rstuart,
You ask if I’m Don Batten? No, but I can say that I’ve met him a few years ago, and found him an amiable chap. So I’m happy that you might lump us together. Although his scientific resume and his writing ability would eat mine for breakfast.

Regarding the timing of the posts commenting on the Lenski experiment, Batten posted his http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827 on Saturday, the day before yours, and (by chance) I read his before reading yours.

Regarding creationists ‘finding refuge in a new argument’, I would say it is the right of the scientist, even the obligation, to refine their model as new evidence comes to light. This is normal. However, I don’t think that’s what’s happening here.

Creationists haven’t changed (or needed to change) their position on ‘beneficial mutations’ for decades.

Well known creationist, Carl Weiland, in his basic introductory booklet on creationism, Stones and Bones, written in 1994 for the layperson, said, “There are in fact a tiny handful of mutations known which make it easier for an organism to survive in a given environment.” This is in comparison to the overwhelming numbers of mutations which are either harmful or just meaningless genetic ‘noise’.

One example he sites of a beneficial mutation is the beetle living on a windy rock that lost the ability to make wings. They survived better as they weren’t been blown into the sea when attempting to fly. But this was a corruption of the genetic information to make wings, thus a loss of information.

Weiland asks, “Where do we see any example of real upward increases of information – new coding for new functions, new machine programs, new useful structures?”

Pointing to the Lenski experiment isn’t going to help solve the evolutionist’s problem. And I don’t think it is a question of playing with the definitions of ‘new’ and ‘genetic information’. In Dr Batten’s post, he explains his definitions tightly in terms of faults and loss of specificity in previously operating functions.

The limits from mutational possibilities are helped made evident by Lenski’s and other experiments.

… (continued)

With regard to mutations which may induce harmful diseases, natural selection does have a role in their elimination (by selecting the strong rather than the weak). Though Weiland notes that these genetic defects “… are not usually eliminated by natural selection, since most only show up as a problem if they are inherited simultaneously from both parents. Thus one can ‘carry’ these defects without suffering them – in fact, all of us carry many such mistakes in our DNA” CW, 1994.

AJ,
Your phrase, “lazy logic that can be applied to anything” is well applicable to your comment “everything in existence supports evolution”. Can this be applied to anything? In fact, you apply it to everything. And you used the phrase again later on.

Can anyone possibly know everything? It’s like saying, “God told me X.” Well, if God told you that, then how can anyone argue? Similarly, if “everything in existence supports evolution”, I don’t where any reasoned discussion could go after that.

Continuing to claim this kind of absolute knowledge will only make it harder for you to deny the accusation that evolution tends towards a religious belief, and is ultimately a faith position.

My comment, “In all cases, mutations cause corruption...” was problematic. As Rstuart also pointed out, the statement is vague and loose. This is further evidence that I’m not Dr Batten, who wouldn’t make such a loose comment. Mostly mutations are neutral, creating genetic ‘noise’. The harmful mutations are plentiful. And the tiny number of those that could be described as beneficial, I’ve spoken of above.

Dr Batten’s hyperbolic ‘crocodile’ comment was well used, and to good effect. If I claimed I could crawl from Perth to Sydney, the first thing I would have to demonstrate is my ability to crawl from my starting point onto the path. Batten did not say that the E Coli was about to turn into a crocodile, but that the experiments show it had not even found the path.

Science fails to demonstrate or validate any pathway for molecules-to-man evolution (except to the satisfaction of true believers).

Dan,

<<Your phrase, “lazy logic that can be applied to anything” is well applicable to your comment “everything in existence supports evolution”.>>

No, it's not. Again, my statement can be verified and falsified.

Why am I having to repeat myself so often? The fact that I am is a good sign of how much religious belief can act as a 'blockage' logic and reason.

<<Can anyone possibly know everything?>>

Okay. I'll rephrase it: Everything in existence, that we know of, supports evolution.

<<It’s like saying, “God told me X.” Well, if God told you that, then how can anyone argue?>>

Because you can't disprove “God told me X”. Whereas, my statement could be disproven providing the evidence against it was found.

<<Similarly, if “everything in existence supports evolution”, I don’t where any reasoned discussion could go after that.>>

You could find something that countered the statement.

<<Continuing to claim this kind of absolute knowledge will only make it harder for you to deny the accusation that evolution tends towards a religious belief, and is ultimately a faith position.>>

Not at all.

Faith isn't required to accept evolution. You will never be able to equate the acceptance of evolution with the belief in a deity, no matter how hard you try. No reasoned discussion can occur until you're able to grasp this very simple concept.

And besides, I've never claimed absolute knowledge. All I'm saying is that everything in existence (that we know of) supports evolution to some degree or another - nothing contradicts it (at best you might be able find data that remains neutral). All the data fits together perfectly like a puzzle. Trying to argue against evolution is akin to putting together much of a puzzle, then breaking it apart and saying: “No, no. That's not how it goes.”

<<And the tiny number of those that could be described as beneficial, I’ve spoken of above.>>

Yes, and beneficial and inheritable changes over millions of years makes evolution entirely plausible.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Batten did not say that the E Coli was about to turn into a crocodile, but that the experiments show it had not even found the path.>>

Yes, I understand that. But it was still a poor comment considering there's nothing to suggest that the E-coli couldn't become a far more complex life form given millions of years and the right conditions.

The fact that we haven't observed this means nothing considering that it would actually be evidence against evolution if we had.

So again, it was incredibly poor form for a scientist (even if he is just a pseudo-scientist) to make such a statement.

<<Science fails to demonstrate or validate any pathway for molecules-to-man evolution.>>

This comment would have been a little more accurate if you had added the words “definitively and conclusively” at the end of it. As it stands, this statement is a gross exaggeration at best.

Either way, you could make statements like this about many scientific theories, but it would hardly be a reason to abandon or deny any of those now, would it?

Without even saying it, you're implying that we then conclude that 'God must've done it'. This would be scientifically irresponsible considering the biological knowledge we now have because of the study of evolution.

<<(except to the satisfaction of true believers)>>

Again, 'belief in' evolution isn't necessary as the evidence supports it. So much so that if a God did dictate the Bible to it's authors, he most certainly didn't speak truthfully or clearly as you believe.

AJ,
Perhaps you are able to reveal what scientific qualifications you possess, qualifications enough to tag Dr Batten a pseudo-scientist?

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/582

Dan S de Merengue: "Dr Batten a pseudo-scientist?"

Dr Batten holds qualifications in agriculture. Maybe he does science in agriculture - I have not looked. In any case he does not do science in evolution, and any related area. Creationism is not science. It is religious belief dressed up a science. All its adherents hold strong religious views, and for some reason are given to perpetuating this fraud. I find this behaviour perplexing as they are mostly Christians, yet this strikes me as a rather unchristian thing to do.

Science has a very real purpose, and is useful only to the extent that it fulfils that purpose. The purpose is simple: to predict the future. It does this by creating a model of reality. For example, the model might be that if you give a dog a bone he will wag his tail, or it might be that an event moves through 4 dimensional space time at a constant speed: the speed of light. In any case, if we want to make the dog wag his tail, or we want to know if our father will end up younger than us if he goes on a space trip, we apply the model.

Evolution is one such model, and it does make predictions. Like all models its predictions aren't perfect, but they are good enough to be useful. For example Lenski predicted that his E.Coli would breed faster after a few generations. They did.

Creationism explains everything, but predicts nothing. Thus it is not useful to us like science is, yet it seeks to undermine scientific models that do successfully predict things. Why would you want to do this?

If Batten is a scientist, then he applies rigorous scientific principles to his field of work. He ruthlessly tests the predictions made by his models against reality, keeping those that work and discarding the rest - regardless of what he religious beliefs might be. If he doesn't do this but still claims to be a scientist he is at best deceiving himself, at worst a fraud - deliberating trying to deceive everyone.