Joined: Nov. 2011
|Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 13 2011,22:24)|
|Doesn't matter. If these IDiots are going to make noise about "novel genetic material", they need to have some way to tell whether or not a given chunk of genetic material genuinely is "novel", because if they don't have some way to tell the difference between "novel" and non-"novel" genetic material, they're talking bullshit.|
I believe they would say sequence the DNA of the original lizard population then sequence the DNA of the "evolved" lizard if there is extra stuff for creating cecal valves then that's new material.
|If the lizards' DNA hasn't been sequenced, on what grounds can they claim that the 'new' lizard doesn't have any 'novel genetic material'? That "sorry, no data yet" gambit is a two-edged sword; if IDiots want to use it on evolution, you have every justification for using it on ID.|
Well they turn the argument the other way round, saying since you can't prove that there is new material how can you say it's an example of evolution, it's just the same lizard that has adapted to the new diet all the morphological features are due to epigenics. Nothing new has been added.
|Your reply should be, "Hold it. Since the lizard's DNA hasn't been sequenced, how the heck can you be so sure that it doesn't have any 'novel genetic material' in it? You haven't even been able to show that you can tell which bits of a known nucleotide sequence do or don't qualify as 'novel genetic material', so why should anybody believe you can tell which bits of an unknown nucleotide sequence do or don't qualify as 'novel genetic material'?"|
They I assume they would reply: well you're the one who brought up the lizard in the first place as an example of evolution, but you have not shown that on a genetic level there is something new. All that you have shown are morphological differences based on genetic plasticity. We don't deny this we're just saying that it's not an example of evolution, it's adaptation of alread existing genetic material. Nothing new here, move along.
Also they have as yet not shown that they accept ID, that would leave them open to any sort of attack. They're just out to show the theory is wrong as according to them it can't be used to explain biodiversity as has been prooven in Behe's peer reviewed paper.
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin