AronRa and OFNF exclusive thread

[Gnug215]

Hi everyone, this is the exclusive thread for AronRa and onceforgivennowfree.

I haven't been given any instructions as to how the two participants want this to go, so it's pretty much up to you.

I do suggest that you only make one response at a time.

I will set up a new thread for everyone else to comment in, since the old thread is one big mess. Since this is not a standard debate, I am not going to restrict either of you from posting in that thread, but neither of you have any obligation to respond in that thread either, even if anyone is asking you to.

Good luck! And let's try to keep things nice and cordial, shall we?

 

[AronRa]

The purpose of this thread is for me to prove to OnceForgivenNowFree that evolution is a fact. A fact is point of data which is either not in dispute or is indisputable since it is objectively verifiable. We will use the word 'proof' in the legal sense, meaning "an overwhelming preponderance of evidence"; evidence being a body of facts exclusively concordant with, or supportive of only one available option over any other.

Now OFNF actually wants me to prove that all life is the result of blind random processes rather than an intelligent designer, but we will discuss the lack of credence for the god hypothesis after we establish that evolution is still a fact regardless whether any gods exist or not.

These are the general facts of evolution.

The fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity do increase, that both occur naturally according to the laws of population genetics amid environmental dynamics.

The fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations, and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.

The fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance both in scientific literature and in practical application.

The fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that several independent sets of biological markers do exist which trace these lineages backwards over myriad generations.

The fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, in the same way that ducks are a subset of birds, and that humans are a subset of apes in exactly the same way that lions are a subset of cats.

The fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form through reverse-sequencing, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development, as well as through chronologically correct placement of successive stages revealed in the geologic column.

The fact that every animal on earth has obvious relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record, and that the fossil record holds hundreds of clearly transitional species even according to the strictest definition of that term.

The fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed and documented dozens of times, both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field, and that these instances have all withstood critical analysis in peer-review.

The fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or measurable validity, and that no would-be alternate notion has ever met even one of the criteria required of a scientific theory.

OFNF has previously said that he rejects every one of these facts, that he does not believe that any of these actually are facts at all. However he also said that he accepts evolution to some degree. Yet to deny the first three of these facts is to deny even microevolution, which he said all creationists accept. So this will be the first point of clarification.

OnceForgivenNowFree, what is your objection to the [bolded] first three of these general facts? And what evidence would expect to see, and would accept -if you're wrong, and these statements actually are factual?

 

[Onceforgivennowfree]

Thanks for setting this up! I think it'll work much better!


AronRa asked me about these 3 points specifically.

The fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity do increase, that both occur naturally according to the laws of population genetics amid environmental dynamics.

The fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations, and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.

The fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance both in scientific literature and in practical application.

So first of all, I don't want to make a blanket statement that I reject these statements. I do, but only to a degree. The last two I don' t think I would have any disagreements about. The only one I would have a problem with is the first.

"The fact that evolution happens;"

Obviously, it depends exactly what you mean by Evolution. I accept that things change, mutations happen, and populations can adapt. What I disagree with Aron on is the QUANTITY of evolution that can occur. As Charles Darwin said:

"“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case."

Of course this is just a reversal of the burden of proof. In order for evolution to be true, it should be demonstrated that it is at least REASONABLE to believe that life could form by "numerous, successive, slight modifications". I don't think that is a reasonably assumption. That's why (one of the reasons) I reject Evolution on scientific terms.

I'll bring back the car analogy I mentioned before. If you take a car engine, you will realize that you can't build it one step at a time while preserving function from the very first piece to the last. Sure, you can take a fully functioning engine and you can certain parts and still have it function, and you can even remove parts and use it for some other purpose. But the fact is, an car engine has certain interacting parts which are critical to it's function. These critical parts are numerous, and the engine can't function without these multiple parts.

So when we look at molecular machinery, why should we assume that evolution (mutations + natural selection, etc) is a reasonable explanation for these designs? (If you'll allow me to use the word design ) Such complex machinery can be created by an intelligence who has FORESIGHT and can combine multiple parts to create some end function, but how can a blind process like evolution do this? And when it comes to living things, the problem is infinitely more difficult - Evolution can't even add one "piece" at a time to machinery. It must work on the instruction set (the DNA molecule) via mutations. This means that a single part may require multiple coordinated mutations.

So do I accept evolution? Sure....to a certain extent. But I think there are biological limits which mutations and natural selection (and sexual selection and genetic drift or whatever else) can't overcome.

I agree with your definition of proof Aron. If you can just show me that this is at least REASONABLE, I would be content with that.

Thanks for taking the time AronRa.

-OFNF

 

[AronRa]

AronRa asked me about these 3 points specifically.

The fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity do increase, that both occur naturally according to the laws of population genetics amid environmental dynamics.

The fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations, and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.

The fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance both in scientific literature and in practical application.

So first of all, I don't want to make a blanket statement that I reject these statements. I do, but only to a degree. The last two I don' t think I would have any disagreements about.

So you accept the fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations? And that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups? And you accept the fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance, both in scientific literature and in practical application?

The only one I would have a problem with is the first.

"The fact that evolution happens;"

Obviously, it depends exactly what you mean by Evolution.

That's why it's necessary to nail down definitions at the onset. The definition you, me, and the world-wide scientific community have agreed to is this one:

Evolution: Unless otherwise specified, the scientific context always refers to an explanation of biodiversity via population mechanics; summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent [genetic] modification’: Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets. When compiled over successive generations, these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.

Now that I have reminded you exactly what we're both talking about when we say, 'evolution', do you now accept that evolution happens? That biodiversity and complexity do increase? That both occur naturally according to the laws of population genetics amid environmental dynamics?

I accept that things change, mutations happen, and populations can adapt. What I disagree with Aron on is the QUANTITY of evolution that can occur. As Charles Darwin said:

"“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case."

Modern science still can't find any such case. That is an important fact, and you should probably acknowledge that before we go any further.

And that reminds me, you also need to acknowledge I met your challenge of showing a reasonable scientific explanation of how protein folding occurs.

Of course this is just a reversal of the burden of proof.

No it isn't; you're projecting. Being able to think objectively and hypothetically, to determine how to figure out whether your own postulation is true or to what degree -that is exactly where the burden of proof belongs -on the one making the positive claim.

In order for evolution to be true, it should be demonstrated that it is at least REASONABLE to believe that life could form by "numerous, successive, slight modifications". I don't think that is a reasonably assumption. That's why (one of the reasons) I reject Evolution on scientific terms.

No sir, you have no scientific objection. If you did, you would have provided one here & now -instead of what you just said.

So when we look at molecular machinery, why should we assume that evolution (mutations + natural selection, etc) is a reasonable explanation for these designs?

There is no need to 'assume' anything when we can hypothesize, analyze, and verify. And in this case, that hypothesis is verifiable by multiple means -which we'll soon get into, I'm sure. Groundwork first.

Such complex machinery can be created by an intelligence who has FORESIGHT and can combine multiple parts to create some end function, but how can a blind process like evolution do this?

OK I'll explain how evolution does this, because it has a mechanism which has been demonstrated and is known to work. Your mystic 'intelligence' however has NOT been demonstrated. It has no mechanism, and what has been proposed in its stead does not work. You're stating what your god can do with no basis in fact to back that assertion. You're telling me what your god can do -as if there was some way to know that, when you don't even have a way to know there even is such a thing. Nor do you have any reason to believe that, and there are plenty of good reasons NOT to believe that too.

And when it comes to living things, the problem is infinitely more difficult - Evolution can't even add one "piece" at a time to machinery. It must work on the instruction set (the DNA molecule) via mutations. This means that a single part may require multiple coordinated mutations.

Yes, evolution has been shown to add one 'piece' at a time. This is one of the laws of evolution, so it is important that you understand it; especially since NO creationist EVER seems to get this:

Evolutionary development is always only ever a change in morphological or physiological proportions, which might occasionally build on previous growths. It's a matter of incremental, superficial changes being slowly compiled atop successive tiers of fundamental similarities. Those multiple levels of similarity represent taxonomic clades, which encompass all the descendants of that clade. Evolution never suggests that one thing ever turned into another fundamentally different thing. In evolutionary theory, there is never a bridging of gaps between distant lineages, such as creationists might imagine to be different 'kinds'. There is no such thing as a "kind". So there is no time when one 'kind' ever turned into a different one, because every new family, genus, or species, (etc.) that ever evolved was just a modified version of whatever its ancestors were.

Do you understand and accept this? Because any of the points I present, which you do not accept, I will have to prove.

So do I accept evolution? Sure....to a certain extent. But I think there are biological limits which mutations and natural selection (and sexual selection and genetic drift or whatever else) can't overcome.

No, the 'limits' you propose do not exist. If they did, then someone somewhere could/should/would have identified them by now. In science, if there is no evidence that X is true, then one cannot honestly say that X is true. I know that is completely the reverse of the way religion is, but that's also why religion doesn't work. So I'm going to hold you to a logical position throughout this discussion.

I agree with your definition of proof Aron. If you can just show me that this is at least REASONABLE, I would be content with that.

That's why it is necessary to reason with you, so that you'll understand, rather than simply telling you what you're already determined to reject. In this case, yes, absolutely. Not only is evolution completely reasonable, it is also the only position on this matter that is reasonable. So thank you for re-joining the conversation, and allowing me an opportunity to prove this to you.

 

[Onceforgivennowfree]

So you accept the fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations? And that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups? And you accept the fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance, both in scientific literature and in practical application?

Yes. Allele frequencies vary all the time. I have no doubt that this can happen.

That's why it's necessary to nail down definitions at the onset. The definition you, me, and the world-wide scientific community have agreed to is this one:

Evolution: Unless otherwise specified, the scientific context always refers to an explanation of biodiversity via population mechanics; summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent [genetic] modification’: Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets. When compiled over successive generations, these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.

Now that I have reminded you exactly what we're both talking about when we say, 'evolution', do you now accept that evolution happens? That biodiversity and complexity do increase? That both occur naturally according to the laws of population genetics amid environmental dynamics?

I already know what evolution means. That is why I already clarified which part exactly I reject. That way, we can just focus on that.

:
Me: I accept that things change, mutations happen, and populations can adapt. What I disagree with Aron on is the QUANTITY of evolution that can occur. As Charles Darwin said:

"“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case."

Of course this is just a reversal of the burden of proof.


AronRa: No it isn't; you're projecting. Being able to think objectively and hypothetically, to determine how to figure out whether your own postulation is true or to what degree -that is exactly where the burden of proof belongs -on the one making the positive claim.

You believe that a step by step biochemical pathway exists that can build/create molecular machinery. I doubt that claim, and I reject it due to the lack of evidence. From this, you conclude that I am making the positive claim? Perhaps we do need to go over some definitions….

ME: In order for evolution to be true, it should be demonstrated that it is at least REASONABLE to believe that life could form by "numerous, successive, slight modifications". I don't think that is a reasonably assumption. That's why (one of the reasons) I reject Evolution on scientific terms.
AronRa: No sir, you have no scientific objection. If you did, you would have provided one here & now -instead of what you just said.

Huh? That’s how you respond to someone who questions your assumptions about biochemical pathways? Am I not allowed to question this? Must I accept it on faith?

Me:So when we look at molecular machinery, why should we assume that evolution (mutations + natural selection, etc) is a reasonable explanation for these designs?
AronRa:There is no need to 'assume' anything when we can hypothesize, analyze, and verify. And in this case, that hypothesis is verifiable by multiple means -which we'll soon get into, I'm sure. Groundwork first.

So….now it is a valid scientific criticism? But you won’t answer it now….I have to wait….again…. ok. Whatever. This is the part I’m trying to figure out. Hopefully you don’t avoid it for too long.

Me: Such complex machinery can be created by an intelligence who has FORESIGHT and can combine multiple parts to create some end function, but how can a blind process like evolution do this?
AronRa: OK I'll explain how evolution does this, because it has a mechanism which has been demonstrated and is known to work. Your mystic 'intelligence' however has NOT been demonstrated. It has no mechanism, and what has been proposed in its stead does not work. You're stating what your god can do with no basis in fact to back that assertion. You're telling me what your god can do -as if there was some way to know that, when you don't even have a way to know there even is such a thing. Nor do you have any reason to believe that, and there are plenty of good reasons NOT to believe that too.

I didn’t mention God. I’m referring to an everyday analogy, such as a car engine or a mouse trap. Intelligent agents can perceive future benefits and combine multiple parts simultaneously in order to produce a function. Intelligent agents are the only known cause of these sorts of systems. Its not a ‘mystic’ thing, but an every day observation or reality that is based on observable and repeatable experiements. In the first sentence, you asserted that you’ll explain how evolution does this….but then…..GASP…..you didn’t! Again, this is the main point I’m trying to get that. Perhaps you can actually answer it now? Or will I need to wait longer and jump through more hoops?

Me: And when it comes to living things, the problem is infinitely more difficult - Evolution can't even add one "piece" at a time to machinery. It must work on the instruction set (the DNA molecule) via mutations. This means that a single part may require multiple coordinated mutations.

AronRa: Yes, evolution has been shown to add one 'piece' at a time. This is one of the laws of evolution, so it is important that you understand it; especially since NO creationist EVER seems to get this:

Evolutionary development is always only ever a change in morphological or physiological proportions, which might occasionally build on previous growths. It's a matter of incremental, superficial changes being slowly compiled atop successive tiers of fundamental similarities. Those multiple levels of similarity represent taxonomic clades, which encompass all the descendants of that clade. Evolution never suggests that one thing ever turned into another fundamentally different thing. In evolutionary theory, there is never a bridging of gaps between distant lineages, such as creationists might imagine to be different 'kinds'. There is no such thing as a "kind". So there is no time when one 'kind' ever turned into a different one, because every new family, genus, or species, (etc.) that ever evolved was just a modified version of whatever its ancestors were.

Do you understand and accept this? Because any of the points I present, which you do not accept, I will have to prove.

Of course I understand this….that’s why I’m trying to get you to explain these biochemical pathways that can supposedly create molecular machinery. You stated that evolution can add one ‘piece’ at a time. However, it can’t. It must work one mutation at a time. So what happens if a certain change requires multiple parts, each requiring multiple mutations in order for a beneficial change to occur? It’s like trying to get a working car engine, and we can only change one letter at a time in the instruction manual. You can never get a working engine because it would require multiple coordinated spelling changes to create anything meaningful.

Me:So do I accept evolution? Sure....to a certain extent. But I think there are biological limits which mutations and natural selection (and sexual selection and genetic drift or whatever else) can't overcome.
AronRa: No, the 'limits' you propose do not exist. If they did, then someone somewhere could/should/would have identified them by now. In science, if there is no evidence that X is true, then one cannot honestly say that X is true. I know that is completely the reverse of the way religion is, but that's also why religion doesn't work. So I'm going to hold you to a logical position throughout this discussion.

Let x = a biochemical pathway to creating the first ATP motor.
What evidence do you have that there is a biochemical pathway to create such a motor, such that each mutation provides a beneficial advantage? If you can provide no evidence that x is true, then we should reject it. I’m glad you agree.

Me: I agree with your definition of proof Aron. If you can just show me that this is at least REASONABLE, I would be content with that.
AronRa:That's why it is necessary to reason with you, so that you'll understand, rather than simply telling you what you're already determined to reject. In this case, yes, absolutely. Not only is evolution completely reasonable, it is also the only position on this matter that is reasonable. So thank you for re-joining the conversation, and allowing me an opportunity to prove this to you.

Again, I asked essentially the same question, and you don’t provide a shred of evidence. You ASSERT that your position is completely reasonable. You then thank me for allowing you the opportunity to prove this to me. OKAAAAAAAAAAY, why aren’t you?!?? You’ve avoided this question the entire post. How many times do I need to ask it before you give me a response that is a little bit more researched and intelligent then “Yes it’s reasonable. Yes it’s provable. I’m glad you asked. Yes evolution can do it.” I’m not looking for someone to pat me on the head and tell me that everythings ok and evolution can do it all. I’m looking for….wait for it…. EVIDENCE! Just a little would be nice….I’m getting desperate.
Cheers
OFNF

 

[AronRa]

So you accept the fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations? And that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups? And you accept the fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance, both in scientific literature and in practical application?

Yes. Allele frequencies vary all the time. I have no doubt that this can happen.

OK, you didn't answer very clearly, I guess I'll have to accept that as a 'yes' to each of the questions I just asked.

The definition you, me, and the world-wide scientific community have agreed to is this one:

Evolution: Unless otherwise specified, the scientific context always refers to an explanation of biodiversity via population mechanics; summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent [genetic] modification’: Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets. When compiled over successive generations, these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.

Now that I have reminded you exactly what we're both talking about when we say, 'evolution', do you now accept that evolution happens? That biodiversity and complexity do increase? That both occur naturally according to the laws of population genetics amid environmental dynamics?

I already know what evolution means. That is why I already clarified which part exactly I reject. That way, we can just focus on that.

But you didn't clarify that at all. You said you doubt whether evolution happens. You said that depends on what we mean by that word. But we've already established the definition we're both using. So do you accept that it happens or not? Since you certainly did NOT clarify which part of this you object to, then let's pick it apart:

You accept that evolution is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations. That is the only thing you answered clearly. So do you also accept that this variance leads to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets? If so, do you accept that these are compiled over successive generations? Or that these expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins?

I accept that things change, mutations happen, and populations can adapt. What I disagree with Aron on is the QUANTITY of evolution that can occur. As Charles Darwin said:

"“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case."

Of course this is just a reversal of the burden of proof.

No it isn't; you're projecting. Being able to think objectively and hypothetically, to determine how to figure out whether your own postulation is true or to what degree -that is exactly where the burden of proof belongs -on the one making the positive claim.

You believe that a step by step biochemical pathway exists that can build/create molecular machinery. I doubt that claim, and I reject it due to the lack of evidence. From this, you conclude that I am making the positive claim? Perhaps we do need to go over some definitions….

You cited Darwin commenting on how to falsify his own hypothesis, and you said that was a reversal of the burden of proof. It's not. There was -as yet- no mention of the 'biochemical pathway' you're talking about now. Instead, you tried to propose limits on evolution, limits which have never been indicated, and which have only been cited by creationists trying to make up excuses for their lack of evidence.

In order for evolution to be true, it should be demonstrated that it is at least REASONABLE to believe that life could form by "numerous, successive, slight modifications". I don't think that is a reasonably assumption. That's why (one of the reasons) I reject Evolution on scientific terms.

AronRa: No sir, you have no scientific objection. If you did, you would have provided one here & now -instead of what you just said.

Huh? That’s how you respond to someone who questions your assumptions about biochemical pathways? Am I not allowed to question this? Must I accept it on faith?

Any claim that requires faith should be rejected for that reason. But you weren't questioning biological pathways in evolution here. In this sentence, you were questioning abiogenesis, which is a different string of processes altogether. You still haven't cited any scientific objection to evolution; all you have done so far was argue from incredulity.

Me: Such complex machinery can be created by an intelligence who has FORESIGHT and can combine multiple parts to create some end function, but how can a blind process like evolution do this?

OK I'll explain how evolution does this, because it has a mechanism which has been demonstrated and is known to work. Your mystic 'intelligence' however has NOT been demonstrated. It has no mechanism, and what has been proposed in its stead does not work. You're stating what your god can do with no basis in fact to back that assertion. You're telling me what your god can do -as if there was some way to know that, when you don't even have a way to know there even is such a thing. Nor do you have any reason to believe that, and there are plenty of good reasons NOT to believe that too.

I didn’t mention God. I’m referring to an everyday analogy, such as a car engine or a mouse trap. Intelligent agents can perceive future benefits and combine multiple parts simultaneously in order to produce a function. Intelligent agents are the only known cause of these sorts of systems. Its not a ‘mystic’ thing, but an every day observation or reality that is based on observable and repeatable experiements. In the first sentence, you asserted that you’ll explain how evolution does this….but then…..GASP…..you didn’t! Again, this is the main point I’m trying to get that. Perhaps you can actually answer it now? Or will I need to wait longer and jump through more hoops?

There are no 'hoops' to jump through. I'm merely trying to reason with someone who rejects reason and does not want to be reasoned with. That's why it seems like hoops to you.

You did refer to God though, because you're arguing for an intelligent designer whom you imagine could construct all these 'biological pathways' before there was anything alive on this planet. If not God, then who else could you be talking about?

Your question is answered in two of Dawkins' books, The Selfish Gene, and The Blind Watchmaker, but it isn't the answer you're looking for. There's a video series by this delightful English girl which summarizes aspects of that very well, but I can't remember her name, and you wouldn't care about that anyway. If I can get specific examples of what you want to see, then I'm sure I can find it in biology texts too.

Me: And when it comes to living things, the problem is infinitely more difficult - Evolution can't even add one "piece" at a time to machinery. It must work on the instruction set (the DNA molecule) via mutations. This means that a single part may require multiple coordinated mutations.

Yes, evolution has been shown to add one 'piece' at a time. This is one of the laws of evolution, so it is important that you understand it; especially since NO creationist EVER seems to get this:

Evolutionary development is always only ever a change in morphological or physiological proportions, which might occasionally build on previous growths. It's a matter of incremental, superficial changes being slowly compiled atop successive tiers of fundamental similarities. Those multiple levels of similarity represent taxonomic clades, which encompass all the descendants of that clade. Evolution never suggests that one thing ever turned into another fundamentally different thing. In evolutionary theory, there is never a bridging of gaps between distant lineages, such as creationists might imagine to be different 'kinds'. There is no such thing as a "kind". So there is no time when one 'kind' ever turned into a different one, because every new family, genus, or species, (etc.) that ever evolved was just a modified version of whatever its ancestors were.

Do you understand and accept this? Because any of the points I present, which you do not accept, I will have to prove.

Of course I understand this….that’s why I’m trying to get you to explain these biochemical pathways that can supposedly create molecular machinery. You stated that evolution can add one ‘piece’ at a time. However, it can’t. It must work one mutation at a time. So what happens if a certain change requires multiple parts, each requiring multiple mutations in order for a beneficial change to occur? It’s like trying to get a working car engine, and we can only change one letter at a time in the instruction manual. You can never get a working engine because it would require multiple coordinated spelling changes to create anything meaningful.

Fortunately biological mechanisms do not involve parts that have to be bolted on; instead they can be grown of existing structures. Evolution does add one part at a time -by working with one mutation at a time. It seems as if you're imagining the ancestor of turtles suddenly developing a shell, which you see as being one structure dependant on hundreds of concordant mutations which all have to happen at once, because it requires X-number of mutations to equal one 'part'. Am I right? Is that how you see this?

So do I accept evolution? Sure....to a certain extent. But I think there are biological limits which mutations and natural selection (and sexual selection and genetic drift or whatever else) can't overcome.

No, the 'limits' you propose do not exist. If they did, then someone somewhere could/should/would have identified them by now. In science, if there is no evidence that X is true, then one cannot honestly say that X is true. I know that is completely the reverse of the way religion is, but that's also why religion doesn't work. So I'm going to hold you to a logical position throughout this discussion.

Let x = a biochemical pathway to creating the first ATP motor.
What evidence do you have that there is a biochemical pathway to create such a motor, such that each mutation provides a beneficial advantage? If you can provide no evidence that x is true, then we should reject it. I’m glad you agree.

You agree with that, do you? Wow. Welcome to the world of atheism. Our next national convention is in Memphis Tennessee, and a bunch of us are doing that as a charity run on motorcycles. Do you have one?

Anyway, to answer your question:

Evolutionary history of the ATP synthases

The F-type ATP synthases show homology to another family of rotating machines, namely the V-type ATPases which are found in archaea and in eukaryotic membranes. By analyzing the homology pattern for different subunits of these related enzymes, we have put forward a scenario of their origin from primordial protein translocases.

Proposed evolution of the F- and V-type membrane ATPases.

Both F-type and V-type ATPases can translocate either protons or sodium ions. We have combined structural and phylogenetic analyses to clarify the evolutionary relation between the proton- and sodium-translocating ATPases. A comparison of the structures of the membrane-embedded oligomeric proteolipid rings of sodium-dependent F- and V-ATPases reveals nearly identical sets of amino acids involved in sodium binding. We show that the sodium-dependent ATPases are scattered among proton-dependent ATPases in both the F- and the V-branches of the phylogenetic tree. Barring convergent emergence of the same set of ligands in several lineages, these findings indicate that the use of sodium gradient for ATP synthesis is the ancestral modality of membrane bioenergetics and that the common ancestor of the F- and V-type ATPases contained a sodium-binding site.
-Mulkidjanian - ATP synthase

Now, I realize that you're just figuring out that you're out-of-your depth, but that you have to defend creationism somehow -even though all the critical elements of the Tanakh have already been disproved. Understand that even if your god exists, the Bible is still wrong. Even if evolution were to be proven wrong tomorrow, the Bible was proven wrong decades ago -at least. That can't be undone. There's no way to resurrect what has already been disproved. You're forbidden to admit that according to your wholly dishonest faith. So you need to find something which you think evolution hasn't yet explained, and if you can find that, then you think that would allow you to dismiss everything evolution definitely has explained, and which only evolution can explain. But you can't admit that either, so you browse through intelligent design websites trying to find arguments to throw at me that you yourself don't understand. I would suggest that you try a different course, and only ask me what you actually care about, and want to know, and I will help you with that. You will object of course. You've been lied to all your life, and breaking all those years of mental conditioning won't be easy. But eventually, if you stick this out, I promise you, you will thank me for this eventually. It never comes easy or quick though; Usually it takes a little more than a year to 'sink in'. But that is what I predict, and I can also assure you that you'll be much more confident and way more honest as an 'evolutionist' than you ever could be defending the fables you're still clinging to now.

Me: I agree with your definition of proof Aron. If you can just show me that this is at least REASONABLE, I would be content with that.

That's why it is necessary to reason with you, so that you'll understand, rather than simply telling you what you're already determined to reject. In this case, yes, absolutely. Not only is evolution completely reasonable, it is also the only position on this matter that is reasonable. So thank you for re-joining the conversation, and allowing me an opportunity to prove this to you.

Again, I asked essentially the same question, and you don’t provide a shred of evidence. You ASSERT that your position is completely reasonable. You then thank me for allowing you the opportunity to prove this to me. OKAAAAAAAAAAY, why aren’t you?!?? You’ve avoided this question the entire post. How many times do I need to ask it before you give me a response that is a little bit more researched and intelligent then “Yes it’s reasonable. Yes it’s provable. I’m glad you asked. Yes evolution can do it.” I’m not looking for someone to pat me on the head and tell me that everythings ok and evolution can do it all. I’m looking for….wait for it…. EVIDENCE! Just a little would be nice….I’m getting desperate.

I don't know how I've been avoiding your question about the ATP motor for all this time, since you never asked it until just now. But you did previously challenge me to show you a reasonable scientific explanation of how protein folding occurs, and you still haven't acknowledged that I answered that challenge. How much longer am I going to have to wait? How many more times will I have to ask?

You also said you agree that if there is no evidence for X, then we cannot honestly say that X exists. Yet you've argued for 'limits' to evolution which have never been established by evidence, and you've pleaded for complex organs which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, and you haven't conceded that science has yet to detect anything like that either. You need to concede both of these points too, and concede that evolution happens, because I still have a half-dozen more evolutionary facts to confirm with you, and I'd like to get to it. I'm tired of YOU holding up this up and then blaming ME for that we still haven't made any progress.

 

[Onceforgivennowfree]

OFNF:
In order for evolution to be true, it should be demonstrated that it is at least REASONABLE to believe that life could form by "numerous, successive, slight modifications". I don't think that is a reasonably assumption. That's why (one of the reasons) I reject Evolution on scientific terms.

AronRa:
No sir, you have no scientific objection. If you did, you would have provided one here & now -instead of what you just said.

OFNF:
Huh? That’s how you respond to someone who questions your assumptions about biochemical pathways? Am I not allowed to question this? Must I accept it on faith?

AronRa:
Any claim that requires faith should be rejected for that reason. But you weren't questioning biological pathways in evolution here. In this sentence, you were questioning abiogenesis, which is a different string of processes altogether. You still haven't cited any scientific objection to evolution; all you have done so far was argue from incredulity.

This is why it’s so difficult to reason with you. I say something fairly simple and straight forward, and you re-interpret it and tell try to tell me what I’m saying. I said nothing about abiogenesis (the origin of life from non-life), and neither did I intend to. I’m talking about step-by-step biochemical pathways which are essential for evolution to be a viable explanation. You then try to turn it around on me by saying that I’m arguing from incredulity. Are you serious?? I already asked you if I’m allowed to question this assumption of yours, or if I need to take it on faith. This has nothing to do with my incredulity. I may believe these biochemical pathways exist, or I may not. That’s irrelevant – I’m asking you to provide evidence that they do! Merely stating that I don’t believe they exist or that I find it “incredible” is not evidence that they DO exist! Is this really how you want to “prove” evolution? As soon as I try to ask a basic question, you retort with “you’re just arguing from incredulity!” and excuse yourself from having to provide any evidence?

OFNO:
So do I accept evolution? Sure....to a certain extent. But I think there are biological limits which mutations and natural selection (and sexual selection and genetic drift or whatever else) can't overcome.

AronRa:
No, the 'limits' you propose do not exist. If they did, then someone somewhere could/should/would have identified them by now. In science, if there is no evidence that X is true, then one cannot honestly say that X is true. I know that is completely the reverse of the way religion is, but that's also why religion doesn't work. So I'm going to hold you to a logical position throughout this discussion.

OFNF:
Let x = a biochemical pathway to creating the first ATP motor.
What evidence do you have that there is a biochemical pathway to create such a motor, such that each mutation provides a beneficial advantage? If you can provide no evidence that x is true, then we should reject it. I’m glad you agree.

AronRa:
Anyway, to answer your question:

Evolutionary history of the ATP synthases

The F-type ATP synthases show homology to another family of rotating machines, namely the V-type ATPases which are found in archaea and in eukaryotic membranes. By analyzing the homology pattern for different subunits of these related enzymes, we have put forward a scenario of their origin from primordial protein translocases.


Proposed evolution of the F- and V-type membrane ATPases.

Both F-type and V-type ATPases can translocate either protons or sodium ions. We have combined structural and phylogenetic analyses to clarify the evolutionary relation between the proton- and sodium-translocating ATPases. A comparison of the structures of the membrane-embedded oligomeric proteolipid rings of sodium-dependent F- and V-ATPases reveals nearly identical sets of amino acids involved in sodium binding. We show that the sodium-dependent ATPases are scattered among proton-dependent ATPases in both the F- and the V-branches of the phylogenetic tree. Barring convergent emergence of the same set of ligands in several lineages, these findings indicate that the use of sodium gradient for ATP synthesis is the ancestral modality of membrane bioenergetics and that the common ancestor of the F- and V-type ATPases contained a sodium-binding site.
-Mulkidjanian - ATP synthase

Now, I realize that you're just figuring out that you're out-of-your depth, but that you have to defend creationism somehow -even though all the critical elements of the Tanakh have already been disproved.

So let me get this straight. Some guy who knows how to copy and paste from the internet is supposed to put me out of my depth? You try to hide behind your copied-and-pasted big words as if they explain the evolutionary process, and you hope that it will confuse people so you can claim victory. Nice try. All you provided was pretty pictures of complex mechanical machinery, much more complex then we could ever design. And you want to claim that these machines evolved because you found similarities between them? Is that a joke? I am looking for a scientific explanation of how a motor like this could evolve. Life is filled with molecular machinery. I don’t want a pretty picture pointing out the similarities. A SCIENTIFIC explanation of its origin, not a fairy tale. Anyone can make up a story and line stuff up and assert that one turned into the other. But to claim that this constitutes a scientific explanation is an insult to science itself.

I won’t bother responding to a lot of what you wrote because a lot of it is completely irrelevant to the science that I’m trying to discuss. You spend a large part of your posts insulting me, calling me unreasonable and dishonest, and going on and on about how I’ve been indoctrinated. DO YOU SERIOUSLY WANT TO KEEP BRINGING THIS UP OVER AND OVER? If you do, let me know. I’ll start pointing out that you are a college drop-out in every single post. We can talk more about your mighty high-school diploma which you believe puts you “literally” in the same league as PhD scientists. But you know what? That’s all irrelevant to the science we’re trying to discuss. So can we agree to leave the insults and personal attacks behind?

So let’s get back to your “proof” of evolution. You’re convinced that molecular machinery evolved because….well….you found some pretty pictures with big words talking about some similarities. Now let’s look at the facts. Life depends on ATP synthase, which is a tiny rotary motor. How could a rotary motor, with it’s interdependent parts, which are all the right size, shape, and strength, all come together to perform a specific function? How can a blind process like evolution, which has no foresight, create such a machine? We know for a fact that intelligent agents with mind and will can create these types of systems. I’m an Engineer, and I design complex integrated systems all the time. But a blind process like evolution can’t construct interdependent systems which require several parts because it can only work one mutation at a time. And if a mutation serves no advantage, then it’s out of luck. Did you ever stop to think about your little picture showing the comparisons and wonder about the mutations required to create any of them? It’s amazing to me how you can completely ignore the step-by-step biochemical pathway that would be REQUIRED before evolution could even have a CHANCE, and instead choose to argue that I’m arguing from incredulity.

If you have something better, then by all means, show us. I want to see it. Life if filled with molecular machinery, and ATP is just the tip of the iceberg. I would love to hear a SCIENTIFIC (key word there) explanation of how these types of systems could evolve. Blindly asserting that “evolution did it” is not enough for me. Maybe it’s enough for you. You can call me a skeptic.

 

[AronRa]

In order for evolution to be true, it should be demonstrated that it is at least REASONABLE to believe that life could form by "numerous, successive, slight modifications". I don't think that is a reasonably assumption. That's why (one of the reasons) I reject Evolution on scientific terms.

you weren't questioning biological pathways in evolution here. In this sentence, you were questioning abiogenesis, which is a different string of processes altogether. You still haven't cited any scientific objection to evolution; all you have done so far was argue from incredulity.

This is why it’s so difficult to reason with you. I say something fairly simple and straight forward, and you re-interpret it and tell try to tell me what I’m saying. I said nothing about abiogenesis (the origin of life from non-life), and neither did I intend to.

Evolution is the diversity of life; abiogenesis is the formation of life.

I realize I hadn't shared the definition with you, but here it is.
Abiogenesis: Proposed by Rudolph Virchow in 1855, and coined by Thomas Huxley in 1870; the current hypothesis replacing spontaneous generation as an explanation for the origin of life: The proposition that the formation of life requires a prior matrix, thus genetic and metabolic cells must have developed through an intricate sequence of increasingly complex chemical constructs, each having been naturally enhanced by particular environmental and constituent conditions.

Note that one could summarize this definition by saying how "life could form by numerous, successive, slight modifications".

I’m talking about step-by-step biochemical pathways which are essential for evolution to be a viable explanation. You then try to turn it around on me by saying that I’m arguing from incredulity. Are you serious??

I didn't turn anything around; you ARE arguing from incredulity.

I already asked you if I’m allowed to question this assumption of yours, or if I need to take it on faith.

And I already answered that there is no faith required because it is not an assumption.

This has nothing to do with my incredulity.

Yes it does. Look it up.

I may believe these biochemical pathways exist, or I may not. That’s irrelevant – I’m asking you to provide evidence that they do! Merely stating that I don’t believe they exist or that I find it “incredible” is not evidence that they DO exist! Is this really how you want to “prove” evolution?

No, I'm hoping we'll get to the point where you stop arguing from incredulity, and learn to answer questions and acknowledge answers. Then we can finally make some progress.

As soon as I try to ask a basic question, you retort with “you’re just arguing from incredulity!” and excuse yourself from having to provide any evidence?

I have presented evidence, but you refuse to acknowledge that. I also said that I'll be happy to provide whatever you need if you'll be specific. Every time you've done that, I showed you what you asked for. For example, you asked me to show a reasonable scientific explanation of how protein folding occurs. I gave you that, but you won't give me credit for it. When will you acknowledge this fact? How many times will I have to repeat this question?

I realize that you're just figuring out that you're out-of-your depth, but that you have to defend creationism somehow -even though all the critical elements of the Tanakh have already been disproved.

So let me get this straight. Some guy who knows how to copy and paste from the internet is supposed to put me out of my depth? You try to hide behind your copied-and-pasted big words as if they explain the evolutionary process, and you hope that it will confuse people so you can claim victory. Nice try.

You're out of your depth because of your position, not your opponent; because you're trying to defend the pseudoscience of a farcical belief-system which has no truth in it. Evolution has truth in it, and that's what I've been trying to show you since we started. You're trying very hard not to see it, and I suspect it is because you know it is there.

In this instance, for example, you didn't ask for anything you sincerely wanted to see. Because you don't want to see what is true; you want to make-believe what is not true, and you don't want any inconvenient truth to go and ruin your illusion. So you searched the Intelligent Design websites for something they said I wouldn't be able to show you. Well, they lied to you -again.

Remember when the Discovery Institute had their one shot to defend their notion of irreducible complexity? They couldn't support it with science because there is no science there. So they tried it in a court of law instead. This is when they brought their very best case, and yet absolutely every single argument was shown to have already been disproved. All of them, the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting cascade, the origin of the immune system, all of it.

"it is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID policy."
-U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III (Kitzmiller v Dover)

That is why you are out of your depth; because your only sources are disingenuous fabrications by a dishonest propaganda mill. I told you, it is not possible to defend creationism honestly. That is also why you habitually ignore everything I ask you, or show you, or call you out on.

All you provided was pretty pictures of complex mechanical machinery, much more complex then we could ever design. And you want to claim that these machines evolved because you found similarities between them? Is that a joke?

No, verifiable traceable evident science is not a joke. Believing that an invisible djinn can conjure talking snakes with an incantation spell -should be the joke. Believing that a book of falsified fables somehow trumps demonstrable realities should also be a joke. Sadly both of those jokes are on you. I'm trying to show you something REAL. You know it is real too, that's why you refuse to answer direct questions, and that's why you will not concede any of your own errors. For example, you have yet to concede that science has still never found any complex organ which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.

See? This is the problem. You're not being objective; you're biased. Your position is not dependent on science, and you don't care about evidence. You're determined to defend your falsehood no matter how unsupported or fraudulent it is. I'm not insulting you; I'm just pointing out that we both already know that is the creationist's position, and anyone can look up their statement of faith to see that it is. You need to be aware that you're not kidding anyone by pretending otherwise. That will be the first step in breaking through a closed mind.

I am looking for a scientific explanation of how a motor like this could evolve. Life is filled with molecular machinery. I don’t want a pretty picture pointing out the similarities. A SCIENTIFIC explanation of its origin, not a fairy tale.

I would remind you that if you look up the definition of a fairy tale, you'll see that it is a folklorish story, usually with a moral, but which includes dragons, witches, giants, magic spells, and/or animals who speak and act like human beings. This does not match the study of evolution in any sense, but it does exactly describe creationism perfectly. Even if the Bible were true, it would still be a fairy tale. None of that applies to the citation of scientific research I found for you. dandan said you would accept nothing less than a step-by-step process, so that is what I provided.

Anyone can make up a story and line stuff up and assert that one turned into the other. But to claim that this constitutes a scientific explanation is an insult to science itself.

It was not just 'anyone'. In this case, it was Prof. Dr. H.-J. Steinhoff and PD Dr. A. Mulkidjanian in the physics department of the University of Osnabrück Germany. What part of that citation wasn't SCIENTIFIC enough for you?

Would you rather I told you a story about an army of the undead and angels with flaming swords?

I saw a debate where Kent Hovind said there was no evidence against one of his specific claims. His opponent predicted that move, and produced a stack of scientific papers dealing specifically with that. Hovind said, "That's not evidence; that's just a bunch of paper". When Michael Behe was cross-examined concerning his claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system, he was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters -confirming each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system. However, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." That's the way you're behaving now. Whenever I show evidence of any kind, you dismiss it on the excuse that "that's just a video" or "that's just a pretty picture", or "those university physics professors were telling a fairy tale". That's why I have to ask you what evidence you actually will accept. But then, you just ignore that too, and you have ignored it every time I asked.

I won’t bother responding to a lot of what you wrote because a lot of it is completely irrelevant to the science that I’m trying to discuss.

Wrong again. What you're ignoring is immediately relevant because we cannot continue without your response. Yet you've managed to ignore every single question AGAIN.

You spend a large part of your posts insulting me, calling me unreasonable and dishonest, and going on and on about how I’ve been indoctrinated. DO YOU SERIOUSLY WANT TO KEEP BRINGING THIS UP OVER AND OVER?

You're the one making that both obvious and an issue. But I wasn't insulting you.

If you do, let me know. I’ll start pointing out that you are a college drop-out in every single post. We can talk more about your mighty high-school diploma which you believe puts you “literally” in the same league as PhD scientists.

What high school diploma? Before I went back to college, I was a tattooist with only a G.E.D. This isn't about intelligence, or education; this is an issue of honesty. Yours is a wholly dishonest position by public admission, and I'm sincerely trying to help you out of that.

But you know what? That’s all irrelevant to the science we’re trying to discuss. So can we agree to leave the insults and personal attacks behind?

I still haven't insulted you.

So let’s get back to your “proof” of evolution. You’re convinced that molecular machinery evolved because….well….you found some pretty pictures with big words talking about some similarities. Now let’s look at the facts. Life depends on ATP synthase, which is a tiny rotary motor. How could a rotary motor, with it’s interdependent parts, which are all the right size, shape, and strength, all come together to perform a specific function?

By first performing different functions (or none at all) until new modifications coincidentally allowed the current function. The same way as with the the bacterial flagellum in it's relationship to the type II secretory system. It's explained in the answer I provided. The "big words" shouldn't have been a problem, because I even provided pictures for you.

How can a blind process like evolution, which has no foresight, create such a machine?

Remember the definition of evolution. There is no goal. That's why so many biological systems are constructed in needlessly complicated and inefficient ways.

We know for a fact that intelligent agents with mind and will can create these types of systems. I’m an Engineer, and I design complex integrated systems all the time.

Yes, but you're not arguing for an engineer; you're arguing for an immortal djinn, an impossible entity not evidenced by anything, and an indefensible assertion. You're also arguing against a process which can be directly observed on multiple levels.

But a blind process like evolution can’t construct interdependent systems which require several parts because it can only work one mutation at a time.

But evolution does construct systems which will become interdependent with other systems when they happen to serve a convenient function. This happens one step at a time, one mutation at a time, and never has to have a flurry of mutations together, nor build anything according to any sort of plan. That's why nothing in biology appears to have been thought out or planned in advance.

And if a mutation serves no advantage, then it’s out of luck. Did you ever stop to think about your little picture showing the comparisons and wonder about the mutations required to create any of them? It’s amazing to me how you can completely ignore the step-by-step biochemical pathway that would be REQUIRED before evolution could even have a CHANCE, and instead choose to argue that I’m arguing from incredulity.

I don't ignore anything -the way you do. Unlike you, it doesn't matter how strongly believe it; it only matters how accurate I can show it to be. So my perspective is the reverse of yours.

If you have something better, then by all means, show us. I want to see it. Life if filled with molecular machinery, and ATP is just the tip of the iceberg. I would love to hear a SCIENTIFIC (key word there) explanation of how these types of systems could evolve. Blindly asserting that “evolution did it” is not enough for me.

Is it that you don't know what a scientific explanation is? Or is it that you don't know what a hypothesis is? See, that's why I have been trying to take you through the necessary steps systematically. I told you before that you will see everything you need to see -if you'll let me prove each of my nine general facts of evolution to you first. Once you concede the fact that evolution happens, we'll only have a half dozen more to go.

I suspect that idea scares you, and that you're trying to find some exit to escape that eventuality. That's why you're already acting so desperate.

Maybe it’s enough for you.

Believing impossible nonsense on faith is enough for you. It is not for me. And if we can get back to the challenge at-hand, I'd like to continue proving that to you.

You can call me a skeptic.

No, I cannot call you a skeptic because I am an honest man, and the definition we both agreed to is that a skeptic is "One who considers it foolish to accept extraordinary claims in lieu of sufficient evidence". You are the furthest thing from a skeptic. You believe completely in a whole lot of impossible nonsense with no logic or evidence behind it whatsoever. What's worse is that you know that in this challenge the onus is entirely on me. If truth really mattered to you, you wouldn't be so resistant to my attempts to reason with you. If you really believed that I could not bring the goods as I said I could, then you wouldn't have ducked and dodged so many points and queries to this point. So stop side-tracking this conversation with all your allegations, insinuations, and excuses, and stop ignoring all my points and queries. I'm tired of you holding up or derailing this conversation and then blaming me for that.

Now if you're finally done posturing and wasting my time, let me save yours: Your response to this very long post could be really short. You only need to address the following five points:

(1) It seems as if you're imagining the ancestor of turtles suddenly developing a shell, which you see as being one structure dependant on hundreds of concordant mutations which all have to happen at once, because it requires X-number of mutations to equal one 'part'. Am I right? Is that how you see this?

(2a) Do you also accept that allelic variance leads to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets? (2b) If so, do you accept that these are compiled over successive generations? (2c) Or that these expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins?
(You can answer all of these by conceding the fact that 'evolution happens'.)

(3) Concede that I have met your challenge to show you a reasonable scientific explanation of protein folding.

(4) Concede that I have provided a scientific explanation for the "biochemical pathway to creating the first ATP motor".

(5) Concede that science has never yet found any complex organ which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.

DO NOT IGNORE THESE POINTS AGAIN!

If you properly address these, we will continue. If you don't, we won't. But if this conversation ends that way, just know that it wasn't because of what I can't do, but because of what you won't do.

 

[Onceforgivennowfree]

Thanks for defining abiogenesis. No one knew what you were talking about, so we really really needed that. It’s not a rabbit trail at all. *Sarcasm

Also, thanks for bringing up the faith statements of various Christian organizations, the rulings of some judge, and what Kent Hovind once said in a debate. Those are also very important points to bring up in order for you to prove evolution. Totally not rabbit trails. *Sarcasm


I also had to laugh when I got to the end of your post and saw that you wanted me to ‘concede that I have provided a scientific explanation for the "biochemical pathway to creating the first ATP motor”.

You’ve done no such thing, and everyone can simply look at your post and see that for themselves! All you’ve done is point out some similarities, and asserted that “evolution did it”. However, I don’t doubt the similarities. That’s not what the debate is about. I only doubt the mechanism by which you believe these machines came into existence. Random mutations and natural selection can not in principal explain the origin of any system which requires many integrated parts to perform a function. That is because evolution is blind and has no foresight. It must work by slight successive modifications, where each step provides an advantage significant enough so that it can be selected for.

So how can any molecular machinery, such as the ATP motor, be explained by a blind process like Evolution? Obviously, since it involves many integrated parts, it can’t. It’s that simple. It really is.

Yet here’s what you provided as your evidence as to how this system could evolve:

AronRa:
“By first performing different functions (or none at all) until new modifications coincidentally allowed the current function.”

So that’s how the biomechanical power generator formed? The parts were performing some other function (or none at all), then they somehow came together and formed a rotary machine? Do you not understand why I find this “explanation” laughable? That’s isn’t science Aron….that’s what you call STORY TELLING. It’s not based on your knowledge of these systems, and it’s not based on some experiment that’s been done that has studied how rotary engines can come together without any design. It’s a STORY that evolutionists tell. They are words that fill in your ignorance of how ANY molecular machinery could form. You might as well just say “evolution did it, that settles it”. And any time I try to question it, you retort back with “you’re arguing from incredulity!”. That’s just a form of protectionism where you try to divert any criticism of your theory away by dismissing it out of hand.

Imagine I wanted to provide a causal explanation for the origin of a rotary motor. I told you that I knew it happened without any design because I can point to similar rotary motors of varying complexity in other machines. See? That proves it evolved! Oh what, you don’t believe me? Well you’re just arguing from incredulity!
And if you asked me to provide a little more detail as to how all these parts could come together, I told you that the parts served other functions (or maybe not) until modifications allowed for the current function. Therefore, we don’t need any intelligent designers to explain it! Are you satisfied now? We don’t need to infer a mind or a creator or a designer to explain rotary engines! The parts just did other stuff, until they eventually did what they do now!

Of course such story telling is laughable. No one would ever consider this an explanation for how a rotary engine could come into being. Anyone who is familiar with any form of design work knows that these types of systems require much THOUGHT and FORESIGHT and precise engineering. The ATP motor is built with interdependent parts that are finely engineered and which are much more efficient then anything we humans could ever create.

Here’s why you can’t answer me. This is why you want to move on to something else, because you know you can’t answer this. This is why you provide dozens of rabbit trails in your post, as you desperately try to move the conversation to something else. Evolution CAN’T CREATE THESE MACHINES because these machines can’t be built in ‘slight successive modifications”, or one mutation at a time. They require multiple coordinated and finely engineered parts in order to work. That doesn’t mean every part is essential, or that there can be no variance in the existing design (same as a car engine), but it does mean that it can’t be built via “evolution”, a process with no foresight and can’t build parts to reach some future goal, function, or purpose. Only intelligence can do that. The deliberate choice of a rational agent. This isn’t an inference to “magic” or to some unknown force. Our experience of the causal powers of intelligent agents provides a basis for making inferences to design.



So what do I want from you? I want a CAUSE that is known to produce the EFFECT that we are trying to explain. How do we explain rotary engines? How do we explain turbines? What CAUSE do we know that can produce highly complex and integrated systems that work together to perform a specific function? You reject design. You want to invoke a naturalistic/materialistic cause instead. However, the best materialistic explanation you can provide is that the parts performed “different functions (or none at all) until new modifications coincidentally allowed the current function.” That doesn’t explain how a multiple parts can come together to form a rotary engine.

I’m not arguing from incredulity. You said you could prove Evolution to me. I’m just asking for that proof. Perhaps you are the one who is arguing from personal gullibility. You argument is equivalent to claiming that a bomb in a junk yard can create a spaceship. You can claim that it just happened, but don’t get upset when you can’t convince rational sceptical people.

That’s the end of my response. But to play along with your games, I will answer your rabbit trail questions, just so you don’t run away.
1) No. I’m talking about molecular machinery which can’t form one mutation at a time. There are multiple specific parts that are required in order to have ANY function. That’s a problem for evolution.
2) Already answered in previous post. I believe there are limits to the amount of change. The ATP motor is a specific limit that we’re discussing.
3) Not even close. We can discuss that after if you want. One conversation at a time. The problems with your answer are the same as they are with the ATP motor. If you can answer those, I will grant you the latter.
4) Not even close. That’s what I’m trying to focus on here so please respond to that. I read your post several times and you never once came remotely close to even attempting to provide a biochemical pathway by which this could happen.
5) No. Anything which requires multiple coordinated parts in order to function can not, in principle, form my numerous successive slight modifications. The ATP motor is but one example. Pointing out similarities to other motors doesn’t magically explain the origin of ANYTHING.

AronRa:
If you properly address these, we will continue. If you don't, we won't. But if this conversation ends that way, just know that it wasn't because of what I can't do, but because of what you won't do.

Your games are getting old. Stop trying to find some technicality to end the conversation. You’re trying to steer the conversation in multiple directions in order to avoid providing any evidence or proof. If you can’t provide the evidence – FINE – just admit it. Maybe you have no idea HOW a purely materialistic physical process could create an engine, a turbine, or a rotary motor. Why can’t you admit that? It's starting to look as if your projections of me clinging to belief in spite of contrary evidence is actually a reflection of your state. Unless of course, you can just provide some evidence for what I asked. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[AronRa]

Thanks for defining abiogenesis. No one knew what you were talking about, so we really really needed that. It’s not a rabbit trail at all. *Sarcasm

Also, thanks for bringing up the faith statements of various Christian organizations, the rulings of some judge, and what Kent Hovind once said in a debate. Those are also very important points to bring up in order for you to prove evolution. Totally not rabbit trails. *Sarcasm

These were not rabbit trails because you weren't meant to go down them. I don't want you to be distracted. I'm just establishing the reason why 'irreducible complexity' is so often confused with inexcusable duplicity.

I also had to laugh when I got to the end of your post and saw that you wanted me to ‘concede that I have provided a scientific explanation for the "biochemical pathway to creating the first ATP motor”.

You’ve done no such thing, and everyone can simply look at your post and see that for themselves!

Yes they can, and I hope they do. Because what I showed was an explanation, and it was scientific, because it came from doctoral physics professors at University,. You obviously didn't even click the link I provided for you earlier. There is substantial data there. You can't [honestly/knowledgeably] say that it is not a scientific explanation, because your only complaints with it are that you still have the wrong idea about science works, and the wrong idea about how evolution works, and primarily because you're forbidden to admit any critical error in your wholly flawed belief system.

All you’ve done is point out some similarities, and asserted that “evolution did it”. However, I don’t doubt the similarities. That’s not what the debate is about. I only doubt the mechanism by which you believe these machines came into existence. Random mutations and natural selection can not in principal explain the origin of any system which requires many integrated parts to perform a function. That is because evolution is blind and has no foresight. It must work by slight successive modifications, where each step provides an advantage significant enough so that it can be selected for.

Wrong. It only needs not to be such an issue that it is selected against.

So how can any molecular machinery, such as the ATP motor, be explained by a blind process like Evolution? Obviously, since it involves many integrated parts, it can’t. It’s that simple. It really is.

Only if you dont' [won't] know what you're talking about. As I was trying to show you before, the 'many integrated parts' don't have to come together at once, and they obviously didn't come together 'by design' either.

Yet here’s what you provided as your evidence as to how this system could evolve:

“By first performing different functions (or none at all) until new modifications coincidentally allowed the current function.”

So that’s how the biomechanical power generator formed? The parts were performing some other function (or none at all), then they somehow came together and formed a rotary machine? Do you not understand why I find this “explanation” laughable? That’s isn’t science Aron….that’s what you call STORY TELLING.

I'm sure that's what you said about the type II secretory system and it's relationship to the bacterial flagellum. How then do you account for the greatest minds of modern age accept evolution? That being >95% of all scientists collectively, and 99.86% of 'earth & life' scientists specifically? Do you think it is because they like stories? Why is it then there are so few creationists in the scientific community? And why is it that none of them can show even one aspect of their belief system which they can show to be true? Curious.

I suppose it's all a conspiracy against God, right? It's surely not the wholly corrupt and admittedly dishonest creationists who are conspiring, right? I mean the 'wedge strategy' was totally not a conspiracy, was it? No, certainly not. Nooooo. That pack of liars are certainly above reproach -at least in YOUR mind.

It’s not based on your knowledge of these systems, and it’s not based on some experiment that’s been done that has studied how rotary engines can come together without any design. It’s a STORY that evolutionists tell. They are words that fill in your ignorance of how ANY molecular machinery could form. You might as well just say “evolution did it, that settles it”. And any time I try to question it, you retort back with “you’re arguing from incredulity!”. That’s just a form of protectionism where you try to divert any criticism of your theory away by dismissing it out of hand.

You haven't provided any criticism. You don't even understand the theory. So far, your lack of understanding has been your best argument. I think that's all you've got. That's all any creationist ever seems to have.

I asked Ray Comfort what traits he would look for in a proposed 'transitional species' between apes and men -in order to determine whether it qualifies as an intermediate species or not. His answer was that he wouldn't look at it at all; he would just assert how he 'knows' that he's created in the image of God. That's the same sort of non-argument evasion you're using.

Imagine I wanted to provide a causal explanation for the origin of a rotary motor. I told you that I knew it happened without any design because I can point to similar rotary motors of varying complexity in other machines. See? That proves it evolved! Oh what, you don’t believe me? Well you’re just arguing from incredulity!

As I told you before, a scientific explanation requires that you devise an hypothesis and then determine whether the evidence is concordant with it or contradicts it. In this case, (as in all others) we find that the evidence is exclusively concordant with evolution. It's the same in every science. Creationism conversely has never been supported or indicated by any evidence in any field of study ever -and evolution has never been contradicted. That's another important fact you should probably concede -since you can't show any example from the realm of actual scientific documentation.

And if you asked me to provide a little more detail as to how all these parts could come together, I told you that the parts served other functions (or maybe not) until modifications allowed for the current function. Therefore, we don’t need any intelligent designers to explain it! Are you satisfied now? We don’t need to infer a mind or a creator or a designer to explain rotary engines! The parts just did other stuff, until they eventually did what they do now!

Of course such story telling is laughable.

There is no story-telling there. Is the hypothesis supported or not? Evidently evolution is, and your hypothesis... Wait, you don't have one.

No one would ever consider this an explanation for how a rotary engine could come into being.

Apparently the world-wide scientific community disagrees with you, because the explanation I provided was peer reviewed.

Anyone who is familiar with any form of design work knows that these types of systems require much THOUGHT and FORESIGHT and precise engineering.

Wrong again, as always. Nature determines designs as well, and we've seen how incidental structures come about and can be broken down into precursor systems of more basal organisms.

The ATP motor is built with interdependent parts that are finely engineered and which are much more efficient then anything we humans could ever create.

Quoth the story-teller, the one with no evidence to support him, still trying to defend a compilation of fables which have all been proven wrong. Sad really.

Here’s why you can’t answer me. This is why you want to move on to something else, because you know you can’t answer this.

I can answer this, and in fact, I already did.

This is why you provide dozens of rabbit trails in your post, as you desperately try to move the conversation to something else. Evolution CAN’T CREATE THESE MACHINES because these machines can’t be built in ‘slight successive modifications”, or one mutation at a time.

Yes they can. My explanation showed that, and in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, Ken Miller's team also showed the evolutionary explanation for each of the systems previously (and falsely) described as 'irreducibly complex'.

They require multiple coordinated and finely engineered parts in order to work.

Obviously not.

That doesn’t mean every part is essential, or that there can be no variance in the existing design (same as a car engine), but it does mean that it can’t be built via “evolution”, a process with no foresight and can’t build parts to reach some future goal, function, or purpose. Only intelligence can do that. The deliberate choice of a rational agent.

Wrong and wrong, and I have several examples I would like to have shown you to prove that.

This isn’t an inference to “magic” or to some unknown force.

Yes it is; "magic" being defined as the evocation of supernatural forces or entities to forecast or control natural events.

Our experience of the causal powers of intelligent agents provides a basis for making inferences to design.

No, no it doesn't.

So what do I want from you? I want a CAUSE that is known to produce the EFFECT that we are trying to explain.

I guess that's why you refuse to let me show you the EFFECT in question; because the 'cause' you're pleading can't explain it, and only evolution can.

How do we explain rotary engines? How do we explain turbines? What CAUSE do we know that can produce highly complex and integrated systems that work together to perform a specific function? You reject design.

Wrong again. I get so tired of having to repeat myself to one who will not pay attention. There are natural systems which determine design. They just do it without INTENT. I don't believe in magic, like you do. I don't believe in fairy tales like you do. And I don't willfully deceive myself in a web of lies like you do.

You want to invoke a naturalistic/materialistic cause instead. However, the best materialistic explanation you can provide is that the parts performed “different functions (or none at all) until new modifications coincidentally allowed the current function.” That doesn’t explain how a multiple parts can come together to form a rotary engine.

Yes it does, as I have already shown, and as Miller also showed with the bacterial flagellum.

I’m not arguing from incredulity.

Yes you certainly are.

You said you could prove Evolution to me. I’m just asking for that proof. Perhaps you are the one who is arguing from personal gullibility.

Yeah, I believed that a creationist wasn't lying to me. But you're refusing to meet the terms of the challenge you agreed to.

I will prove to your satisfaction that evolution is actually factual and have you concede that I have. In so doing, I will also allow you to demonstrate the failure of the 2nd part of your challenge, your imagined mystic magically manipulating reality behind the scenes. But I will not submit any work for you to simply ignore and dismiss misunderstood and unconsidered. I will only explain this in a two-way conversation, right here in this thread, because I want to make sure you understand what I'm saying, and that you acknowledge each point as we progress.

You argument is equivalent to claiming that a bomb in a junk yard can create a spaceship. You can claim that it just happened, but don’t get upset when you can’t convince rational sceptical people.

That is how pathetic your misunderstanding is. You're still using adaptations of Fred Hoyle's fallacy. You wouldn't be able to do that if you kept the terms of this agreement. I'm sure you already know that too. That's why you won't.

That’s the end of my response. But to play along with your games, I will answer your rabbit trail questions, just so you don’t run away.

I haven't yet given any 'rabbit trails' like you have, nor will I.

(1) It seems as if you're imagining the ancestor of turtles suddenly developing a shell, which you see as being one structure dependent on hundreds of concordant mutations which all have to happen at once, because it requires X-number of mutations to equal one 'part'. Am I right? Is that how you see this?

1) No. I’m talking about molecular machinery which can’t form one mutation at a time. There are multiple specific parts that are required in order to have ANY function. That’s a problem for evolution.

No it isn't, because your analogy is incorrect -as my citations have already repeatedly explained. Evolution CAN form one mutation at a time, and I would like to get to the point where I begin to show this. It is difficult to teach someone who refuses to learn.

(2a) Do you also accept that allelic variance leads to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets? (2b) If so, do you accept that these are compiled over successive generations? (2c) Or that these expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins?
(You can answer all of these by conceding the fact that 'evolution happens'.)

2) Already answered in previous post. I believe there are limits to the amount of change. The ATP motor is a specific limit that we’re discussing.

That's not the only thing we're discussing. There are no 'limits' known to evolutionary science. If there were, you would be able to cite one within the scientific literature. But even if there were, that still wouldn't answer any of the three questions I just asked.

(a) Do you also accept that allelic variance leads to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets?
(b) If so, do you accept that these are compiled over successive generations?
(c) Or that these expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins?
(You can answer all of these by conceding the fact that 'evolution happens'.)

(3) Concede that I have met your challenge to show you a reasonable scientific explanation of protein folding.

3) Not even close. We can discuss that after if you want. One conversation at a time. The problems with your answer are the same as they are with the ATP motor. If you can answer those, I will grant you the latter.

I already did that. Your turn. This is still the same one-and-only, no rabbit-trail conversation it has always been. Why doesn't that qualify as a scientific explanation? And what criteria would be required for that? Again, you obviously haven't bothered to look at the link I provided for you earlier. In this case, it came from a text on cell biology from the University of Arizona. Done. Which am I believe? That? Or the guy who is still proving that he doesn't know anything?

(4) Concede that I have provided a scientific explanation for the "biochemical pathway to creating the first ATP motor".

4) Not even close. That’s what I’m trying to focus on here so please respond to that. I read your post several times and you never once came remotely close to even attempting to provide a biochemical pathway by which this could happen.

Again, the world-wide scientific community disagrees with you, as indicated in this article in Nature. I'm going to have to consider that more credible than the incredulity of someone who (a) refuses to understand how evolution works, (2) doesn't get how hypotheses work, who (3) still believes in magic and fairy tales, and (4) is still pleading for concepts that have not only been disputed by science but which were also proven fraudulent in a court of law.

(5) Concede that science has never yet found any complex organ which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.

5) No. Anything which requires multiple coordinated parts in order to function can not, in principle, form my numerous successive slight modifications. The ATP motor is but one example. Pointing out similarities to other motors doesn’t magically explain the origin of ANYTHING.

You don't understand what this question demands. To answer this one in the negative requires that you produce one such example. Something where post-doctoral professorial mainstream scientists, and peer-reviewed journals like Nature agree with you -instead of always only agreeing with me. In this case, the evolution of the ATP motor is well-accepted by mainstream science. If you still don't understand that, if the 'big words' were too much for you, look it up on Wikipedia, where the explanation is much simpler -and still provides a list of scientific citations supporting it. Sorry, but you're not going to be able to evoke that for your side. Your side still has nothing in it. Everything is still on my side.

Your games are getting old. Stop trying to find some technicality to end the conversation. You’re trying to steer the conversation in multiple directions in order to avoid providing any evidence or proof. If you can’t provide the evidence – FINE – just admit it. Maybe you have no idea HOW a purely materialistic physical process could create an engine, a turbine, or a rotary motor. Why can’t you admit that? It's starting to look as if your projections of me clinging to belief in spite of contrary evidence is actually a reflection of your state. Unless of course, you can just provide some evidence for what I asked. I'm not holding my breath.

You're projecting again. You're the one who's been playing games since the beginning, and you're the one trying to steer the conversation down any rabbit hole you can -in order to avoid what you know I will show you.

No more blaming me for your delays, obfuscations, and rabbit trails. Don't try to pin your faith on me either. I will not accept your flaws, so stop projecting them. I'm sure you don't understand why, but you can't intimidate me either. So stop trying. Focus on the questions given, and stop wasting so much time.

 

[Onceforgivennowfree]

Sorry AronRa, just a simple clarification.

What pages and paragraphs show that the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection have or can create the ATP motor? I have the paper now and I can't seem to find it. Did I miss something or does the paper not actually provide the evidence you claim it does?

 

[AronRa]

Sorry AronRa, just a simple clarification.

What pages and paragraphs show that the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection have or can create the ATP motor? I have the paper now and I can't seem to find it. Did I miss something or does the paper not actually provide the evidence you claim it does?

I guess the German study isn't explicit enough even with the illustrated progression. Try this American study instead, The evolution of A-, F-, and V-type ATP synthases and ATPases: reversals in function and changes in the H+/ATP coupling ratio. I wrote to Prof. Rick Cross Ph.D a few days ago, asking if it was possible to simplify this any further, specifically to explain it to creationists, but he hasn't replied, and I can't say I'm surprised. Most professional scientists seem unaware that creationists still exist. Or they don't think it matters, because when they see your failure understanding or applying science, they (sadly) don't realize that you're still a threat in the political sphere, controlling much of legislation and primary education. This is one of things I mean to change -starting with you.

Anyway, the abstract and first section of this article alone already answer your question even more clearly than the previous paper did. It describes in detail how there was a single point-mutation at one stage, followed by a loss of function in this other gene, then the subsequent duplication/fusion of a different gene, followed by another loss of function in this other gene. It's all pretty clear, I think.

I presented the first paper, because it had the illustrated step-by-step progression that dandan said I'd have to provide. But I'd rather cite this paper because dandan also said I wouldn't be able to point to any single specific mutation in that process, and I like to show how creationists are never right about anything ever. This citation shows how science can explain the sequence of how the structure was built, piece-by-piece, one mutation-at-a-time, and how it changed functions at certain stages, but remained functional at every stage.

And before you try to dismiss either of these as a mere 'story', remember that the Osnabrück paper included a phylogenetic orthologue, showing how these mutations can be charted; while the one from Upstate Medical University referenced analyses of stoichiometry and other physical observations to confirm how the described steps were evident both in the structure and in the genome.

 

[AronRa]

Now if we can get back to the challenge, I have to repeat all my previously ignored questions again.

As I told you before, a scientific explanation requires that you devise an hypothesis and then determine whether the evidence is concordant with it or contradicts it. In this case, (as in all others) we find that the evidence is exclusively concordant with evolution. It's the same in every science. Creationism conversely has never been supported or indicated by any evidence in any field of study ever -and evolution has never been contradicted, the way creationism consistently always has been. That's another important fact you should probably concede -since you can't show any example from the realm of actual scientific documentation.

If you can't cite any documentation of the 'limits' you insist that evolution has either, then you should concede that such have never been indicated or discovered.

(a) Do you accept that allelic variance leads to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets?
(b) If so, do you accept that these are compiled over successive generations?
(c) Or that these expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins?
(You can answer all of these by conceding the fact that 'evolution happens'.

Concede that my citation of University level cell biology course material qualifies as a reasonable scientific explanation of protein folding.

Concede that I have provided a scientific explanation for the "biochemical pathway" to creating the first ATP motor.

Concede that science has never yet found any complex organ which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, and that this is why you can't cite even one such example from the peer-reviewed literature.

 

[AronRa]

Dr. Cross actually wrote me back. So I'll share what he had to say.

Dear Mr. Ra,

You may be writing to me because you are aware of two papers I wrote
regarding the evolution of the FoF1-ATP synthase. I am including those
references below for your convenience.

Other than what's covered in those publications, I would add the
following:

Humans need to have answers to their questions, even when no answers
based on knowledge are available. The example I like to use is what
happened several thousand years ago when people became anxious about
whether the sun would come up the next day. To allay their fears, they
invented the concept of a God that drove the sun across the sky in a
chariot . Furthermore they assumed that this God was benevolent and
dependable and by this means achieved peace of mind by perpetuating a
delusional myth. Once it was understood that the Earth revolved on his
axis, this "religious" myth fell from favor . This story has parallels
to current claims that the eye and the ATP synthase, which functions as
a rotary motor, is so complex that it could not have evolved, but must
have been designed by some supreme being. People that make such claims
do not understand evolution, and in many cases, because of religious
doctrine, refused to accept the age of the earth. Hence they cannot
appreciate how complicated structures can evolve by natural selection
over a very long period of time.

I hope this proves of some help to you.

Sincerely,

Richard Cross

 

[Onceforgivennowfree]

Ok so wait, that paper you first cited doesn't show a possible biochemical pathway by which the first ATP could have evolved? I hope you understand my frustration. You cite a scientific paper where I need to PURCHASE the paper or get a SUBSCRIPTION in order to read it. All people can see when they click on the link is the title and abstract.

Then, you say:

Concede that I have provided a scientific explanation for the "biochemical pathway to creating the first ATP motor".

Really? You link to a paper that doesn't provide the full text, then you command me to concede that you've met my challenge?? Obviously, I didn't concede this because I like to see the EVIDENCE for myself. Just because I see an article with the words "Evolution" and "ATP" in the abstract, I don't jump to the conclusion that this molecular machine can be produced via purely physical processes.

So next I go to the trouble of actually obtaining the article you cited, and I read it. Oddly, I can't find anything about how mutations and natural selection could possible have the ability to create this machine. So I ask you if there is a specific section or paragraph, and you don't have one? Oopsies, right?

Did you read the paper yourself?

If you did, then you knew all along it didn't actually provide a "biochemical pathway to creating the first ATP motor". And you cited it hoping/assuming that I would concede you answered the challenge WITHOUT being able to actually read the paper myself.

If you didn't read the paper, then you were hoping I couldn't access the paper so that I couldn't call you on your citation bluff.

But now, I have the paper. And I ask you for a specific page number or paragraph and your response is...well....that paper doesn't actually provide a biochemical pathway like you claimed it did?? Amazing how confident you are when you cite papers that aren't accessible. Then, when I actually manage to obtain the paper, you change your mind. But of course, you didn't miss a beat. You quickly cite ANOTHER paper, and try to move the conversation on to something else. Clever.

I will look at this NEW paper you cited after, but let's not just ignore your citation bluff. You asked me to "Concede that I have provided a scientific explanation for the "biochemical pathway to creating the first ATP motor". Either that paper you first cited provides this, or it doesn't. If it does, tell me where. If it doesn't, can you please explain why you pretended that it did? Did you actually read it? I'm just confused why you would attempt to play a game like this.

Of course, the next paper you cite has it's own problems, which I'm assuming is why you cite it, then change the topic on to something else. So as I said, I will deal with the next paper you cited. I'm not trying to avoid it. Let's just figure out what happened with this first paper first. You can't use a citation bluff then change the topic as if nothing happened.



Regards,
OFNF

FYI, I will make a video about why the laryngael nerve in the giraffe is NOT good evidence for evolution, and I will explain it from the Creationist perspective. I briefly explained it in the other thread, but you didn't seem satisfied. But to be honest, I only briefly went over it because I assumed you were just wasting my time, and that that wasn't your proof of evolution....just stuff you throw out there to side track me. So if you care what my full response is to that, I'll upload a new video soon on my channel.

 

[AronRa]

First you asked me, "What evidence do you have that there is a biochemical pathway to create such a motor, such that each mutation provides a beneficial advantage?" So I showed the illustration, answering that question. The link I gave you to A. Mulkidjanian, Osnabrück had another link at the bottom for the Full PDF. There was no subscription required.

I read that whole article. It actually did explain a 'biochemical pathway'. But as I said, they didn't explain it in a way that would make sense to you. Because the ATP motor is conserved in every taxonomic kingdom, they first had to determine what common features they would need to compare between the three main domains. From there they describe the most basic template foundation to start from. Beyond that they compared suggested hypothetical models and relevant data to determine several sequential stages of assembly. It's very dry, and they refer many times to their included illustrations. This article needs those illustrations, because the descriptions of them can't summarized any better. Even if you didn't understand the explanation, you should at least comprehend that they're trying to explain the illustrations, and those depictions are clear enough. This is a demonstration of a picture being worth a thousand words, except that these are longer words mixed with chemical abbreviations, and it doesn't make a very compelling read. Every time the article mentioned how they were about to move on to "the next stage or evolution" after the one they just described, -I knew that if you ever did read this, you wouldn't have understood what the last stage was.

However technical it may be, it does answer your first question. Then you asked, "What pages and paragraphs show that the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection have or can create the ATP motor? I have the paper now and I can't seem to find it. Did I miss something or does the paper not actually provide the evidence you claim it does?" Don't forget this is the same research that was also featured in Nature. So there were no 'oopsies', and it can't have been a 'citation bluff'. The fact that it was posted to peer review means that the scientific community recognizes this as an explanation of the evolution of the first ATP motor. So the problem is obviously not whether the data is there, but whether you can understand it.

If you give me a book on Computers for Dummies, and I asked which page or paragraph explains how to use a computer, I think you would assume that I'm either lazy or have problems with comprehension. One thing you would know is that no one paragraph explains what it takes the whole book to do. The same rule applies here too.

While they talked about chemical influences of environmental conditions, and they did identify ubiquitous genes, they focused only the structure, and didn't describe the specific mutations involved. It didn't explain the steps in the kind of language I knew you'd be looking for, and I already know that creationists reject illustrations as 'just pictures". I could guess that it wouldn't be sufficient to satisfy one who relies on incredulity to reject what he does not want to understand. So as soon as I posted that illustration, I predicted your response, and immediately sought another citation to back that one, one which explained things in the explicit terms you'd have to see. I found it, and even got the FEBS Letters version of it. So you STILL don't need a subscription. I even wrote to the principle party to see if he could simplify it even more. He and perhaps some of his staff may be reading this conversation just for that purpose, So if you have questions....

You keep puffing up with false bravado, but I don't think you're fooling anyone. In this discussion, you pose no threat, nor could you. Although I'm certain you won't understand why this is, there could never be a situation in which I would need or want to bluff a creationist, nor indeed anyone who holds a different perspective from mine, not when it is a matter of verifiable fact. That is how our perspectives differ; YOUR 'worldview' needs to be defended even if it's wrong. The only value my position has can be correlated to how accurate it can be shown to be. That's why I have no choice but to believe as I do, and couldn't pretend to believe what you pretend to believe.

FYI, I will make a video about why the laryngael nerve in the giraffe is NOT good evidence for evolution, and I will explain it from the Creationist perspective. I briefly explained it in the other thread, but you didn't seem satisfied. But to be honest, I only briefly went over it because I assumed you were just wasting my time, and that that wasn't your proof of evolution....just stuff you throw out there to side track me. So if you care what my full response is to that, I'll upload a new video soon on my channel.

Can creationists do anything but project their own faults onto those who won't share them? You're the one trying to side-track. You cannot support your contention. But I will be delighted to see you try. You will try to criticize evolution, because that's the best you could hope to do. But you cannot show that there is any truth to creationism. You cannot show any facts for creation the way I can for evolution. You know I can too, that's why you cower away from my simple questions; you have to duck and dodge because you have no interest in truth and cannot honestly admit what anyone reading this could already tell.

If you don't everyone to see you only as a disingenuous coward, then STOP IGNORING THESE QUESTIONS! I'm not kidding. You're the one wasting MY time, and I'm not putting up with it anymore.

1. If you cannot show even one instance in the actual scientific literature where evolution was contradicted or creationism was supported, then admit that you can cite no such example is known.

2. If you can't cite any documentation of the 'limits' you insist that evolution has either, then you should concede that such have never been indicated or discovered.

(3a) Do you accept that allelic variance leads to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets?
(3b) If so, do you accept that these are compiled over successive generations?
(3c) Or that these expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins?
(You can answer all of these by conceding the fact that 'evolution happens'.

4. If you can't show how a University biology department got their own teaching materials wrong, then concede that my citation of cell biology course material qualifies as a reasonable scientific explanation of protein folding.

5. Concede that I have provided a scientific explanation for the "biochemical pathway" to creating the first ATP motor.

6. If you can't cite any peer reviewed documentation of any complex organ which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, then concede that science has still never found one.

 

[Onceforgivennowfree]

AronRa,
You haven't shown a bio-chemical pathway by which the ATP could evolve. Do you not understand what a bio-chemical pathway is? Evolution requires a step-by-step mutational pathway to create the ATP motor (and everything else!). If there is a step-by-step pathway that can create an ATP motor, then how many steps are there? How many DNA "letters" are required to build an ATP motor? A thousand? A million? More? How do you know that all of the parts for this turbine can come together via random mutations and natural selection? Remember. Each mutation must provide an advantage over the last in order to be selected for. And of course, living things need ATP in order to survive. So Evolution better evolve is REALLY QUICK or else it's just not gonna work. And linking to papers that compare the ATP motor among different organisms does nothing to provide a CAUSAL explanation for the origin of ATP.

When you link to articles which don't even ATTEMPT to explain the origin of ATP (the one article started off with ATP, and ended with ATP....I had a a good laugh), it makes you less believable. You assert that your paper shows the evolution of ATP when the paper CLEARLY does not even ATTEMPT to explain the origin of ATP. And when I ask you for a page number, your only response is....well....check out this other paper instead.....or....ummm....well....there's not specific page, its just the whole thing! Ok...Whatever AronRa!

You keep harping about evidence for the limits of Evolution. Of course, ATP is one of those limits. Random mutations can't create interdependent systems that work together to perform a specific function.

What I find amazing is that you think there are no limits. What if a particular change requires 10 coordinated mutations? Would that be a limit to what the powers of evolution can do? What about 5 coordinated mutations? Heck....what about 2? What if a change requires 2 coordinated mutations in the human/ape populations. Then what? Can random mutations accomplish this? Well, according to these Evolutionists, it would take 216 millions years

http://www.genetics.org/content/180/3/1501.full

So....since we're supposed to have evolved from apes, what like 10 million years ago? I'll be generous, let's make it 20. That means that any change requiring over 2 mutations would not reasonably have happened in the supposed time frame that we evolved from apes. It's what you could call....A LIMIT!

Cheers
-OFNF

 

[AronRa]