Jump to content


Photo

No New Information?


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#21 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 23 July 2017 - 07:25 AM

I'm coming in late to this conversation, but it is an important one. The issue of genetic information and the capacity of mutations to "write" novel genetic code, should be looked at more closely. There is more to be said.

yes, it does seem that mutations can potentially increase information in the cell.
our nerve/brain network seems to be acquired information.

it could also be that the cell itself is "manufacturing" the needed sequences.

one thing seems certain though, the boundary of body plans (phyla) has not been breached.
this, in itself, is certain proof that mutations aren't "random"

the ability of DNA to repair itself probably swamps out the overwhelming majority of these "random mutations".
the fact that 98% of DNA is "non coding" in combination with the self repair mentioned above probably makes "random mutations" completely irrelevant.

#22 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 701 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 23 July 2017 - 08:36 PM

 

I'm coming in late to this conversation, but it is an important one. The issue of genetic information and the capacity of mutations to "write" novel genetic code, should be looked at more closely. There is more to be said.

yes, it does seem that mutations can potentially increase information in the cell.
our nerve/brain network seems to be acquired information.

it could also be that the cell itself is "manufacturing" the needed sequences.

one thing seems certain though, the boundary of body plans (phyla) has not been breached.
this, in itself, is certain proof that mutations aren't "random"

the ability of DNA to repair itself probably swamps out the overwhelming majority of these "random mutations".
the fact that 98% of DNA is "non coding" in combination with the self repair mentioned above probably makes "random mutations" completely irrelevant.

 

 

"the fact that 98% of DNA is "non coding""  

 

UNFORTUNATELY FOR THE "JUNK DNA" MYTH

 

"Non coding" DNA sequences have IMPORTANT biological functions, including the transcriptional and translational regulation

of protein-coding sequences, origins of DNA replication, centromeres, telomeres, scaffold attachment regions (SARs), genes

for functional RNAs, as well as other yet to be discovered functions because man's knowledge is too JUNKY to figure it out yet!...   :cry:

 

 

 

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?"

(Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

 

 

 

evolution-happening-in-lab.jpg


  • mike the wiz likes this

#23 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 24 July 2017 - 07:56 PM

 

I'm coming in late to this conversation, but it is an important one. The issue of genetic information and the capacity of mutations to "write" novel genetic code, should be looked at more closely. There is more to be said.

yes, it does seem that mutations can potentially increase information in the cell.
our nerve/brain network seems to be acquired information.

it could also be that the cell itself is "manufacturing" the needed sequences.

one thing seems certain though, the boundary of body plans (phyla) has not been breached.
this, in itself, is certain proof that mutations aren't "random"

the ability of DNA to repair itself probably swamps out the overwhelming majority of these "random mutations".
the fact that 98% of DNA is "non coding" in combination with the self repair mentioned above probably makes "random mutations" completely irrelevant.

 

 

What if, I agree with most of your comment, but would like for you to explain more on this statement: "yes, it does seem that mutations can potentially increase information in the cell. our nerve/brain network seems to be acquired information."



#24 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 24 July 2017 - 09:23 PM

What if, I agree with most of your comment, but would like for you to explain more on this statement: "yes, it does seem that mutations can potentially increase information in the cell. 

our nerve/brain network seems to be acquired information."
the cell doesn't have nerves or brain.
the question really is, where did these needed sequences come from.
were they always present and switched on by epigenetics, an HGT event, or the result of transposons.
maybe i should have said "could be acquired information" instead of "seems to be acquired information".
the only "acquired" information would be an HGT event, and it certainly couldn't be random because it would require a coordinated effort genetically.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users