Jump to content


Photo

Antibiotic Resistance


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#81 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 08 March 2011 - 04:03 PM

"No, obviously a beneficial mutation is one that leads to a trait that benefits the host. I have continually said that gene duplication (observed) and subsequently a mutation (observed) = increase in novel info on the genome."Then show me the increase of information on said genome instead of pulling rhetoric out of your rear.

"The the ice fish demonstrates both an increase in novel info that also leads to a beneficial muatation makes it an interesting example."

Where and how Mitch? I looked all over the internet for this example and I have not found it. Leave it to you to blow out rhetoric without anything to substantiate your logical fallacy.


"You have given up debating about an increase in novel information and resorted to unsubstantiated accusations of hypocrisy, mischaracterization and cryptic comments about how I am going to embarrass myself."

You disputing that evolution has limits is nothing short of embarrassing.

"The comment about "fairytale" is particularly ridiculous given that the very name of this website is an example of creationists calling evolution a fairytale."

You do believe that what I believe is a "fairy tale" do you not? Why are you whining about this?

"If you have no further arguments that novel info cannot increase on the genome (and not trying to swing the debate to abiogenesis or undefined limits to evolution) then it seems the discussion has run its course."

It isn't an argument, it is a fact. While tinkering, interchanging, and deleting genes can result in novel functions, this does not equate to novel information. If there is an increase of novel information on the genome you would have no trouble showing me at least a diagram of a gene with novel increased information. After abiogenesis is where this phenomenon would have occurred. Don't forget that you are the one with the burden of proof. I don't have to show you anything, you are the one who needs to show me the genome in which you are claiming has novel/increased information.

I'm not arguing against abiogenesis, you already lost that debate earlier in the thread when you refused to respond to the post that was addressing abiogenesis. Where we are now is how gene duplication can explain the variety of life we see today when it is observed that gene duplication brings for no novel information on the genome but rather uses information that is already there. This is the argument that you have never been able to provide a rebuttal for and this is where you remain cornered.

You are backing out of this argument because you can not explain how gene duplication can result in the variety of life we see today. Your tendency to try and keep abiogenesis and evolution separate(And you appear to back out anytime you are pushed to put these two together.) has been noted by an admin in a different thread in post 10:


http://www.evolution...761


You are doing the very same thing here that both he and I have warned you about in different threads.


You do not want to go to the first gene duplication after abiogenesis because you do not have anything empirical to support you in that endeavor. Rather, you would rather use examples of variation to support your point.(However it supports that evolution has observed limits. Flies will become resistant to pesticides but never to a sledgehammer.) You provide examples of beneficial mutations(which we do not dispute) but then tout the result to an increase of information without showing us where this new information is. If you have an example of increased information on the genome, show me that genome, otherwise you are just using the same tired arguments that every anti theist use, and that is why you lost this debate.

#82 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ashfield, Sydney

Posted 08 March 2011 - 06:03 PM

I don't have to show you anything, you are the one who needs to show me the genome in which you are claiming has novel/increased information.

I'm not arguing against abiogenesis, you already lost that debate earlier in the thread when you refused to respond to the post that was addressing abiogenesis. Where we are now is how gene duplication can explain the variety of life we see today when it is observed that gene duplication brings for no novel information on the genome but rather uses information that is already there. This is the argument that you have never been able to provide a rebuttal for and this is where you remain cornered.


An explanation of how novel info can be increased on the genome has no reason to head all the way back to the origin of life. Asserting that "it is observed that gene duplication brings for no novel information" is simply incorrect and merely ignores the previous discussion. Demanding the extremely technical - that I show you a genome (a set of microscopic chains of billions of base pairs) - is swerving the undeniable logic that duplicated gene (observed), a copy of which has then experienced a mutation (observed) amounts to an increase of novel information on the genome. There have not been any reasons offered on this thread as to how that cannot be the case. I even gave you an example of an observed trait in the ice fish that arose from a gene duplication followed by a mutation; feel free to research the ice fish's genome. Anything further I can say would be repeating myself.

You are backing out of this argument because you can not explain how gene duplication can result in the variety of life we see today.


The conversation was about whether novel info on the genome can increase. You know that someone who accepts evolution will argue that the variety of life we see is explained by evolution.

If you have an example of increased information on the genome, show me that genome, otherwise you are just using the same tired arguments that every anti theist use, and that is why you lost this debate.

View Post


Labelling me an "anti theist" will not distract anyone from your inability to address the logic that a duplicated gene (observed), a copy of which has then experienced a mutation (observed) amounts to an increase of novel information on the genome. I am happy for anyone reading this thread to decide who has offered observations and examples, stuck to the point and presented a clear line of argument. I have no need to advise the reader of the outcome of this discussion.

#83 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 08 March 2011 - 08:32 PM

An explanation of how novel info can be increased on the genome has no reason to head all the way back to the origin of life.

It has everything to do with it when we are talking about how limited gene duplication is in regards to evolution.

Assuming that "it is observed that gene duplication brings for no novel information" is simply incorrect and merely ignores the previous discussion.  Demanding the extremely technical - that I show you a genome (a set of microscopic chains of billions of base pairs) - is swerving the undeniable logic that duplicated gene (observed), a copy of which has then experienced a mutation (observed) amounts to an increase of novel information on the genome.  There have not been any reasons offered on this thread as to how that cannot be the case.

It is simply incorrect on what grounds? What example of increased information on a genome can you offer me?

I even gave you an example of an observed trait in the ice fish that arose from a gene duplication followed by a mutation; feel free to research the ice fish's genome.  Anything further I can say would be repeating myself.

The conversation was about whether novel info on the genome can increase.  You know that someone who accepts evolution will argue that the variety of life we see is explained by evolution.

The burden of proof is on you, not me. You never showed me any proof or even diagrams of increased information on a genome, you only offered rhetoric out your rear which does not count as empirical evidence.

I did a google search of the icefish genome before replying to you earlier and I found this. I didn't bother to post it because I wanted you to dig yourself in a bit deeper into this example before I brought this to your attention:

Abstract:

"Alone among piscine taxa, the antarctic icefishes (family Channichthyidae, suborder Notothenioidei) have evolved compensatory adaptations that maintain normal metabolic functions in the absence of erythrocytes and the respiratory oxygen transporter hemoglobin. Although the uniquely "colorless" or "white" condition of the blood of icefishes has been recognized since the early 20th century, the status of globin genes in the icefish genomes has, surprisingly, remained unexplored. Using alpha- and beta-globin cDNAs from the antarctic rockcod Notothenia coriiceps (family Nototheniidae, suborder Notothenioidei), we have probed the genomes of three white-blooded icefishes and four red-blooded notothenioid relatives (three antarctic, one temperate) for globin-related DNA sequences. We detect specific, high-stringency hybridization of the alpha-globin probe to genomic DNAs of both white- and red-blooded species, whereas the beta-globin cDNA hybridizes only to the genomes of the red-blooded fishes. Our results suggest that icefishes retain inactive genomic remnants of alpha-globin genes but have lost, either through deletion or through rapid mutation, the gene that encodes beta-globin. We propose that the hemoglobinless phenotype of extant icefishes is the result of deletion of the single adult beta-globin locus prior to the diversification of the clade."

http://www.ncbi.nlm....icles/PMC42373/


And where in this article does it claim increased information? This actually sounds like bad news for you. I looked further for any scientific literature that claimed that there was any sort of increased information, yet I have not found one single paper that suggests that there was ever an increase in information. I did however, find several "atheists" who claimed that the mutations in the icefish was an increase of information but they didn't cite any sources.


This is the 2nd known time you have shown an "example" on this forum only to be proven wrong about your interpretation of the evidence. I suggest that you start reading Science literature. Atheist resources such as talkorigins heavily skew scientific findings to support their agenda.

Labelling me an "anti theist" will not distract anyone from your inability to address the logic that a duplicated gene (observed), a copy of which has then experienced a mutation (observed) amounts to an increase of novel information on the genome.

Your icefish study appears to show otherwise and is completely consistent with what I have been repeatedly telling you this entire debate. Thanks by the way. This is what happens when you use talkorigins and other similar sources for your information.

I am happy for anyone reading this thread to decide who has offered observations and examples, stuck to the point and presented a clear line of argument.  I have no need to advise the reader of the outcome of this discussion.

View Post

Considering how many people in this thread still disagrees with you, I am inclined to believe otherwise.

#84 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,127 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 08 March 2011 - 09:35 PM

I think what may be going on is mixing our ability to be inte lligent with an alleged purely mechanical and materialistic process. If we give a computer code that is mutated or corrupt and is not in specific order the machine will not “know” what to do with it. Mutation of code used in a computer program may cause it to crash. Sometimes we call this a bug.

Scientists argue that a specific gene genome containst the instructions to build a particular plant or animal. Instruction have to be followed.

Ron, nor, nro, orn are mutations. Two of them we give meaning to. For novel new information to come to exist would require that whatever reads the code would be able to evoke new meaning from mutated code it has never observed before. Obviously the reader of this post is intelligent. Yet he or she can detect information in nro or orn? How would a cell be able to do so?

#85 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ashfield, Sydney

Posted 09 March 2011 - 04:30 AM

Abstract:...
And where in this article does it claim increased information? This actually sounds like bad news for you. I looked further for any scientific literature that claimed that there was any sort of increased information, yet I have not found one single paper that suggests that there was ever an increase in information. I did however, find several "atheists" who claimed that the mutations in the icefish was an increase of information but they didn't cite any sources.


The abstract you pasted does not address what I have written and you do not comment upon what you have pasted. No scientific paper comments upon increases in genome info because only creationists would use such a phrase. No one in this thread has offered any reason as to why a gene duplication (observed) followed by one copy undergoing a mutation (observed) cannot amount to an increase of info on the genome.

Here is the absract of a paper concerning another fish within which "antifreeze" emerged as a result of gene duplication driving evolution:
http://www.pnas.org/...883107.abstract.

This is the 2nd known time you have shown an "example" on this forum only to be proven wrong about your interpretation of the evidence.


In post 55 you complain that you only have an abstract citing observed gene duplication - pay walls exist, not my invention. Otherwise, no idea what you are referring to.

I suggest that you start reading Science literature. Atheist resources such as talkorigins heavily skew scientific findings to support their agenda.


Where have I cited talkorigins and where have they mentioned the ice fish? Advising me to read science literature is frankly condescending and somewhat preposterous given that you spell "science' with a capital "s" half-way through a sentence.

Thanks by the way.


No worries!

Over 60 posts have happened since I first commented in post 20 that gene duplication + subsequent mutation = increase in novel info on the genome. No one since has given any reason as to why that could not be the case. This conversation has to stop somewhere, feel free to have the last word if you wish.

#86 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 09 March 2011 - 08:40 AM

Mitch,

Maybe this illustration "might" help.

Think of the English language as being a species and the alphabets the DNA for the species (The English Language).

You can scramble those letters all you want but you will NEVER get Chinese from them. THAT is what IS OBSERVED in science.

Evolutionists "TALK" (Speculate) about, why couldn't the English language ever evolve into the Chinese language (THIS IS A KEY POINT HERE) via the SAME PROCESS? You know the process that we are constantly being asked about as to "why can't the small changes EVENTUALLY turn into larger ones through a looooong period of time?" That process.

That process couldn’t possibly do that. You can misspell all the words in the English language all you want (Mistakes, Mutations) but those misspellings (mistakes, mutations) is not going to make a Chinese word, let alone a Chinese character. There are LIMITS in the English language. You NEED to SEE, Observe ANOTHER process that somehow is changing the actual alphabets and creating NEW alphabets. Such a "mechanism" has NEVER been observed, ever! Duplicating the SAME letter, or reorganizing EXISTING letters in the English alphabet will not CHANGE the letters!

Mistakes, Mutations, Duplications, Deletions don't cut it. Misspelling words in the English language is never going to cause a Chinese character to form. Nor are mistakes, duplications etc. in the DNA code ever going to form a NEW gene. If you BELIEVE that, fine, believe it. Just realize THAT is not Science, that's called Faith.

You can breed dogs for millions of years and try to get wings to "eventually" evolve, but it isn't going to happen if the genes, that code for wings, are Not In The Dog's DNA. That's not how breeding works in REALITY. You can only REMOVE or keep EXISTING traits not ADD any. You NEED the genes that code for wings to be ADDED to the Dog's gene pool, "somehow". Saying it can happen but that it takes a looong time TO happen is mere speculation. How does anyone know it takes a loooong time if it’s never been observed to do so? I’ll tell you how, FAITH. Unless you can show actuall examples that prove otherwise.

#87 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 09 March 2011 - 12:10 PM

This swerving the undeniable logic that duplicated gene (observed), a copy of which has then experienced a mutation (observed) amounts to an increase of novel information on the genome. There have not been any reasons offered on this thread as to how that cannot be the case.

View Post


So, according to your logic, if I take a computer program, say Outlook, make a copy of it, and randomly mutate a bit somewhere in the program, then this is an increase in information? Wrong. This would almost always be a LOSS of information, even at the Shannon level of information (increase in uncertainty H). The only way this could be a gain of information is if the random change fixed a bug in the program, or caused the program to perform some previously unavailable useful function.

Ah the faith one must have to believe evolution can drive the development of so many remarkably complex machines we see in nature!

Fred

#88 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 09 March 2011 - 02:46 PM

The abstract you pasted does not address what I have written and you do not comment upon what you have pasted.  No scientific paper comments upon increases in genome info because only creationists would use such a phrase.  No one in this thread has offered any reason as to why a gene duplication (observed) followed by one copy undergoing a mutation (observed) cannot amount to an increase of info on the genome.p

You haven't offered any example of how gene duplication accounts for the variety of life today, nor do you cite one example of an increase/novel information on a genome, rather, every example that you provide is the normal process of gene duplication in which invovles tinkering, deleting, or rearranging DNA.

Here is the absract of a paper concerning another fish within which "antifreeze" emerged as a result of gene duplication driving evolution:
http://www.pnas.org/...883107.abstract.
In post 55 you complain that you only have an abstract citing observed gene duplication - pay walls exist, not my invention.  Otherwise, no idea what you are referring to.

The piece of scientific literature that I provided for you has the entire paper. However, in this abstract alone I can already tell that the phenomenon they are describing fits the Creationist model perfectly. The paper you are citing is another example of tinkering with existing information.

"This study reveals how minor functionalities in an old gene can be transformed into a distinct survival protein and provides insights into how gene duplicates facing presumed identical selection and mutation pressures at birth could take divergent evolutionary paths.




Where have I cited talkorigins and where have they mentioned the ice fish?  Advising me to read science literature is frankly condescending and somewhat preposterous given that you spell "science' with a capital "s" half-way through a sentence.
No worries!

I made a typo, the fact that you decide to point this out is quite sad and is something that I would expect from an intellectual lightweight. It is akin to a rat that is cornered. Don't stoop down to that level.

Over 60 posts have happened since I first commented in post 20 that gene duplication + subsequent mutation = increase in novel info on the genome.  No one since has given any reason as to why that could not be the case.  This conversation has to stop somewhere, feel free to have the last word if you wish.

View Post

Every link you posted supports what I have been describing throughout this entire thread. You have nothing but your psuedo religious belief that gene duplication accounts for the variety of life we see today. The burden of evidence was on you, and you failed to deliver. The fact that you do not understand the links that you post shows that your knowledge of biology and genetics is artificial. If you want to learn Mitch, it helps to understand what you read. Just saying.

#89 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 10 March 2011 - 08:15 AM

You haven't offered any example of how gene duplication accounts for the variety of life today, nor do you cite one example of an increase/novel information on a genome, rather, every example that you provide is the normal process of gene duplication in which invovles tinkering, deleting, or rearranging DNA.

The piece of scientific literature that I provided for you has the entire paper. However, in this abstract alone I can already tell that the phenomenon they are describing fits the Creationist model perfectly. The paper you are citing is another example of tinkering with existing information.

"This study reveals how minor functionalities in an old gene can be transformed into a distinct survival protein and provides insights into how gene duplicates facing presumed identical selection and mutation pressures at birth could take divergent evolutionary paths.
I made a typo, the fact that you decide to point this out is quite sad and is something that I would expect from an intellectual lightweight. It is akin to a rat that is cornered. Don't stoop down to that level.
Every link you posted supports what I have been describing throughout this entire thread. You have nothing but your psuedo religious belief that gene duplication accounts for the variety of life we see today. The burden of evidence was on you, and you failed to deliver. The fact that you do not understand the links that you post shows that your knowledge of biology and genetics is artificial. If you want to learn Mitch, it helps to understand what you read. Just saying.

View Post


It's like saying that computers have 'evolved' from the old DOS programs to Windows 7 by merely duplicating the program and the mistakes in the system caused all of the user friendly improvements over the years.

#90 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 10 March 2011 - 03:14 PM

It's like saying that computers have 'evolved' from the old DOS programs to Windows 7 by merely duplicating the program and the mistakes in the system caused all of the user friendly improvements over the years.

View Post

Yes, I would like to see someone do this. Make a windows 7 from DOS by little one at a time steps that work each time.

Or how about lets build the Sears Towers from my house by one step at a time. We'll invert the headers, remove some studs, add some windows, replace a brick with a steel block. Eventually, we should be able to change it.

Or let's do an engine overhaul one step at a time. We should be able to take one screw out at a time, bore out one cylinder at a time over a few years, and still run the car everyday.

In case we get the answer well those things aren't biological. Then let's say we should be able to figure out a way to make salt out of hydrogen and sulphur. I mean isn't life based on chemistry?

#91 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 March 2011 - 01:04 PM

Usual question: Can anyone define 'information', as 'understood' by creationists?

View Post


Absolutely:

Information -
1- Definite knowledge acquired or supplied about something or somebody
2- Collected facts and data about a specific subject
3- Communication of facts and knowledge

Understood -
Agreed, assumed, or implied, especially without being openly or officially expressed

Creationists –
The belief that everything is the result of a “Creator”.

Therefore; the definition of information, as understood by Creationists is –
Exactly the SAME as it is for anyone else. The difference can be found in the “understanding” portion of your question.

I would further wonder why the question was asked in the first place.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users