Jump to content


Photo

Living Fossils Destroy Evolution


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
49 replies to this topic

#21 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

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

Posted 26 February 2011 - 07:18 PM

Can you prove your claim of specimens being deposited chaotically? If you are going to debunk the flood and the column being made by the flood. Then you need to come up with tests that were done that shows without doubt that a flood could "never" lay anything in order. I have yet to see one evo do this. All I see are claims.

View Post


I don’t claim that specimens were deposited chaotically. I claim that the order in which specimens are found is consistent with the relatedness seen in the tree of life - this is continually tested by observation and no falsification has yet happened.

There is no reason to expect that rodents drowned in a flood would never be deposited below the lowest reptiles drowned in a flood (whereas phylogeny predicts that mammals evolved from reptiles). There is no reason to expect that flightless birds drowned in a flood would never be deposited below the lowest reptiles drowned in a flood (whereas phylogeny predicts that birds evolved from reptiles). The TOE is the only explanation consistent with the order of specimens through the geological column.

#22 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 26 February 2011 - 07:38 PM

I don’t claim that specimens were deposited chaotically.  I claim that the order in which specimens are found is consistent with the relatedness seen in the tree of life - this is continually tested by observation and no falsification has yet happened.

There is no reason to expect that rodents drowned in a flood would never be deposited below the lowest reptiles drowned in a flood  (whereas phylogeny predicts that mammals evolved from reptiles).  There is no reason to expect that flightless birds drowned in a flood would never be deposited below the lowest reptiles drowned in a flood  (whereas phylogeny predicts that birds evolved from reptiles). The TOE is the only explanation consistent with the order of specimens through the geological column.

View Post


If you know anything about being a Christian, which you may not. You will also know that God tests our faith constantly to see if we will choose the right thing. Allowing the flood to sort like it did maybe a test to see if we will believe only what we see, or what God says.

Also, one cannot falsify when what is claimed is all about conformism. Because if science were not about conformism, then what is believed about origins would make no difference on whether a person is accepted as a scientist. It would be his education only. But that is not what we see, is it?

What is a true proven fact does not need conformism because it stands on it's own merit. Being not able to stand on it's own merit says a lot about the theory.

#23 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

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

Posted 26 February 2011 - 09:29 PM

The process of natural selection has been observed to lead to change in a population over generations.  God is a supernatural entity and has not been observed.  Using an observed process as an explanation of past processes is not comparable to invoking the supernatural.

Your version of natural selection has not been observed because you have not seen any novel information on the genome. Despite the fact that DNA can replicate itself, information is actually lost on the genome when mutation occurs. To prove evolution from abiogenesis you will need to see an increase of information, meaning not only more information on the genome, but NOVEL information.

Would a duplicated gene one copy of which has mutated not amount to novel and increased information on the genome?  Natural selection has been observed and is more than conjecture.

View Post

You miss the point, you will need NOVEL information on the genome in order to evolve after abiogenesis. Any observed mutation is merely tinkering, altering, or losing information. The mutations that you are referring to is DNA replicating itself and then errors on the copy can lead to a mutation. This however, does not support abiogenesis or your version of evolution or natural selection.

You are now trying to make the argument as if I do not believe that natural selection exists, when I did acknowledge that it happens.(That tactic is against the rules by the way, this isn't talkorigins.) What I am implying is that your version of natural selection is supernatural and you are trying to use it to explain living fossils.

#24 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 27 February 2011 - 02:38 AM

The process of natural selection has been observed to lead to change in a population over generations.

View Post


I believe the FULL definition, (as said by my evo-lecturers), is a change in allele frequency in a population over time, however.... changing the frequency of an allele won't change it into a new species... ie- havng a decreased percentage of blonde women won't make that population a new species... no they remain human.

#25 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 27 February 2011 - 06:00 AM

Quote: "The Coelacanth was a creature presumed by the scientific body before 1953 to have been extinct for 75 million years and purported to be as old as 450 million years. Evolutionary scientists used the coelacanth fossils as evidence to support their theory that fish evolved into amphibians. It was hailed as one of the great missing links, which was well on it's way to becoming an amphibian, that is, until one was caught off the coast of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean. Surprisingly it looked the same as it's alleged 75 million year old fossilized ancestor. It was found to be a fully functional fish type creature that forgot to evolve." (Noel Chartier)

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

This is just but one of the many mistakes that evolutionists have made concerning their theory but they have made it so elastic in nature that it can be stretched to 'explain' away any error made by the devotees of Darwin.

There are hundreds of examples of 'living fossils' such as,

Posted Image

The lowly lobster. But when one makes comparisons to search for the transition between one class of organism into another we come up empty. There is no such transition.

Posted Image

more to come:

View Post

Don't be silly. Don't you know those the fossils and the modern animals are two different species? I mean even though they look pretty much the same, only the trained eye can REALLY see that the species have evolved! I mean, scientists even know that these coelacanths swam in fresh water versus the modern that are in salt water. Because obviously they've analyzed the salinity of the matrix it was buried in. See, because there was NO flood, where things are buried tells us about their entire ecology!! Didn't you know that? B)

You guys just don't understand evolution--that's the problem!! :D

#26 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 27 February 2011 - 07:02 AM

Don't by silly. Don't you know those fossils and the modern animals are two different species?  I mean even though they look pretty much the same, only the trained eye can REALLY see that the species have evolved!  I mean, scientists even know that these coelacanths swam in fresh water versus the modern that are in salt water.  Because obviously they've analyzed the salinity of the matrix it was buried in.  See, because there was NO flood, where things are buried tells us about their entire ecology!!  Didn't you know that? B)

You guys just don't understand evolution--that's the problem!! :D

View Post


I agree, and I think that there should also be a fossilized paper plate in the last picture if we are to consider this a valid comparison. It's obviously a hoax and should be ignored! :P

#27 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 27 February 2011 - 08:19 AM

Don't by silly. Don't you know those the fossils and the modern animals are two different species? I mean even though they look pretty much the same, only the trained eye can REALLY see that the species have evolved! I mean, scientists even know that these coelacanths swam in fresh water versus the modern that are in salt water. Because obviously they've analyzed the salinity of the matrix it was buried in. See, because there was NO flood, where things are buried tells us about their entire ecology!! Didn't you know that? laugh.gif

You guys just don't understand evolution--that's the problem!! wink.gif

I agree, and I think that there should also be a fossilized paper plate in the last picture if we are to consider this a valid comparison. It's obviously a hoax and should be ignored! tongue.gif


It's just Ikester's ignorance showing a precambrian sea pen and a modern one. Doesn't he know the precambrian sea pen was primitive?

I've heard all of these laughable excuses to justify stasis as being compatible with evolution. The most absurd, is the "Find a rabbit in the precambrian" excuse. Even if we find the plants the rabbit ate, they still demand the rabbit. LOL

http://www.mcremo.com/saltrange.html



Enjoy.

#28 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,364 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 27 February 2011 - 10:18 AM

It's just Ikester's ignorance showing a precambrian sea pen and a modern one. Doesn't he know the precambrian sea pen was primitive?

I've heard all of these laughable excuses to justify stasis as being compatible with evolution. The most absurd, is the "Find a rabbit in the precambrian" excuse. Even if we find the plants the rabbit ate, they still demand the rabbit. LOL

http://www.mcremo.com/saltrange.html
Enjoy.

View Post


Good points fellas. Remember, however, what we were told in scripture, they are 'willingly ignorant". That means they don't really care what the evidence actually tells us.

#29 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

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

Posted 27 February 2011 - 02:05 PM

Your version of natural selection has not been observed because you have not seen any novel information on the genome. Despite the fact that DNA can replicate itself, information is actually lost on the genome when mutation occurs. To prove evolution from abiogenesis you will need to see an increase of information, meaning not only more information on the genome, but NOVEL information.

You miss the point, you will need NOVEL information on the genome in order to evolve after abiogenesis. Any observed mutation is merely tinkering, altering, or losing information.


Why do you capitalize every letter in “novel“? How can a gene duplicating, one copy of which mutates, not amount to an increase of new information on the genome?

The mutations that you are referring to is DNA replicating itself and then errors on the copy can lead to a mutation. This however, does not support abiogenesis or your version of evolution or natural selection.


It does not support abiogenesis or natural selection (and I would never assert that it did) but it does answer your point as to how a genome can acquire more novel information.

You are now trying to make the argument as if I do not believe that natural selection exists, when I did acknowledge that it happens.(That tactic is against the rules by the way, this isn't talkorigins.) What I am implying is that your version of natural selection is supernatural and you are trying to use it to explain living fossils.

View Post


My “version” of natural selection is the normal textbook understanding of natural selection - that more adapted phenotypes will be more likely to proliferate than those less adapted leading to change in the gene pool - and has been observed and is therefore not supernatural. In your first paragraph in your last post you expand natural selection to include genomes acquiring novel information; an understanding of mutations and the genome came after Darwin had identified natural selection as the impetus to trait frequency change within a population.

Please let’s not accuse each other of “tactics“. I am writing what I have come to believe from undergraduate and personal study.

#30 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

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

Posted 27 February 2011 - 02:11 PM

I believe the FULL definition, (as said by my evo-lecturers), is a change in allele frequency in a population over time, however.... changing the frequency of an allele won't change it into a new species... ie- havng a decreased percentage of blonde women won't make that population a new species... no they remain human.

View Post


Sure, natural selection does not necessitate the divergence of gene pools (process of speciation).

#31 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

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

Posted 27 February 2011 - 04:53 PM

Why do you capitalize every letter in “novel“?  How can a gene duplicating, one copy of which mutates, not amount to an increase of new information on the genome?

Because it is using genes that are already there to replicate, for life to arise via abiogenesis(Which is what is taught in the textbooks that you refer to) there would need to be another way for new information to arise, if it did happen, we should still be seeing it happen today.

It does not support abiogenesis or natural selection (and I would never assert that it did) but it does answer your point as to how a genome can acquire more novel information.

It does not answer my point, evolution and natural selection is tied to the origin of life whether you choose believe it or not.



My “version” of natural selection is the normal textbook understanding of natural selection - that more adapted phenotypes will be more likely to proliferate than those less adapted leading to change in the gene pool - and has been observed and is therefore not supernatural.  In your first paragraph in your last post you expand natural selection to include genomes acquiring novel information; an understanding of mutations and the genome came after Darwin had identified natural selection as the impetus to trait frequency change within a population.

Please let’s not accuse each other of “tactics“.  I am writing what I have come to believe from undergraduate and personal study.

View Post

For the theory to work with abiogenesis and evolution in its entirety it will have to be supernatural. What you are doing is separating evolution and abiogenesis in order to make natural selection and macro evolution look more viable. Acquiring novel information on the genome would be a necessity for natural selection, especially in the early stages of evolution.

As far as accusation of tactics are concerned, I call it as I see it and you agreed to the terms of these forums when you signed up to be able to post on it. You are obligated to follow the rules. Mischaracterizing someone else's position or anything of the sort is unacceptable.

Don't buy into those talkorigins arguments. They aren't even reviewed before being released on the internet. Any mutation on the genome is the result of a loss of information on the genome, not an increase of information. If this is the case, then there is a major problem when it comes to explaining the complexity and diversity on the genome when you tie the hypothesis to abiogenesis or the early stages of evolution. As an atheist, if you want to argue the validity of natural selection or evolution as you see it, you have to account for the origin of life. Since you go by the textbook, how can you not accept that natural selection does not support abiogenesis but attempt to argue in favor of it?

To reiterate my point, in case I lost you. I am not asserting that duplication does not result in mutations or even beneficial mutations. What I am saying to you is that all of these mutations are the result of information that was already present, not novel information. If mutations occur only via tinkering of DNA then your theory of evolution and natural selection has a huge problem when it comes to the origins of complex organisms.

I will conclude this post by citing part of a scientific paper called "Complexity" Dr. Joseph Bozorgmehr.(And this is my point in summary.)

"All life depends on the biological information encoded in DNA with which to synthesize and regulate various peptide sequences required by an organism’s cells. Hence, an evolutionary model accounting for the diversity of life needs to demonstrate how novel exonic regions that code for distinctly different functions can emerge. Natu- ral selection tends to conserve the basic functionality, sequence, and size of genes and, although beneficial and adaptive changes are possible, these serve only to improve or adjust the existing type. However, gene duplication allows for a respite in selection and so can provide a molecular substrate for the development of biochemical innovation. Reference is made here to several well-known examples of gene duplication, and the major means of resulting evolutionary divergence, to examine the plausibility of this assumption. The totality of the evidence reveals that, although duplication can and does facilitate important adaptations by tinkering with existing compounds, molecular evolution is nonetheless constrained in each and every case. Therefore, although the pro- cess of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms."

This is the problem I am pointing out with your belief.

#32 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 27 February 2011 - 07:02 PM

How can a gene duplicating, one copy of which mutates, not amount to an increase of new information on the genome?


Mitch, almost all genes function in groups, which means a duplicated gene isn't useful by itself and would only serve to disrupt the function of the original group if it did. That's why most mutations are neutral and if they do effect the function of the gene group they are detrimental.

Shannon Information in biological organisms is meaningless. Would adding a "D" to the word "FOX" increase the information? No. You would only have mutated rhetoric - not new information.


Enjoy.

#33 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 27 February 2011 - 08:48 PM

Why do you capitalize every letter in “novel“?  How can a gene duplicating, one copy of which mutates, not amount to an increase of new information on the genome?

View Post

Mitch, we are quibbling here. Let's cut to the chase and say relative information is something that is interpreted into new organs or new biochemical processes via new enzymes, and other regulatory factors. This is what evolution claims, but does not prove. It gives us bits and peices of change, which is nothing but change. But change in itself is NOT evolution. Evolution REQUIRES new biological appurati one step at a time. Unfortunately, the pattern of the human body, and ecology is interdependence and symbiosis. So if you make one ajor change, you have to make more at the same exact time. To say the contrary is to ignore biology, molecular biology, and ecology.

It does not support abiogenesis or natural selection (and I would never assert that it did) but it does answer your point as to how a genome can acquire more novel information.

View Post

1) Is this information? Is this a information? Is thsi a information? Is thsi a gou information? Is thsiia a goinformation? Ishisiia a goifromation! Shisiia agiffromaoin!

2) Is this information? This is information. This information--it is. This information it is interprepretable. This information--it is interpretable and obvious. This information is interpretable and obvious. Information is obvious--it is interpretable. Interpretable information is obvious. Interpretable information is obvioulsly intelligent.


My “version” of natural selection is the normal textbook understanding of natural selection - that more adapted phenotypes will be more likely to proliferate than those less adapted leading to change in the gene pool -  has been observed and is therefore not supernatural. 

View Post

Can you be specific as to where it has been observed? I mean I know what you are saying, but you are being too general. I don't have a problem with natural selection--I just observe it differently. I see two male elephants fighting for days for the right to pass their genes. Obviously the stronger or better fighter passes his genes--but they are both elephants. Either one of them passes on genes phenotypically indicative of an elephant.

I see bacteria with a phenotype that has abilities that we don't have--like conjugation, which instantly changes the phenotype of the receiver by HGT. I see them in a citrate environement. One of them mutated (perhaps directed mutation) and began to replicate while the others died. But his poor cell wall elongated, so his fitness decreased. If I put him back in a glucose environment, the wild types will again thrive and he will die. So I see no fixed traits over thousands of generations, which evolution REQUIRES.

#34 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

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

Posted 27 February 2011 - 09:47 PM

Because it is using genes that are already there to replicate, for life to arise via abiogenesis(Which is what is taught in the textbooks that you refer to) there would need to be another way for new information to arise, if it did happen, we should still be seeing it happen today.


Still be seeing what today - new information or new life? New information must be being generated through gene duplication and mutation. Abiogenesis events couldn't happen anymore as the fledgling self-replicators would be broken down by more established life.

It does not answer my point, evolution and natural selection is tied to the origin of life whether you choose believe it or not.

For the theory to work with abiogenesis and evolution in its entirety it will have to be supernatural. What you are doing is separating evolution and abiogenesis in order to make natural selection and macro evolution look more viable. Acquiring novel information on the genome would be a necessity for natural selection, especially in the early stages of evolution.


My initial comment to you about natural slection in post 15 on this thread was responding to your comment that "since mutations are random, you can not argue that evolution didn't happen because it "wasn't needed"". Since then you have introduced genome information and abiogenesis in posts 18 and 23 respectively - I have never argued that either is included in the definition of natural selection (that more adapted phenotypes will be more likely to proliferate than those less adapted leading to change in the gene pool). Natural selection has been observed and is therefore not supernatural.

As far as accusation of tactics are concerned, I call it as I see it and you agreed to the terms of these forums when you signed up to be able to post on it. You are obligated to follow the rules. Mischaracterizing someone else's position or anything of the sort is unacceptable.


Where have I mischaracterized anything or violated any rule? I have never even mentioned your position. Everything I have written has been a direct response to that to which I am responding.

To reiterate my point, in case I lost you. I am not asserting that duplication does not result in mutations or even beneficial mutations. What I am saying to you is that all of these mutations are the result of information that was already present, not novel information. If mutations occur only via tinkering of DNA then your theory of evolution and natural selection has a huge problem when it comes to the origins of complex organisms.

View Post


I don't understand why a gene that has duplicated, one of copy of which has mutated, could amount to anything less than an increase of information on the genome.

#35 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

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

Posted 27 February 2011 - 09:57 PM

Mitch, almost all genes function in groups, which means a duplicated gene isn't useful by itself and would only serve to disrupt the function of the original group if it did. That's why most mutations are neutral and if they do effect the function of the gene group they are detrimental.


Beneficial mutations have also been observed. Resistance to antibiotics has been observed in a colony of bacteria bred from a single non-resistant individual.

Shannon Information in biological organisms is meaningless. Would adding a "D" to the word "FOX" increase the information? No. You would only have mutated rhetoric - not new information.

View Post


Adding a "Y" at the end of "FOX" would add info - you would now have an adjective derived from the noun "fox".

#36 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

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

Posted 27 February 2011 - 10:16 PM

Still be seeing what today - new information or new life?  New information must be being generated through gene duplication and mutation.  Abiogenesis events couldn't happen anymore as the fledgling self-replicators would be broken down by more established life.

New information. New life would be hard to observe as it would likely happen on a microscopic level.



My initial comment to you about natural slection in post 15 on this thread was responding to your comment that "since mutations are random, you can not argue that evolution didn't happen because it "wasn't needed"".  Since then you have introduced genome information and abiogenesis in posts 18 and 23 respectively - I have never argued that either is included in the definition of natural selection (that more adapted phenotypes will be more likely to proliferate than those less adapted leading to change in the gene pool).  Natural selection has been observed and is therefore not supernatural.
Where have I mischaracterized anything or violated any rule?  I have never even mentioned your position.  Everything I have written has been a direct response to that to which I am responding.

Natural selection begins the second that life is first conceived in abiogenesis. That is why the problem with novel information is so important. With gene duplication, you are tinkering with information that is already there, but the information has to form first.

As for the mischaracterization of my position, you responded by giving a natural selection 101 definition as if I didn't understand what natural selection was. Then you go on to tell me that it has been observed, when I already know that it has been observed. My problem is that natural selection does not fit the model of materialistic evolution. This is what I am conveying to you. Do you understand?

I don't understand why a gene that has duplicated, one of copy of which has mutated, could amount to anything less than an increase of information on the genome.

View Post

You conveniently forgot about the scientific paper that I quoted:


"All life depends on the biological information encoded in DNA with which to synthesize and regulate various peptide sequences required by an organism’s cells. Hence, an evolutionary model accounting for the diversity of life needs to demonstrate how novel exonic regions that code for distinctly different functions can emerge. Natu- ral selection tends to conserve the basic functionality, sequence, and size of genes and, although beneficial and adaptive changes are possible, these serve only to improve or adjust the existing type. However, gene duplication allows for a respite in selection and so can provide a molecular substrate for the development of biochemical innovation. Reference is made here to several well-known examples of gene duplication, and the major means of resulting evolutionary divergence, to examine the plausibility of this assumption. The totality of the evidence reveals that, although duplication can and does facilitate important adaptations by tinkering with existing compounds, molecular evolution is nonetheless constrained in each and every case. Therefore, although the pro- cess of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms." Ó 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Complexity 00: 00–00, 2011

The information has to exist in order to be able to replicate and tinker the information, how can you assert that your definition is valid if you can not provide an example of novel information appearing on the genome? In order for the DNA to replicate, the DNA must be there. If new information does not appear on the genome, then replicating becomes extremely limited and we would not see the diversity in life that we see today. Every mutation we see today is due to a loss of information on the genome, not an increase. Yes, genes can replicate to produce random mutations if errors occur, but you do not seem to understand how much this limits evolution and natural selection, especially when you consider the origin of life. The only mutations you have observed has merely been tinkering of DNA, and those are not the mutations that I am disputing. What you are believing in is supernatural because it is outside of the realms of operational science.

I'm actually giving you more leeway than you deserve. In this debate I am not even taking into account the astronomically low chances of a beneficial mutation occurring on the genome. I think the others are covering this area quite well though.

#37 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

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

Posted 27 February 2011 - 10:52 PM

"All life depends on the biological information encoded in DNA with which to synthesize and regulate various peptide sequences required by an organism’s cells. Hence, an evolutionary model accounting for the diversity of life needs to demonstrate how novel exonic regions that code for distinctly different functions can emerge. Natu- ral selection tends to conserve the basic functionality, sequence, and size of genes and, although beneficial and adaptive changes are possible, these serve only to improve or adjust the existing type. However, gene duplication allows for a respite in selection and so can provide a molecular substrate for the development of biochemical innovation. Reference is made here to several well-known examples of gene duplication, and the major means of resulting evolutionary divergence, to examine the plausibility of this assumption. The totality of the evidence reveals that, although duplication can and does facilitate important adaptations by tinkering with existing compounds, molecular evolution is nonetheless constrained in each and every case. Therefore, although the pro- cess of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms." Ó 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Complexity 00: 00–00, 2011

The information has to exist in order to be able to replicate and tinker the information, how can you assert that your definition is valid if you can not provide an example of novel information appearing on the genome? In order for the DNA to replicate, the DNA must be there. If new information does not appear on the genome, then replicating becomes extremely limited and we would not see the diversity in life that we see today.


We know gene duplication occurs and we know mutations occur. How could a gene that has duplicated, one of copy of which has mutated, not amount to an increase of information on the genome? New endogenous variety emerges from copying error which can add as well as delete. If you are asking how did genes or DNA first originate then we are getting back to abiognesis theories upon which I am no expert; however, self-replicating chemistry is essential for life as we know it.

Every mutation we see today is due to a loss of information on the genome, not an increase.


Why?

Yes, genes can replicate to produce random mutations if errors occur, but you do not seem to understand how much this limits evolution and natural selection, especially when you consider the origin of life. The only mutations you have observed has merely been tinkering of DNA, and those are not the mutations that I am disputing. What you are believing in is supernatural because it is outside of the realms of operational science.


What specifically that I believe in is supernatural? Mutations that add to the genome? The answer is gene duplication (which has been observed), we've discussed that.

I'm actually giving you more leeway than you deserve.

View Post


Who are you to tell other people what they deserve or to accuse others of tactics?

#38 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 28 February 2011 - 12:06 AM

Why do you capitalize every letter in “novel“?  How can a gene duplicating, one copy of which mutates, not amount to an increase of new information on the genome?...

What he means is new functionally meaningful information. Take the following for example.
Present information: Mitch
Duplicate information: Mitch Mitch. - Duplicate with mutation: Mitch Micth
Meaningful new information: Mitch from Texas.
You don't get something that meaningful just by single mutations (with the generations theoretically necessary surviving).
So gene duplication alone doesn't add up to "new information".


Won't say the "living fossils" do demolish evolution, but they are a problem.
If one suggestes the layers to be accumulated over millions of years, each layer representing a certain age, then "living fossils" of today that have been found only in layers supposed to be "millions of years" old, but not in younger layers, then that layer theory has a problem.

#39 The Ark

The Ark

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Australia

Posted 28 February 2011 - 12:17 AM

So the coelacanth was thought to have long gone extinct but then a living one was found that hadn't evolved much.  How does that destroy evolution?

View Post


I thought that would enhance the evolution story, that is, no goal, no desire or want etc. On the other hand it could be an animal that has hit an evolution wall.

I think evolution is a reasonable explanation but with lots missing from the equation. Whether those missing bits are filled in by a creator or some other science, I have no idea.

I used to keep reptiles at what would be regarded as an advanced level and those creatures leave you in two minds :D In other words on Tuesday you are a 100% evolutionist but by Thursday evolutuion seems like a fairy tale and that situation would repeat itself :D

In my opinion both the Bible and evolution have the element of truth but not to the extent put forward by zealot supporters of each. To deny that some creation or intervention occurs is a leap of faith that is incredible. But to deny that evolution in general is working and has worked is an equally large leap of faith......or perhaps in either case the extreme of denial to support a position.

#40 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

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

Posted 28 February 2011 - 12:22 AM

We know gene duplication occurs and we know mutations occur.

Okay, and what of novel information? This is just dodging the point.

could a gene that has duplicated, one of copy of which has mutated, not amount to an increase of information on the genome?


It is copied information, errors in the copy may result in mutations, but it is not novel information. This is the problem that abiogenesis to evolution faces.


endogenous variety emerges from copying error which can add as well as delete.  If you are asking how did genes or DNA first originate then we are getting back to abiognesis theories upon which I am no expert; however, self-replicating chemistry is essential for life as we know it.

Information has to exist in the first place for self replication. Even if information was present, gene replication would not be enough to produce the variety and complexity of life that we see today.

Why?

Don't ask me why, it is what we observe. It is called operational science. The type of science that you and many of your peers do not value as much as they did 20 years ago. If you have an example that shows novel information on a genome then please show it to me.


What specifically that I believe in is supernatural?  Mutations that add to the genome?  The answer is gene duplication (which has been observed), we've discussed that.

Gene duplication does not add novel information to the genome.

Here is that paper you keep ignoring. You may want to read it:

"All life depends on the biological information encoded in DNA with which to synthesize and regulate various peptide sequences required by an organism’s cells. Hence, an evolutionary model accounting for the diversity of life needs to demonstrate how novel exonic regions that code for distinctly different functions can emerge. Natu- ral selection tends to conserve the basic functionality, sequence, and size of genes and, although beneficial and adaptive changes are possible, these serve only to improve or adjust the existing type. However, gene duplication allows for a respite in selection and so can provide a molecular substrate for the development of biochemical innovation. Reference is made here to several well-known examples of gene duplication, and the major means of resulting evolutionary divergence, to examine the plausibility of this assumption. The totality of the evidence reveals that, although duplication can and does facilitate important adaptations by tinkering with existing compounds, molecular evolution is nonetheless constrained in each and every case. Therefore, although the pro- cess of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms." Ó 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Complexity 00: 00–00, 2011

What you believe is outside of the realm of science as we know it, and is therefore a religion used to justify your behavior.


Who are you to tell other people what they deserve or to accuse others of tactics?

View Post

You asked, and I answered. I read the rules, you should of too or you are willfully ignorant of them.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users