One Eyed Jack
New member
Johnny said:
Rather than gripe about the age of the reference, why don't you hunt for a more recent one that says something different? Your response isn't a rebuttal -- it's pure ad hominem.
Evidence for Creation & Against Evolution.
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
Rather than gripe about the age of the reference, why don't you hunt for a more recent one that says something different? Your response isn't a rebuttal -- it's pure ad hominem.
That's not an ad hominem argument. I was remarking on the character of a man who exclusively, selectively, and rather deceptively quotes a paper from 1957 to support an absurd claim. That would be like me arguing that no evidence exists to support the helical structure of DNA, and then quoting a paper from 1950 to support my claim.One Eyed Jack said:
There is no shortage of papers demonstrating the contrary, and I can post a few references if you like. Nonetheless, bob is not interested in counter-examples, nor does he appear to be interested in discussing these topics in any serious capacity.
Last edited:
One Eyed Jack
New member
Johnny said:
Yes. That would be much preferable to ad hominem. Thank you.
Wessex Man
New member
Well of course I don't believe it for a minute,but let's look past that,
If you're right then this doesn't do much to prove genesis ,perhaps a form of creation but it's a fanatastic leap to say it proves the genesis story,there's the same amount of evidence for the Prometheous story or any other creation myth.
One Eyed Jack said:
It would behoove both of you to understand what an ad hominem argument is before wrongly accusing me of it. Attacking someone's character is not an ad hominem unless it's being used to discredit the argument he is presenting. I did not argue that you should reject his claim because of his character. If you had read carefully (the big bold words), you would have seen that I was remarking on the man's character because of the argument he was presenting. I was not remarking on the argument he was presenting because of the man's character. The latter would be an argumentum ad hominem.Frank Ernest= said:
Argumentum ad hominem:
- Person A makes claim X.
- Person B makes an attack on person A.
- Therefore A's claim is false.
My post:
- Person A makes claim X.
- Claim X is deceitful and terribly outdated
- Therefore person A lacks integrity.
I hope that's cleared up for both of you now.
Here's some papers to check out:
Hall, B. G. and T. Zuzel (1980) Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 77(6): 3529-33.
Clarke, P. H. (1980) "Experiments in microbial evolution: new enzymes, new metabolic activities" Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 207: 385-404. (good review)
Hall, B. G. (1983) "Evolution of new metabolic functions in laboratory organisms" Evolution of genes and proteins
Ohno, S. (1984) "Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 81, pp. 2421-2425
Lin, E.C.C., & Wu, T.T. (1984) Functional divergence of the L-Fucose system in Escherichia coli. In R.P. Mortlock (ed.), "Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution" Plenum, New York.
Hartley, B.S. (1984), Experimental evolution of ribitol dehydrogenase. In R.P. Mortlock (ed.), "Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution" Plenum, New York.
Prijambada ID et al., 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
Papadopoulos, D., Schneider, D., Meier-Eiss, J., Arber, W., Lenski, R. E., Blot, M. (1999). Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation experiment with bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96: 3807-3812
Zhang, J., Y.-P. Zhang and H. F. Rosenberg, 2002. Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey. Nature Genetics 30: 411-415.
Hall, B. G. and T. Zuzel (1980) Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 77(6): 3529-33.
Clarke, P. H. (1980) "Experiments in microbial evolution: new enzymes, new metabolic activities" Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 207: 385-404. (good review)
Hall, B. G. (1983) "Evolution of new metabolic functions in laboratory organisms" Evolution of genes and proteins
Ohno, S. (1984) "Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 81, pp. 2421-2425
Lin, E.C.C., & Wu, T.T. (1984) Functional divergence of the L-Fucose system in Escherichia coli. In R.P. Mortlock (ed.), "Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution" Plenum, New York.
Hartley, B.S. (1984), Experimental evolution of ribitol dehydrogenase. In R.P. Mortlock (ed.), "Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution" Plenum, New York.
Prijambada ID et al., 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
Papadopoulos, D., Schneider, D., Meier-Eiss, J., Arber, W., Lenski, R. E., Blot, M. (1999). Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation experiment with bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96: 3807-3812
Zhang, J., Y.-P. Zhang and H. F. Rosenberg, 2002. Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey. Nature Genetics 30: 411-415.
Johnny,
I believe you are attempting to show that evolution can occur, because a mutation is able to change the enzymatic capability of a protein (enzyme).
This is a logical fallacy. Lifeforms are highly "tuned" mechanisms, not individual enzymes. An increase in enzymatic function could quite possibly lead to a less fit creature.
I suggest you read Lee Spetner's book Not By Chance for a thorough discussion of this subject. It shows how naive people are sometimes fooled by their evolutionary preconceptions into thinking that a laboratory experiment on enzymes is demonstrating evolution.
Incidentally, the vast majority of people who post on these forums probably do not have university access to the kinds of technical papers you have referenced. It would be better to post the conclusion section of such references to support your case.
I believe you are attempting to show that evolution can occur, because a mutation is able to change the enzymatic capability of a protein (enzyme).
This is a logical fallacy. Lifeforms are highly "tuned" mechanisms, not individual enzymes. An increase in enzymatic function could quite possibly lead to a less fit creature.
I suggest you read Lee Spetner's book Not By Chance for a thorough discussion of this subject. It shows how naive people are sometimes fooled by their evolutionary preconceptions into thinking that a laboratory experiment on enzymes is demonstrating evolution.
Incidentally, the vast majority of people who post on these forums probably do not have university access to the kinds of technical papers you have referenced. It would be better to post the conclusion section of such references to support your case.
There is no logical fallacy. These experiments demonstrate that novel information, proteins, and functions not only can but do arise by random mutation and selectional pressures. This is something that you and others have argued does not happen. You are correct that an increase in enzymatic function could lead to a less fit organism, but we are not just dealing with increases in enzymatic function, nor are the mutations discussed above yielding "less fit" organisms.
Johnny said:
Fine. Then present the evidence that supports your thesis instead of merely listing titles to references which non-university connected people can not access.
Why not start with your best single case?
BTW, most informed creationists know that there are cases in which creatures can adapt rapidly to changes in the environment, but that these cases are actually evidence against evolution by random mutations because they are repeatable and happen way too rapidly to be caused by random mutations.
In other words there must be a "built-in" mechanism which allows this to happen.
So instead of assuming "evolution dun it", scientists should get to work discovering the detailed nature of the previously ingeniously designed adaptation mechanism.
:darwinsm: I believe that's called making a distinction without a difference.Johnny said:
noguru
Well-known member
bob b said:
Bob, you have acknowleged before that evolution is stochastic. IOW, it does not rely entirely on chance. Anyone who understands natural evolution understands that pure chance as a description is not accurate. Why are you claiming here that pure chance is an accurate description?
So yes, creatures adapting to their environment is repeatable. That is because there are variables involved that are predictable, as well as the variable of chance. And yes it happens way to rapidly for random mutation (pure chance) to be the only variable. This is not an argument against the actual theory of evolution. This may be an argument against your strawman representation.
Scientists are working on discovering the detailed nature of the mechanisms involved. In fact, you referred to a couple books addressing this exact subject a couple months back. But when I pointed out that this was not support for your model, you called me a "ninny".
noguru said:
It is simple logic that tells evolutionists that mutations would have to be random in order to create information, for if mutations were due to some unknown non-random mechanism then how such a mechanism arose would have to be investigated before a conclusion could be reached that it was due to a "natural" cause.
I have already posted quotations from some of the most noted evolutionists that they believe that mutations are random. This is basic to the belief that creatures evolve "naturally".
It is good that some researchers are investigating why mutations occur non-randomly, because they will probably be able to uncover the underlying mechanism that permits this to happen. Then the remaining problem will be to determine how such mechanisms came to be in the first place.
The concept of random mutations was advanced over 50 years ago.
It is showing its age.
Then you believe wrong. By definition, I did not present an argumentum ad hominem. As I expected, your response was utterly void of any semblence of a rebuttal. A laughing smilie does not constitute an argument, though it is often substituted for lack of one. I would like to see if OEJ defends your statement and still asserts that I presented an argumentum ad hominem.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Johnny said:
Despite your attempts at sophistry, I have no reason to change my assertion. You presented an argumentum ad hominem, and you got caught. Chalk it up to experience, and move on, Johnny boy.
Can you show me, with a definition, how my statement constitutes an ad hominem? Follow carefully, Jack (and Frank).
I'm citing wikipedia:
A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:
1. A makes claim X.
2. There is something objectionable about A.
3. Therefore claim X is false.
My post:
1. A makes claim X
2. Claim X is 53 years old and outdated.
3. Therefore A who made the claim lacks integrity
I did not at all imply his claim was false because he lacked integrity. I claimed he lacked integrity because of the claim he was making. Wikipedia says, "Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy."
Neither of you can argue that I was presenting an argumentum ad hominem, which is why neither of you have even tried. Both of you must have have mistakingly thought that an attack on character automatically constitutes an argumentum ad hominem, but that's not true. Both of you are wrong by definition.
One Eyed Jack
New member
You're argument was an ad hominem, and this discussion is over, Johnny. Go find another website on which to practice deception.
Jack's got red rash fever. :shocked:fool said: