Posted: Jul 25, 2010 8:10 pm
by Rumraket
Cali didn't answer my questions, but y'all will of course say he did, as you did. I think the questioner has the right to satisfaction, not the cali team members or cali himself. But in this "science" the answerers grade themselves.What fun.
How could you possibly think bacteria that modify their diet is a good example of "good" mutations that demonstrate the invention, design, and assembly of complex bio-systems such as lung/heart/blood/vessel systems? That is unthinkable. You accept too easily. I don't. Why would you yourself not question that. You can think. And your demenaing of my thinking and education is a good strategy for you as you can't respond to the questions I pose. So you go to the "you don't understand" card. Good going. Also listing genetic changes is good. They have never been observed inventing and assembling complex bio-systems or even simple ones, but, again good strategy. Your only strategy.

The first thing I notice is you didn't actually answer any of my questions except the one about the evolution of nylonase.
The second thing is that you are again erecting a strawman of what exactly I myself accept or don't. I don't argue that because nylonase evolved, so did lungs, hearts or bloodvessels. So nice try there. Now, i happen to accept the provided evidence that hearts, lungs and blood vessels evolve, but this is completely unrelated to the evolution of nylonase. Nobody went to me and said "look, nylonase! Therefore : heart, lung and bloodvessel". There is a vast seperate litterature on those subjects, I propose you read it.

But while on the subject of nylonase, how is it that random mutations resulted in the existence of a new protein capable metabolizing nylon? I mean, you have several places on your blog where you say such mutations don't even exist and have never been observed. In addition to you above here erecting the claim that even simple biological systems cannot evolve.
Here's one such example from your blog:
SteveBee's blog wrote:1. Of course, number one is how many mutation are “good”, and would be beneficial for an animal. I have never seen or read about a good mutation, but if he says they exist, let’s see some evidence, or at least a current lab experiment that shows that they do. Can it be shown that mutations can bring about retinal cells,or lens cells? Usually mutants are aberrations, and not pretty. Also, considering the fact that according to evolution biologists, well over 50% of mutations are neutral or not “good”, each “good” mutation would have to be accompanied by many neutral or “bad” mutations, which would mean one step forward and many steps back. But this is an old challenge which I am sure can be answered by Dawkins in some illogical way, but answered nonetheless.

You can now go modify that section of your blog please, because you have above effectively just admitted that nylonase exists and evolved.
I would also like to correct you here abou the part in red which is both factually incorrect and betrays a vast misunderstanding of mutations. Most mutations are neutral, a small portion are good and a small portion are bad. Not "well over 50% are neutral or bad"<- that's simply factually incorrect.

Additionally, beneficial mutations are not nessecerily accompanied by harmful mutations. This is just invented horseshit on your part and you can now consider yourself corrected. Please edit your blog accordingly or provide experimentally derived evidence to support your postulate because the link I provided above refutes this claim of yours.