"Great! Can we count on you to contact your fellow evolutionists in academia to notify them of their blunder?"

Blunder? Gee, talk about taking a misinterpretation about what I said and RUNNING with it... jeeez. Lighten up.

I assume you're referring to the connection with abiogenesis. Well, it seems that though there's some debate on whether or not it should be included as part of the argument or not - from WITHIN the scientific community:

From Pharyngula:
#15 is also a pet peeve: "Evolution is a theory about the origin of life" is presented as false. It is not. I know many people like to recite the mantra that "abiogenesis is not evolution," but it's a cop-out. Evolution is about a plurality of natural mechanisms that generate diversity. It includes molecular biases towards certain solutions and chance events that set up potential change as well as selection that refines existing variation. Abiogenesis research proposes similar principles that led to early chemical evolution. Tossing that work into a special-case ghetto that exempts you from explaining it is cheating, and ignores the fact that life is chemistry. That creationists don't understand that either is not a reason for us to avoid it.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/15_misconceptions_about_evolut.php

So hey - maybe PZ Myers is on "your side" too?

Because random ‘self-assembly’ of life from non-life is a stretch, the word ‘spontaneous’ is out and has been replaced with the more seemingly scientific term called ‘abiogenesis.’ However, the same utter lack of evidence nullifies this evolutionary supernatural event also.

But, because evolutionists openly claim that abiogenesis had occurred “… in the ancient, unobservable past,” they don't feel the need to prove it actually occurred - I guess their word is good enough!

“Instead of life arising from non-life on a regular and observable basis, abiogenesis proposes life arising from non-life at some particular point in the ancient, unobservable past. But abiogenesis differs from spontaneous generation in another important way. While spontaneous generation proposed the emergence of a complete, complex cell or organism from organic molecules in one huge jump, abiogenesis draws from gradualism, where the original life forms were much simpler than modern cells and only gradually evolved their present-day form of complexity. Thus, abiogenesis not only places the spontaneous generation of life far in the past, but the life that is generated was supposedly much simpler, thus easier to generate spontaneously.”
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis


Do you suppose that if creationists:
1. Gave the word 'creation' a more seemingly scientific name and;
2. repackaged it with a slight twist and;
3. acted insulted if called upon to prove it true;
4. that we could actually get the same mention in textbook as the religion of evolution does?

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

Replying to:

"Great! Can we count on you to contact your fellow evolutionists in academia to notify them of their blunder?"

Blunder? Gee, talk about taking a misinterpretation about what I said and RUNNING with it... jeeez. Lighten up.

I assume you're referring to the connection with abiogenesis. Well, it seems that though there's some debate on whether or not it should be included as part of the argument or not - from WITHIN the scientific community:

From Pharyngula:
#15 is also a pet peeve: "Evolution is a theory about the origin of life" is presented as false. It is not. I know many people like to recite the mantra that "abiogenesis is not evolution," but it's a cop-out. Evolution is about a plurality of natural mechanisms that generate diversity. It includes molecular biases towards certain solutions and chance events that set up potential change as well as selection that refines existing variation. Abiogenesis research proposes similar principles that led to early chemical evolution. Tossing that work into a special-case ghetto that exempts you from explaining it is cheating, and ignores the fact that life is chemistry. That creationists don't understand that either is not a reason for us to avoid it.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/15_misconceptions_about_evolut.php

So hey - maybe PZ Myers is on "your side" too?

"However, the same utter lack of evidence nullifies this evolutionary supernatural event also."

What utter tripe. Lack of evidence does not mean that something didn't happen. It simply might mean it hasn't been discovered yet. May I remind you that abiogenesis is an ACTIVE scientific field.

"Evolutionary supernatural event"? Sorry, no such thing. The supernatural does not exist in science.

"Do you suppose that if creationists:
1. Gave the word 'creation' a more seemingly scientific name and;"

You mean like "Intelligent Design"?

"2. repackaged it with a slight twist and;"

You mean like "Intelligent Design" via the Discovery Institute?

"3. acted insulted if called upon to prove it true"

You mean like the way Casey Luskin, Michael Behe and William Dembski act?

"4. that we could actually get the same mention in textbook as the religion of evolution does?"

Nope, because Intelligent Design isn't science. It's a pseudoscience, unprovable and untestable, because it calls on the supernatural.

(I can only guess what your response is to this. I hear it coming... and you're wrong.)

In regard to your comment:

"Lack of evidence does not mean that something didn't happen. It simply might mean it hasn't been discovered yet. May I remind you that abiogenesis is an ACTIVE scientific field."

Since you admit that proof for a 'naturalistic' creation of the universe and life from non-life "hasn't been discovered yet," why do evolutionists feel the need to indoctrinate students claiming it has?


In regard to your comment:

"The supernatural does not exist in science."

Yes, we know that and that is why you guys keeps making up these utterly outrageous scenarios which are taken seriously ONLY because they leave no room for God:

Creation of the universe:
“A new theory of the universe suggests that space and time may not have begun in a big bang, but may have always existed in an endless cycle of expansion and rebirth.”
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/02/0506/0506-cyclicuniverse.htm

“The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born.”
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html

“The Earth initially formed from the same disk of dust and gas from which the sun itself coalesced. As the mass of the Earth increased, so did the gravitational force it exerted, and it was bombarded by objects from space ranging in size from dust particles to small planets (planetismals). The accretion of this material increased the size of Earth. The impacts of large bodies and the decay of radioactive elements generated heat that melted the materials of the young Earth, creating the “hellish” conditions for which the Hadean Eon was named.”
http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/hadean2.html


At least NASA admits to the futility of it all:

“Even though we now know the age and recipe of our Universe, we don't know what started it all. What was the energy that powered the Big Bang? What came “before” the Big Bang? What process planted the primordial seeds? We will go Beyond Einstein as we study these profound questions and attempt to understand our origins.”
http://universe.nasa.gov/science/bigbang.html


Theories for abiogenesis are even more entertaining:
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2434&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
http://www.physorg.com/news115988029.html
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2007/463.html
http://www.uga.edu/news/artman/publish/071030_DNA.shtml
http://www.physorg.com/news100533246.htm
http://www.hhmi.org/news/szostak4.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

In regard to your comment:

"Nope, because Intelligent Design isn't science. It's a pseudoscience, unprovable and untestable, because it calls on the supernatural."

I don't call the creation of the universe and life 'Intelligent Design.' It's called Creationism and, as seen on this board, I don't think evolution OR creationism should be taught as fact in science as neither can be proven by empirical evidence.

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

Replying to:

"However, the same utter lack of evidence nullifies this evolutionary supernatural event also."

What utter tripe. Lack of evidence does not mean that something didn't happen. It simply might mean it hasn't been discovered yet. May I remind you that abiogenesis is an ACTIVE scientific field.

"Evolutionary supernatural event"? Sorry, no such thing. The supernatural does not exist in science.

"Do you suppose that if creationists:
1. Gave the word 'creation' a more seemingly scientific name and;"

You mean like "Intelligent Design"?

"2. repackaged it with a slight twist and;"

You mean like "Intelligent Design" via the Discovery Institute?

"3. acted insulted if called upon to prove it true"

You mean like the way Casey Luskin, Michael Behe and William Dembski act?

"4. that we could actually get the same mention in textbook as the religion of evolution does?"

Nope, because Intelligent Design isn't science. It's a pseudoscience, unprovable and untestable, because it calls on the supernatural.

(I can only guess what your response is to this. I hear it coming... and you're wrong.)

"Since you admit that proof for a 'naturalistic' creation of the universe and life from non-life "hasn't been discovered yet," why do evolutionists feel the need to indoctrinate students claiming it has?"

"Evolutionists" are not "indoctrinating" students into abiogenesis, because the field is still trying to figure out how it happened. Students are not generally taught about experimental fields. If they ask, they are pointed to the most recent papers.

Unfortunately for you, science HAS to be naturalistic. If it's not, it's not science.

"Yes, we know that and that is why you guys keeps making up these utterly outrageous scenarios which are taken seriously ONLY because they leave no room for God"

Science cannot make any comment on the existence or non-existence of a god, simply because the supernatural cannot be tested. Basically, science says "no comment" to god.

"I don't call the creation of the universe and life 'Intelligent Design.' It's called Creationism and, as seen on this board, I don't think evolution OR creationism should be taught as fact in science as neither can be proven by empirical evidence."

I'll tell you this again: science doesn't PROVE ANYTHING. Science is in the business of having the best natural explanation for the natural phenomena seen in the world. Proof has nothing to do with it. You're misusing these terms AGAIN.

Let's try this for those evol., fans out there. Let's just take a set of tripletts.... where is the mark of GOD on them.... they all look alike sound alike, have the same eyes noses etc. The lord states very plainly,,,in Scripture,KJV," I have knit thee together wonderfully in the womb,,, before you were I knew you". Think about those tripletts for a moment,,, they all have the mark of God on them as a special individual created by Him alone....give up ....ofcourse you do ,because you have bought into the "theroy" of evolution.......the mark of God is you finger prints and your foot prints ,,, not another being on the planet has you prints,,, not an animal past or present,,, not even a scientist that fronts for evolving someting out of nothing,,,,ain't it amazing!!! Just call me the "country boy',,, bet this is way too simple for you academics,,,huh?

>Since you didn't offer a challenge, it didn't deserve a response.

My post was a RESPONSE to YOUR challenge regarding the "problems" with convergent evolution. Problem is, you withdrew the challenge.

>(By the way, your inability to articulate it yourself also did not deserve a
>response. You know the rules.)

Did you read the very bottom of the post? I "articulated". I know the rules.

---

Name: akg41470

Just as in Europe, on this continent, mutations (in this case, probably three) randomly arose, and these happened to have the effect of keeping the lactase gene switched on. And just as in Europe, these mutations were favored by natural selection and quickly spread through dairy-dependent populations.

---

So are you saying that 3 mutations to this gene or that 3 people got such a mutation?

>So are you saying that 3 mutations to this gene or that 3 people got such a mutation?

The way I'm reading this article, there were 3 individuals that had the mutation. This would support the idea of a "convergent evolution" in this context.

Evolution predicts that mutations are accumulated and passed down, but organisms can miraculously restore their DNA several generations AFTER a mutation has occurred.

“Here we show that Arabidopsis plants homozygous for recessive mutant alleles of the organ fusion gene HOTHEAD5 (HTH) can inherit allele-specific DNA sequence information that was not present in the chromosomal genome of their parents but was present in previous generations. This previously undescribed process is shown to occur at all DNA sequence polymorphisms examined and therefore seems to be a general mechanism for extra-genomic inheritance of DNA sequence information. We postulate that these genetic restoration events are the result of a template-directed process that makes use of an ancestral RNA-sequence cache.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7032/abs/nature03380.html

“Here, we show that a rice triploid and diploid hybridization resulted in stable diploid progenies, both in genotypes and phenotypes, through gene homozygosity. Furthermore, their gene homozygosity can be inherited through 8 generations, and they can convert DNA sequences of other rice varieties into their own. Molecular-marker examination confirmed that this type of genome-wide gene conversion occurred at a very high frequency. Possible mechanisms, including RNA-templated repair of double-strand DNA, are discussed.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17502903?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA

I predict that you will state the organism 'decided' that the niche it was going to fill wasn't the niche it should fill afterall.

When and if you guys ever come up with something more scientific, let us know.

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

Replying to:

>So are you saying that 3 mutations to this gene or that 3 people got such a mutation?

The way I'm reading this article, there were 3 individuals that had the mutation. This would support the idea of a "convergent evolution" in this context.

Akg41470,

I am sorry, but I have not read the article yet. I am going to try to find time this weekend. Does it say what the genetic difference is between lactose intolerant people and other people. I know it says that a gene turns off the protein produced to process lactose, but does it say what is the difference in the gene? One base pair? 5? 10?

Just wondering if you knew? I will try to look for myself this weekend.

Joe