Jump to content


Photo

Antibiotic Resistance


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#41 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 March 2011 - 02:31 PM

If information was quantified, then it wouldn't be information. Could the information in the word "Cow" be quantified as "C" "O" "W"? No. because individual letters aren't information; They are units.
Posted Image

View Post


Ummmm, a one of the biggest arguments by most creationists is evolution doesn't increase information. If you're looking for an increase you're quantifying.

Red blood cells already existed. Bending the bumper on my truck wouldn't count as an increase in information would it? In this case, it isn't even the genetic code that's mutated, but the protein.

View Post


1. Your truck has nothing to do with this.
2. You can't change a protein without a change in genetic code.

#42 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 04 March 2011 - 04:36 PM

Ummmm, a one of the biggest arguments by most creationists is evolution doesn't increase information.  If you're looking for an increase you're quantifying.
1.  Your truck has nothing to do with this.
2.  You can't change a protein without a change in genetic code.

View Post


At bottom line, friend, you are going to have to decide if you believe Moses, as confirmed by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself and the writers of the New Testament or are you going to believe Darwin.

I am an ex-theistic evolutionist.

#43 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

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

Posted 04 March 2011 - 06:32 PM

http://goliath.ecnex...59391-page.html

That is the website of the company who posted his paper.


That just shows that Complexity has a publisher.

This is an invalid point. I can do a google search on many people who have done something that caught the attention of the public and find negative articles on them. Including Richard Dawkins, Ken Miller, etc. Just because an atheist site has an issue with a certain person such as Joseph does not mean that his papers are not trustworthy. If his understanding of biology is so skewed, then I await your rebuttal.


I am not aware of Dawkins or Ken Miller posting on forums with usernames comparable to “Atheistoclast”; they also publicize their jobs, qualifications and affiliations. The article you have linked is not appropriate for critique.

So, you are bashing Creationists because a religion is not testable? What a hypocritical statement. Why don't you enlightening me on the conditions of abiogenesis? Abiogenesis is not testable and is far from empirical.


I don’t need to “bash”, I point out what no one would dispute. Abiogenesis hypotheses share the following general features: a fluid environment including potential building-block chemicals (e.g. the sea) and an external energy source (e.g. the sun). We know chemical reactions can naturally happen; should a molecule emerge that accumulated new components into a repetitious chain then if that chain split we would have primitive self-replication…should faults in the splitting improve the self-replicator’s competitiveness for resources then we would have primitive adaptation….Are these ancient reactions specifically known? No, they are as yet hypothetical, but we have DNA and RNA to guide our research. Abiogenesis posit’s an as yet unknown reaction involving an observed environment (the sea), observed forces and observed chemicals. In the other camp we have everything created supernaturally and created perfect until a woman made from a rib ate from a magic tree because she listened to a talking snake. Which do you think is more likely?

Operational Science is observing that novel information and an increase of information on the genome has not happened in our lifetime. Operational Science is observing the Second Law of Thermodynamics and seeing the problem that it causes for materialistic evolution, the big bang, and abiogenesis. Operational Science is looking at the temperatures throughout our universe and realizing that The Big Bang never happened.


Such claims! A duplicated gene, one copy of which then mutates, obviously leads to an increase in info on the genome. The 2nd law applies to isolated physical system which obviously doesn’t apply to Earth. Anisotropies in the WMAP (of CMBR) explain why energy is not evenly distributed.

Jolly Roger said "Dead men tell no tales." Dead animals don't either, neither do rocks.


Well, crystals in rocks can let us date when the rock solidified. One observes the ratio of parent to daughter decay products in a sample and that together with knowledge of what chemicals the molten and solid crystal will let in/out and knowledge of decay rates lets us date when the rock solidified.

The ignorance of this statement is staggering, I bet you haven't even read the first 5 Chapters of The Bible yet you claim that you know scripture.

You are obviously referring to this verse...


If the word means race or people rather than generation why do all the English translations I've seen render it “generation”?

Nope. You are trying to divert the conversation by trying to give a basic definition of the gene. Nice try.

To reiterate my point that you danced around, when a gene is duplicated, one copy of the gene is retained for its phenotypic utility. Two examples are encoding for a protein or functional RNA, the other copy is free from selective constraint, and able to mutate and 'explore' alternative possible combinations via neutral drift. It may or may not produce something useful.


In posts 20 and 27 I say ”a gene that has duplicated, one copy of which mutates…” So, copy + mutation. The immediate redundancy of the bare duplicate gene that you describe above is the very reason WHY they can then mutate without perilling the host and if they do mutate can only add info to the genome. The Wiki page even offers an example (the ice fish) of a beneficial mutation resulting from a duplication then subsequent mutation.

Both duplicates, whether mutated or not, are on the genome not any "back burner". Any subsequent mutation is like any other mutation. A duplicate that mutates has to add info to the genome.

Only a very small portion of the genome is actually utilized.

View Post


Which, of course, is suggestive of evolution rather than design.

Accusing me of ignorance, hypocrisy and diversion when I consistently stick to the topic is an unacceptable way to debate.

#44 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

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

Posted 04 March 2011 - 06:45 PM

But that generation that He spoke of was not the generation of His day in which He was living on earth, but of that of the generation that will experience what He was alluding to in that entire chapter: the last one. Oh, yes, he was quite accurate in His statement as every skeptic who will be alive in that generation will see.

View Post


"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Matthew 24:34.

"I say unto you, This generation" - surely "this generation" refers to the "you" Jesus is addressing.

You believe though that "generation" means generation and not race/people?

#45 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 04 March 2011 - 07:20 PM

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Matthew 24:34.

"I say unto you, This generation" - surely "this generation" refers to the "you" Jesus is addressing.

You believe though that "generation" means generation and not race/people?

View Post


Wrong: 'THIS generation' was the generation he spent the entire chapter talking about,...the last one. Quit trying to obscure the issue.

Proof: that 'this generation' is not always the time in which such words are spoken:

Psalm 95:10 Forty years long was I grieved with THIS GENERATION, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:

Yet the psalmist wasn't talking about his generation of 1000 B.C. but of Moses generation 400 yrs earlier!

Do NOT limit the Holy Spirit from all common colloquial expressions in human communication because of your prejudice against scripture.

#46 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 04 March 2011 - 07:28 PM

Mitch,

Forgive me if you've answered me. Besides the fact that EVERY gene in our genome has at least one copy, there is a list of "housekeeping genes" at wiki. All you have to do is look it up. It is quite long. A housekeeping gene is a gene that has at least 25 copies. Some of them have over a thousand copies. The reason is QUITE obvious for anyone who wants to listen. They encode "homeostasis enzymes," and the body has CONSTANT NEED of them.

Let me ask you ask you a question. Why don't our cells have just one ribosome to do all the the protein translation? You guessed it--because one isn't enough. We would die if our cells could only produce enough protein from one ribosome. It's the same with genes, we have back up copies for all genes, and for those that need to produce alot, we have many copies--for greater production!

This is a testament to God's great care in creating--not that we are an evolved survivor.

#47 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

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

Posted 04 March 2011 - 08:41 PM

Mitch,

Forgive me if you've answered me.  Besides the fact that EVERY gene in our genome has at least one copy,  there is a list of "housekeeping genes" at wiki.  All you have to do is look it up.  It is quite long.  A housekeeping gene is a gene that has at least 25 copies.  Some of them have over a thousand copies.  The reason is QUITE obvious for anyone who wants to listen.  They encode "homeostasis enzymes," and the body has CONSTANT NEED of them. 

Let me ask you ask you a question.  Why don't our cells have just one ribosome to do all the the protein translation? You guessed it--because one isn't enough.  We would die if our cells could only produce enough protein from one ribosome.  It's the same with genes, we have back up copies for all genes, and for those that need to produce alot, we have many copies--for greater production! 

This is a testament to God's great care in creating--not that we are an evolved survivor.

View Post


I looked up housekeeping genes on Wiki. I don't see how a gene having many copies is something that could not have evolved. If such copies are required for the maintenance of basic cellular function than such copies would sureley be adaptive. Like any other adpative feature they could also be interpreted as an effective design. However, I don't see how genes coming in many copies and performing basic cellular function is necessarily something that couldn't have evolved. Are you seeing this as an irreducibly complex system?

#48 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 04 March 2011 - 09:44 PM

In posts 20 and 27 I say ”a gene that has duplicated, one copy of which mutates…”  So, copy + mutation.  The immediate redundancy of the bare duplicate gene that you describe above is the very reason WHY they can then mutate without perilling  the host and if they do mutate can only add info to the genome.  The Wiki page even offers an example (the ice fish) of a beneficial mutation resulting from a duplication then subsequent mutation.

Both duplicates, whether mutated or not, are on the genome not any "back burner".  Any subsequent mutation is like any other mutation.  A duplicate that mutates has to add info to the genome.
Which, of course,  is suggestive of evolution rather than design.

View Post


Hi Mitch.

link

I do believe that new information could be obtained by gene duplication followed by a mutation. But if the copied DNA is not being used that would eliminate natural selection as a mechanism to weed in/out positive/negative mutations. In other words the mutations would be like creating a useful book by typing random letters. Without a selection mechanism it ends up being just random chance. At some point statistical credulity has to be considered.

BTW you are a very good poster, you stay "on point", you are very knowledgeable and you are respectful.

God Bless,

Bruce

#49 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

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

Posted 04 March 2011 - 10:19 PM

I do believe that new information could be obtained by gene duplication followed by a mutation.  But if the copied DNA is not being used that would eliminate natural selection as a mechanism to weed in/out  positive/negative mutations.  In other words the mutations would be like creating a useful book by typing random letters. Without a selection mechanism it ends up being just random chance.  At some point statistical credulity has to be considered.


Thanks for the linked thread. Regarding your point in the second sentence above: an unmutated duplicate would be free from selective pressure as there is already a gene coding for its associated phenotype and so it is redundant; a subsequently mutated copy however could code for a novel phenotype upon which natural selection could operate. The initial redundancy of an unmutated duplicate allows it to potentially later mutate without threatening some essential component of the host (as might be the case with a mutation of a non-duplicated coding gene).

BTW you are a very good poster, you stay "on point", you are very knowledgeable and you are respectful.

View Post


Thank you.

#50 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

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

Posted 04 March 2011 - 11:38 PM

That just shows that Complexity has a publisher.


I gave you the link in case you wished to do further research, you can always email him yourself too. I can pm you his email if you like. I'd rather stick to the topic of information at this point.

I am not aware of Dawkins or Ken Miller posting on forums with usernames comparable to “Atheistoclast”; they also publicize their jobs, qualifications and affiliations.  The article you have linked is not appropriate for critique.

Nope, but Dawkins is very quick to attack Christian beliefs directly on TV, which in my opinion is worse than what Joseph does. There seems to be a lot of atheists who like to lurk in Christian areas to attack their beliefs. I don't see very many Christians who do so. Joseph isn't even a Christian, he just has a lot against darwinism. But yet again, his article has a very valid point that you have not yet addressed.


I don’t need to “bash”, I point out what no one would dispute.  Abiogenesis hypotheses share the following general features: a fluid environment including potential building-block chemicals (e.g. the sea) and an external energy source (e.g. the sun).  We know chemical reactions can naturally happen; should a molecule emerge that accumulated new components into a repetitious chain then if that chain split we would have primitive self-replication…should faults in the splitting improve the self-replicator’s competitiveness for resources  then we would have primitive adaptation….Are these ancient reactions specifically known?  No, they are as yet hypothetical, but we have DNA and RNA to guide our research.  Abiogenesis posit’s an as yet unknown reaction involving an observed environment (the sea), observed forces and observed chemicals.  In the other camp we have everything created supernaturally and created perfect until a woman made from a rib ate from a magic tree because she listened to a talking snake.  Which do you think is more likely?


It is far more likely that we were designed by an intelligent force such as God. We can make an observation today that complex objects are built by intelligence. A DNA molecule is more complex than a space shuttle. The life coming from non life when proteins can not even be created at equilibrium and then being guided by random mutations does not adequately explain the diversity of life.

Let's look at abiogenesis in the light of observable science: How can Ribose be created without any enzymes? One of the biggest problems relating to this matter is that RNA and DNA can not be synthesized without enzymes. In contrast, enzymes can not be synthesized without RNA and ribosomes. I can go on, but it is a long list. I can tell you though that God does not violate any laws of Science. Creation however, does not violate any observed laws in Science.

Surely you would like to post a genome with increased information on this forum? Jason777 posted one earlier to show that no increase of information occurred on the particular species in question. If you can't show me an example, you are just using conjecture.

Such claims!  A duplicated gene, one copy of which then mutates, obviously leads to an increase in info on the genome.


Any mutation is the loss of information(or interchanging information) on the copied genome in comparison to the original gene. So basically, if the mutated gene(that lost information) is utilized on the genome as opposed the the normal gene, then that results in a loss of information on the small percentage of the genome that is used.

The 2nd law applies to isolated physical system which obviously doesn’t apply to Earth. Anisotropies in the WMAP (of CMBR) explain why energy is not evenly distributed.


I can go much further into thermal dynamics, but I believe it would be easier for me to ask you for a simple observed example of your application of the second law of thermodynamics.

The Anisotropies in the WMAP does not do anything to refute the Creation account. The measurements taken by WMAP does ROUGHLY match one of the models for The Big Bang. There were many different values given for inflation(which shows that they were simply just trying to find data to fit their model without considering the fact that there may be another cause for the existence of our universe mind you.), Scientists will always just simply pick the closest data after taking numerous measurements. This is how evo scientists work, nothing has changed here.


Well, crystals in rocks can let us date when the rock solidified.  One observes the ratio of parent to daughter decay products in a sample and that together with knowledge of what chemicals the molten and solid crystal will let in/out and knowledge of decay rates lets us date when the rock solidified.


And how do you verify that the decay rate was always constant? There are many variables that can affect decay rates.(Such as a global flood.)


the word means race or people rather than generation why do all the English translations I've seen render it “generation”?


You are trying to use the English Bible to twist words into your favor rather than using the language it was originally written in.(Because the way it is worded in Greek solves the problem.) What matters is what was written in Greek. I view it as a bad translation, such as the king james version of one of the ten commandments "Thou shalt not kill" when the Hebrew word was for murder.

In posts 20 and 27 I say ”a gene that has duplicated, one copy of which mutates…”  So, copy + mutation.  The immediate redundancy of the bare duplicate gene that you describe above is the very reason WHY they can then mutate without perilling  the host and if they do mutate can only add info to the genome.  The Wiki page even offers an example (the ice fish) of a beneficial mutation resulting from a duplication then subsequent mutation.


I never denied that beneficial mutations can occur as a result of gene duplicates being utilized on the genome.

When a gene duplicates, whether mutated or not, are on the genome not any "back burner".  Any subsequent mutation is like any other mutation.  A duplicate that mutates has to add info to the genome.
Which, of course,  is suggestive of evolution rather than design.


The new copy is not always utilized by the genome.(This is one of the things that you are missing.) When it is utilized, it is either just a different arrangement of information or a loss of information in the genome when utilized as opposed to the original gene. Maybe you can show me a gene that actually had an increase in information when duplicating?

Your suggestion that the size of the genome is more of evidence for evolution than design is just an assumption. There could be several explanations for this. The one that I accept is that genomes may have been fully utilized before the fall of man in Genesis Chapter 3.(You can see in The Bible that some people lived hundreds of years.)

Accusing me of ignorance, hypocrisy and diversion when I consistently stick to the topic is an unacceptable way to debate.

View Post

Fair enough. I apologize if I came off as abrasive. I am always known to say what is on my mind. I'm not one to sugarcoat. If it really bothers you I will try to be less blunt.

#51 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 05 March 2011 - 01:30 AM

I have some questions for the evolutionists.

1. If evolution occured via gene duplication, do we observe this event empirically?

2. How does the organism cope with double gene expression, since in human females on of their s@x chromosomes are "switched off" as to prevent double gene expression?

3. How does such a method explain how complex systems "evolved" whereby MULTIPLE parts are needed in order to create a benefit which will lead to an increase in fitness... ( the whole is MORE than the sum of its parts)?

Does this mean that multiple copies are caused and are mutated upon in the right way as to "evolve" the new body / organ system? Or will this remain another blank spot in evolutionary knowledge?

#52 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 05 March 2011 - 01:44 PM

The genotypes do not need to be identical

View Post

What if they are?

#53 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 06 March 2011 - 06:50 AM

I looked up housekeeping genes on Wiki.  I don't see how a gene having many copies is something that could not have evolved.  If such copies are  required for the maintenance of basic cellular function than such copies would sureley be adaptive.  Like any other adpative feature they could also be interpreted as an effective design.  However, I don't see how genes coming in many copies and performing basic cellular function is necessarily something that couldn't have evolved.  Are you seeing this as an irreducibly complex system?

View Post

Look at the evidence in the enzymes of modern fauna. You see alot of the same cellular functions. Basic cellular functions work on chemical principles, so you cas have some variation but not that much. You have to have quite a bit of stasis, or the process won't work. The energy and genetic processes throughout eukaryotes are quite conserved as far as function. There is phenotype change, but cellular function has to stay the same for life to function.

The thing I don't like is the unsaid fact that no one has seen a gene duplicate. The copied genes were here before Darwin was born.

#54 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

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

Posted 06 March 2011 - 06:31 PM

Maybe you can show me a gene that actually had an increase in information when duplicating?

View Post


I have some questions for the evolutionists.

1. If evolution occured via gene duplication, do we observe this event empirically?

View Post


The thing I don't like is the unsaid fact that no one has seen a gene duplicate.  The copied genes were here before Darwin was born.

View Post


This is the abstract of a study in which gene duplications are observed - http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19803737

Also, no one can dispute that mutations occur and have been observed. Duplication (observed) + mutation (observed) = increase of info on the genome.

#55 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

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

Posted 06 March 2011 - 07:03 PM

This is the abstract of a study in which gene duplications are observed - http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19803737

Also, no one can dispute that mutations occur and have been observed.  Duplication (observed) + mutation (observed) = increase of info on the genome.

View Post

This appears to be a synopsis of an article.(Possibly peer reviewed by other secular scientists.) I am not satisfied with only seeing the synopsis. I have seen many articles by secular scientists where the conclusion did not match the evidence, such as Sean Connell's article in Nature Magazine.

There is a flaw in your logic Mitch. There may be mutations, and evolution and gene duplication does indeed happen. But you and scientists do not know what limits there are to evolution. That is one of the many hurdles you have to jump to make your conclusion.(By current observations we can tell that evolution is limited as when new functionality is gained through interchanging genes or deleting genes a different function is typically lost.)

I, in contrast, can look around and observe that it takes intelligence to create complex objects. Therefore I can justify believing in a being that created everything that transcends time, space, and matter. Physics and operational laws of Science show that matter and energy is a poor candidate for starting our universe.

#56 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 06 March 2011 - 07:45 PM

This appears to be a synopsis of an article.(Possibly peer reviewed by other secular scientists.) I am not satisfied with only seeing the synopsis. I have seen many articles by secular scientists where the conclusion did not match the evidence, such as Sean Connell's article in Nature Magazine.

There is a flaw in your logic Mitch. There may be mutations, and evolution and gene duplication does indeed happen. But you and scientists do not know what limits there are to evolution. That is one of the many hurdles you have to jump to make your conclusion.(By current observations we can tell that evolution is limited as when new functionality is gained through interchanging genes or deleting genes a different function is typically lost.)

I in contrast, can look around and observe that it takes intelligence to create complex objects. Therefore I can justify believing in a being that created everything that transcends time, space, and matter. Physics and operational laws of Science show that matter and energy is a poor candidate for starting our universe.

View Post


Totally agree here.

As Spectre said there are limits to what variation can do. For example, I cannot breed a pig as big as a house... There is a limit to the maximum size it can be, whilst breeders try to push these limits, there is a limit in place and this is shown by me not being able to breed a house-sized pig.

#57 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

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

Posted 06 March 2011 - 09:37 PM

There is a flaw in your logic Mitch. There may be mutations, and evolution and gene duplication does indeed happen. But you and scientists do not know what limits there are to evolution. That is one of the many hurdles you have to jump to make your conclusion.(By current observations we can tell that evolution is limited as when new functionality is gained through interchanging genes or deleting genes a different function is typically lost.)


As Spectre said there are limits to what variation can do. For example, I cannot breed a pig as big as a house... There is a limit to the maximum size it can be, whilst breeders try to push these limits, there is a limit in place and this is shown by me not being able to breed a house-sized pig.

View Post


Arguing that there are limits to what evolution can achieve is quite different to the claim that natural processes such as mutations cannot lead to an increase of novel information on the genome.

It does not follow that because one cannot breed a house-sized pig that extant life on Earth could not have slowly evolved from a common ancestor.

I, in contrast, can look around and observe that it takes intelligence to create complex objects. Therefore I can justify believing in a being that created everything that transcends time, space, and matter. Physics and operational laws of Science show that matter and energy is a poor candidate for starting our universe.

View Post


It takes intelligence to create artificial objects but how are you quantifying "complex"?

#58 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 06 March 2011 - 09:58 PM

Mutations will have to do more than create small amounts of novel information to get all the complex organisms we see all around Us. Small changes do not amount to big changes. We only observe small changes in nature which usually amounts to a loss of information, not an increase. What is increased is not proof that a fish will one day grow lungs and feet and walk on land to become a land dwelling creature.

#59 Mitch

Mitch

    Member

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

Posted 06 March 2011 - 10:09 PM

Mutations will have to do more than create small amounts of novel information to get all the complex organisms we see all around Us.


Great, so you agree that a mutation can lead to an increase in novel information .

Small changes do not amount to big changes. We only observe small changes in nature which usually amounts to a loss of information, not an increase. What is increased is not proof that a fish will  one day grow lungs and feet and walk on land to become a land dwelling creature.

View Post


What's to stop a series of small steps accumulating into a major change?

#60 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

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

Posted 06 March 2011 - 10:25 PM

Arguing that there are limits to what evolution can achieve is quite different to the claim that natural processes such as mutations cannot lead to an increase of novel information on the genome.

I stand by that argument. You have failed to show me even one instance of novel information. Any mutation is interchanged DNA or genes are deleted. No mutation results from an increase of information. New functions do not equate to new information. It has also been shown that in order to gain a new function, another function has to be lost. This is a serious issue for darwinism as it is a strong indication that evolution has limits.

I have asked to see a genome that has novel information, even though you have provided a lot of conjecture, you have not shown me anything conclusive. I want you to provide to me straight up, a genome that has novel information. If Abiogenesis is truly a valid theory, we should be able to see mutations arise without utilizing information that is not already on the genome. It is true that new functions can arise from errors in duplication, but this does not equate to new information as if you are only using information from a single gene in duplication from the very conception of life through abiogenesis(I'm giving it too much credit because abiogenesis has a WEALTH of problems that make the theory absolutely absurd.) then that means that the variety of life would be very limited. This is an extraordinary part of your world view because when an orgasm, such as e. coli gains a new function, other functions are lost. On this note, for bacteria to eventually be able to evolve to something such as even any sort of primitive animal is honestly an absurd notion with no empirical basis whatsoever, rather it is a belief system drawn from rhetoric and blind swings at the origin of life through speculation of unverifiable conditions.


It does not follow that because one cannot breed a house-sized pig that extant life on Earth could not have slowly evolved from a common ancestor.
It takes intelligence to create artificial objects but how are you quantifying "complex"?

View Post

By complex lifeforms I define it as any form of life. Even one molecule is more complicated than a space shuttle. That is complex. Do you think that a space shuttle is not a complex machine? I'm not entirely sure of where you are trying to get at. As for what is the most complex organism? This is a matter of debate even among secular scientists.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users