory” when science contradicts their faith. No further comment necessary …

g. In regard to your comment,
“A single point mutation can drastically INCREASE an organism's chances for survival.”

You need to prove that a mutation produces more complex organisms, not that it enables it to reproduce a ‘like’ organism. Otherwise, your theory goes nowhere.

h. In regard to your comment,
“An existing feature will evolve until further change does not improve that organisms chances for survival.”

So, why it is that evolutionists can’t prove this to be true in artificial breeding?

Just a good tidbit for you …
“Selection against deleterious mutations imposes a mutation load on populations because individuals die or fail to reproduce.”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PNAS..10013402K

i. In regard to your comment:
“Absolutely absurd. Each organism has adapted to its particular environment. There are many environments on this planet and many species.”

How very interesting that Darwin wrote the below quote and put it under the topic, ‘Difficulties of the Theory’ in his book.

“First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?”
http://www.darwin-literature.com/The_Origin_of_Species/6.html

Are you claiming that Darwin was “Absolutely absurd” also?

Since you believe that mutations don’t ‘corrupt’ DNA, why are mutations referred to as copying ‘errors’?

“In a sense, mutation is a failure to store the genetic information faithfully.”
http://wps.prenhall.com/esm_klug_essentials_5/0,8785,1171405-,00.html

4. Your original statement was:
“How did a chance mutation create the ability to sense pressure? I think I answered this, however perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The answer is unknown. Furthermore, your question is more closely related to the "origins of life" question than it is to the evolution question.”

Why is the question of how chance mutations could create the ability to sense pressure more closely related to the "origins of life"?

6. In regard to your comment,
“Oh, I forgot that I conceded that evolutionists don't know how evolution works. Oh wait, that's because I DIDN'T make that statement at all!”

Since you still think you do (but can’t specifically explain let alone prove it) here are admissions from evolutionists in the field we were focusing on:

“But how such transduction from mechanical to electrical signals works on a molecular scale remains unclear … The identity and precise mechanism of action of these mechano-transducing channels remain obscure, however.”
http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050318-4.htm
“Even though well characterized at a biophysical level, the mechanical transduction mechanism of hair cells is still not understood in molecular terms … Although the transduction channel has attracted much attention, it too has yet to be identified.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=bnchm.box.3378

In regard to your comment,
“Even you know how point mutations can and do occur in an organism's genetic code. I showed how a single or small number of mutations can dramatically alter the function of a protein and greatly increase an organism's chances for survival.”

What you haven’t made a case for is how mutations continuously build on each other and proceed with unlimited changes.

In regard to your comment:
“Further, I did not put forth a theory. Please look up the definitions of "hypothesis", "theory", and "law".”

You claimed to “have written a plausible testable hypothesis” and that you presented “a plausible, testable explanation,” so please provide your formulated conclusions and we’ll go over it and assess them for you. That’s how a scientific method is supposed to go, unless you believe you can just make one up and call it fact.

In regard to your comment:
“I am pleased that you have finally improved your understanding of evolution. Yes, it supports the idea that incremental changes over time, through a series of functional intermediates, is what leads to new features. Evolution does not support the idea of "partial features", and it certainly does not support the occurrence of a large number of changes suddenly creating an entirely new feature. Please revise your website accordingly.”

Since you can’t explain (let alone prove) new apparatuses arise from mutations and natural selection other than claiming they do it ‘incrementally,’ we’ll keep the site as it is until you guys figure it out.

7. Gravity WAS a theory until it was PROVEN to be fact, unlike the theory of evolution.

Thank you for your admission that the theory of evolution HAS NOT been proven.
If you want to try to prove creation, go ahead but trying to prove creation is of no interest or concern to us.

8. In regard to your comment,
“Once again (how many times have I said this), you deliberately try to mislead. You imply that this article, from a highly reputable journal, somehow refutes evolution. When in fact, the very premise of the article is how we evolved and who we evolved from.”

Your original statement referred to human evolution, not evolution in general.
(Your statement: “The theory of evolution would be very easy to disprove, for example if you found a human skull in a fossil source predating humans. But that hasn't happened.”)

What I implied was the same as what was stated in the article. There is NO proof of human evolution:
“The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20178936/

Since this is getting lengthy, I'll start a new thread. However, just want to instruct readers to consider carefully what Who Is Your Creator has written, as all of her points show quite clearly her complete lack of understanding of evolution, and a total lack of desire to understand/learn even the basics of biology and chemistry.

WiYC said:
8. Response to your comment:
“The theory of evolution would be very easy to disprove, for example if you found a human skull in a fossil source predating humans. But that hasn't happened.”

Your timing couldn’t have been worse (for you):
“The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors. The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20178936/

H. habilis and H. erectus were seen as closely related from the time of Louis Leakey's discovery of habilis. H. erectus has been viewed as likely descending from habilis. The fact that a parent species survives and lives side by side with a daughter species does ot refute evolution. In fact, it is to be expected. The old story was a linear progression from the most ancient to Homo sapiens. No one has viewed that scenario as likely for several decades at least.

I think he was talking about finding a human fossil in Permian deposits or bunny rabbits in the Burgess Shale of the Cambrian.

In regard to your comment:

"In fact, it is to be expected."

I have a wonderful idea.

Why don't evolutionists start 'predicting' some of the things that might support evolution. It might help you everytime science comes up with something that blows a hole in their theory.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

WiYC said:
8. Response to your comment:
“The theory of evolution would be very easy to disprove, for example if you found a human skull in a fossil source predating humans. But that hasn't happened.”

Your timing couldn’t have been worse (for you):
“The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors. The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20178936/

H. habilis and H. erectus were seen as closely related from the time of Louis Leakey's discovery of habilis. H. erectus has been viewed as likely descending from habilis. The fact that a parent species survives and lives side by side with a daughter species does ot refute evolution. In fact, it is to be expected. The old story was a linear progression from the most ancient to Homo sapiens. No one has viewed that scenario as likely for several decades at least.

I think he was talking about finding a human fossil in Permian deposits or bunny rabbits in the Burgess Shale of the Cambrian.

You have chosen to ignore them and pretend that they don't exist. I know that you have been given this link a few times. It offers a number of evidences of macroevolution in the form of predictions on the basis of evolution and their confirmation by science. It would be worth your while to actually study this before you come off half-cocked like you did in your post.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

One the simalarity of humans and chimps science predicted that there would be a close genetic simalarity between the two species. That has been confirmed a number of times as our knowledge of these two genomes has increased.

Other characteristics strengthen that general evidence such as the shared endogenous retroviruses in primates. The link I provided above shows that endogeous retroviruses shared by primates confirm the shared ancesory predicted by the fossil and other physical evidence.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

Scientists predicted that whales would have terrestrial ungulate ancestors on the basis of protein function analysis of cetaceans and other mammals. The evidence of such ancestors has been confirmed by the fossils found in the last couple of decades. It has also been confirmed by the genetic science that has become common recently.

You should actually try to understand the argument presented and respond to it. Let me help you out here.

Evolution works on the basis of speciation, which occurs by one species splitting off from another. The term used in the article was branching. The analogy is to refer to them as 'parent' and 'daughter' species. Like parents and offspring, it would not be surprising to see the parent survive at the same time as the offspring. Like parents and offspring, it is even possible that the parent could outlive the offspring.

There is nothing in argument that "blows a hole" in the theory of evolution. In fact, I don't even think you have a fully formed argument. Instead, we were indeed lucky to find these two species that have been assumed to be closely related also closely related in proximity and time by nature of the location and strata of the two finds. This confirms the earlier predicted relationship between H. habilis and H. erectus.

What gets in the way of one's scientific 'understanding' of evolution is that there are no facts supporting it, no evidence substantiating it, and no observation of evolution currently occurring.

If you wish to put your faith in it, it is of no concern to us... but it's nothing but your faith, not science.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

You should actually try to understand the argument presented and respond to it. Let me help you out here.

Evolution works on the basis of speciation, which occurs by one species splitting off from another. The term used in the article was branching. The analogy is to refer to them as 'parent' and 'daughter' species. Like parents and offspring, it would not be surprising to see the parent survive at the same time as the offspring. Like parents and offspring, it is even possible that the parent could outlive the offspring.

There is nothing in argument that "blows a hole" in the theory of evolution. In fact, I don't even think you have a fully formed argument. Instead, we were indeed lucky to find these two species that have been assumed to be closely related also closely related in proximity and time by nature of the location and strata of the two finds. This confirms the earlier predicted relationship between H. habilis and H. erectus.

Is fear. The evidence is there. Even the article you claim blows holes in evolution supports it. We have two species in the genus Homo, neither of which is of our species. These fossils predate our arrival and clearly have a common ancestor with us. Your fear of science makes it impossible for you to accept the evidence.

Instead, you take a statement that clarifies our understanding of branching speciation (which is indeed evolution) and claim somehow this refutes evolution. The exact opposite is the case.

In any case, you creationists need to provide a more plausible explanation of the evidence in order for your ideas to win the day scientifically. If that is the case, what is the creationist explanation for these earlier kinds of humans? I notice that you only make claims about the weakness of evolution (which have no basis), but can't ever seem to provide a scientific explanation that supports creationism.

1. Please share with us your evidence of how modern man evolved from apes.

2. If evolution can't stand by itself as a provable and observable scientific fact without resorting to it's the only possible explanation because God doesn't exist, it is NOT science.

It's your religion, nothing else.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Is fear. The evidence is there. Even the article you claim blows holes in evolution supports it. We have two species in the genus Homo, neither of which is of our species. These fossils predate our arrival and clearly have a common ancestor with us. Your fear of science makes it impossible for you to accept the evidence.

Instead, you take a statement that clarifies our understanding of branching speciation (which is indeed evolution) and claim somehow this refutes evolution. The exact opposite is the case.

In any case, you creationists need to provide a more plausible explanation of the evidence in order for your ideas to win the day scientifically. If that is the case, what is the creationist explanation for these earlier kinds of humans? I notice that you only make claims about the weakness of evolution (which have no basis), but can't ever seem to provide a scientific explanation that supports creationism.

WiYC said:
" 1. Please share with us your evidence of how modern man evolved from apes."

It is just like your billboards. You simply can't ever get aspect of evolution correct, if misrepresenting the theory better serves your purpose. Man and apes share a common ancestor.

Your source pointed to evidence of human evolution, and gave an indication of how it happened. It showed two species from the Homo genus both living in nearly the same time and place. They are neither anotomically modern humans, nor are they apes. Evolution provides an explanation for these facts.

How does creationsim explain the existence of these fossils? If you want creationism to be considered a theory, you must provide a creationist explanation that better explains the facts and conforms to the norms of science. This you and all creationists studiously avoid doing. Instead, you ignore the evidence which you yourself presented.

1. Interesting 'evidence' you have for human origins. No comment.

2. Are you claiming again that evolution is only true because it's the only naturalistic explanation?
We prefer scientific evidence, but we know that's asking too much.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

WiYC said:
" 1. Please share with us your evidence of how modern man evolved from apes."

It is just like your billboards. You simply can't ever get aspect of evolution correct, if misrepresenting the theory better serves your purpose. Man and apes share a common ancestor.

Your source pointed to evidence of human evolution, and gave an indication of how it happened. It showed two species from the Homo genus both living in nearly the same time and place. They are neither anotomically modern humans, nor are they apes. Evolution provides an explanation for these facts.

How does creationsim explain the existence of these fossils? If you want creationism to be considered a theory, you must provide a creationist explanation that better explains the facts and conforms to the norms of science. This you and all creationists studiously avoid doing. Instead, you ignore the evidence which you yourself presented.

WiYC said:
" 1. Interesting 'evidence' you have for human origins. No comment."

You provided the proof of two separate species from the genus Homo that lived in proximity in terms of both time and place. Neither are Homo sapiens and conform to the predictions of the theory of evolution. How ironic and appropriate that a creationist offers no explanation for other humans that are both more primative and predate our species. That seems like the creationist tradition.

More ironic is that you seem to think somehow that it undermines evolution. This simply points to your lack of understanding of science in general and evolution in particular.

"2. Are you claiming again that evolution is only true because it's the only naturalistic explanation?
We prefer scientific evidence, but we know that's asking too much."

You provide no explanation for the evidence that you yourself presented. Evolution provides an explanation and creationism doesn't. In fact, you won't even try. You don't prefer scientific evidence. You ignore it, and then seem to think that you have made an argument. We have asked you repeatedly to provide creationist explanations for the evidence, but we know that we are asking too much.

WiYC said:
"2. If evolution can't stand by itself as a provable and observable scientific fact without resorting to it's the only possible explanation because God doesn't exist, it is NOT science."

Evolution is established scientific theroy. It is not observable scientific fact. It is more powerful than that. It explains the scientific facts that have been discovered. We better understand how life on earth came to be as it is because of evolution.

The only scientific explanations of the development and diversity of life on earth are based on evolution.
Creationism is not scientific, because creationist have chosen not to provide a scientific explanation. Instead they baselessly claim that evolution has no evidence, and that we must therefore accept creationism.

Evolutionary theory makes absolutely no claims about God. Many who accept evolution also accept God. No one need deny God to accept the truth of evolution. By presenting this false choice, it is you that puts the stumbling block in the path of the faithful.

As posted in response to another thread:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00150.x

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17412289&ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17625923&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16533822&ordinalpos=29&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17644960&ordinalpos=41&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17614906&ordinalpos=73&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17614905&ordinalpos=74&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

etc...

As well, enter evolution, speciation, macroevolution, mutation, etc into search field in PubMed for literally thousands of articles showing evidence for evolution.

http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17688679&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/FEvolutionCase.htm

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/eldredge.html

(and once again) etc...

Because you are new to the board (welcome), you aren't expected to know that we don't respond to links.

If you would like to pick one specific example, state it and we'll begin a new thread.

Thank you!

(in regard to your duplicate posting)

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

As posted in response to another thread:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00150.x

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17412289&ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17625923&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16533822&ordinalpos=29&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17644960&ordinalpos=41&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17614906&ordinalpos=73&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17614905&ordinalpos=74&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

etc...

As well, enter evolution, speciation, macroevolution, mutation, etc into search field in PubMed for literally thousands of articles showing evidence for evolution.

http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17688679&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/FEvolutionCase.htm

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/eldredge.html

(and once again) etc...

Brian,
Wow. That is a beautiful piece of science fiction. Truely, it is. There are, however, certain gaping holes in your pressure sensing scenario.


Name: Brian
Email: counterbrian@yahoo.com
In our ear, we have simply evolved more sensitive apparatuses that amplify small changes in pressure, i.e. sound. What did these mechanically gated ion channels originally evolve from? I'm not sure that answer is known yet. I could imagine that the ability to sense pressure was developed very early on, since organisms that could sense pressure would have a far greater chance of survival.

This is like saying, "Gee, it would be beneficial to win the lottery, so I'll do that first." Whether it is beneficial or not has no effect on the odds of you winning. After you win, then natural selection could decide if it is beneficial.


So the first pressure-sensing devices were undoubtedly very primitive and probably didn't resemble anything we have now. It could have been something as simple as a short chain of amino acids embedded in a cell membrane which, when pushed on (by a small vibrating bone, for example), created a hole in the membrane that allowed ions to flow in, starting the signaling cascade.

So this rest on the huge assumption that there is already an ion-flow sensing mechanism in place and working. If this were not the case, then why would an ion flow produce any response.


Next, I would like you to explain how a sticker in your toe , (same as an amino acid stuck in the cell membrane), then becomes a genetic material that is passed down.


I have several other comments, but no time for now.

Later.