Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 301 of 752 (579971)
09-07-2010 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Coyote
09-07-2010 1:15 AM


Re: Macroevolution again?
quote:
How many micros does it take for a macro?
You have 50 marbles. How many marbles do I have to take from you before you have a hundred?
quote:
Because that is what forms a macro--a lot of little micros and a bit of time and selection pressure.
Since almost all evidences for microevolutionary change has been caused by genetic loss, I would argue the opposite, that micro evolution fights against macro evolution.
quote:
Each generation is very close in all traits to the previous one.
I'm a firm believer in variation within a species as well (micro evolution).
quote:
When you look at grandfather, father, and son you see almost no change. But if you back off 300,000 years you will see a lot of changes, and if you go back 3,000,000 years you will see a lot more changes.
This is due to sexual reproduction. We are talking about the origin of new functional genetic information. You got the information from your parents. They got it from theirs, and so on. But where did it come from? For macro evolution to be true, all information must have a source. A period where, useful or not, a gene was formed by some process that contained useful information. Stay on topic, or GP so someone else can respond.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Coyote, posted 09-07-2010 1:15 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Coyote, posted 09-07-2010 10:56 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 313 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2010 11:17 AM dennis780 has not replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 302 of 752 (579972)
09-07-2010 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by dennis780
09-07-2010 1:13 AM


Claims
quote:
So examples of long hair, short snouts, and long legs can be used as evidence for genetic gains?
No.
So dogs are neither evidence for "genetic loss" or "genetic gains". Fine with me, I just wonder why you said "Dog breeders do this to sell dogs with specific traits, but this results in genetic loss" but now your claiming "that all our traits have been here since God created us." So which is it?
Why would I try to argue your point?
Where did I make a point? I asked questions, did you miss that point?
Since new genetic information is required to take bacteria to human over time.
But none is needed to turn a Wolf into a Poodle? (or some such example of selective breeding) If all the information is present, how did you come to show this via evidence? If all the variety is via decay then how did you arrive at this conclusion?
You really don't get why it is impossible for the first bacteria to contain all the genetic information for all the diverse life today?
At what point in my post did you incorrectly conclude it was about my opinions of science and not about yours? I asked questions, you can answer or not, but why pretend my post was about my opinions? I may or may not "get why its impossible", its not really the issue. I would like to know how you arrived at this conclusion, I know already how I arrived at it. So did you accept it blindly, just make it up, or do you have any supporting evidence?
I'll let someone else make fun of you.
Thus far your doing a sad job, best leave it to someone else. Care to explain why you made an assertion and don't mind tossing out some ridicule while dodging my asking for supporting evidence? Did you just make it up perhaps?
Hahaha, you are funny to talk to. Here is the evidence:
Oh good. You give me a quote about Darwin. Not a quote from Darwin, and not even a quote with any evidence. Interesting but not really what I asked for.
I asked for you to show me the evidence that you have come to accept in our modern world and you give me an opinion of Darwins.
I'm not here to defend by beliefs at the moment. You can start another thread if you wish, but I'm too busy with the few thread I do post in. For now, I am interested in debating different aspects of evolution.
You're not here to defend but you have no problem tossing out the assertions? Not very classy. I respect that you're too busy, the more incorrect or unsupported claims you toss into a post the more replies you will find to occupy your time. Thanks for clearing up a few minor points about your post, the major unsupported claims will just have to rest on your good name and fine character?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 1:13 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 7:57 AM Vacate has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 303 of 752 (579973)
09-07-2010 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Theodoric
09-06-2010 9:41 AM


Re: dennis780 claims adopted stupider than other people
quote:
In order for any of your stats to have validity you need to talk about adopted not fostered.
Children are adopted from the foster care system (usually, unless a specific guardian is in mind).
quote:
Most adoptions in the U.S. are placed through the foster care system. In fiscal year 2000, 150,703 Foster children were adopted in the United States
Adoption in the United States - Wikipedia
The fact that the child has been removed from their biological parents is what causes the impact, not their legal status in the system.
You still haven't given me your statistics showing that 90% of foster children are still in communication with their parents regularily. I'm interested to know where you got that number from (since you know where I got all mine from, it seems fair).
quote:
In our county, which is rural, the figure is actually 78%.
So you lied.
quote:
Again, you keep bringing up foster care. The issue is adoptees.
quote:
Therefore, it begs the question as to WHY, if adoption (instead of foster care or permanent guardianship) is truly in the adoptees' "best interests," does "an over-representation of adoptees" end up in prison --
regardless whether adopted as newborns or later in childhood,
regardless whether placed with abusive or loving adopters,
regardless whether they inherited "good genes" or "bad" genes from loving or abusive biological parents,
regardless whether of one race/nationality or another,
Togel SDY: Keluaran SDY, Pengeluaran SDY, Result SDY Hari Ini - Togel SDY
This source points to adoptees.
and this one:
quote:
Schechter also noted hyperactivity and unmanageability in children of a young age. He also observed, particularly with one child, that it had relationships of the same quality with strangers as his parents, namely, superficial and dominated by a driving need to have his impulses satisfied immediately...
unhappiness, separation problems, difficulty knowing and learning, aggressive fantasies and acts, preoccupation with knives and other weapons, and his feelings of being deprived and robbed...
Schecter, Carlson, Simmons, & Work (1964) looked at adopted and non-adopted children in a psychiatric setting and found a much greater occurrence of overt destructive acts and sexual acting-out among adoptees...
originsvic.tripod.com/mentalhealth/adoptedchild.html
quote:
Therefore, it begs the question as to WHY, if adoption (instead of foster care or permanent guardianship) is truly in the adoptees' "best interests," does "an over-representation of adoptees" end up in prison --
regardless whether adopted as newborns or later in childhood,
regardless whether placed with abusive or loving adopters,
regardless whether they inherited "good genes" or "bad" genes from loving or abusive biological parents,
regardless whether of one race/nationality or another,
Togel SDY: Keluaran SDY, Pengeluaran SDY, Result SDY Hari Ini - Togel SDY
Some of the sources used are repeats, since they delt strictly with adoption, but you offered no response.
quote:
All I have done is ask you to support you assertions.
You lost. You have not offered any evidence for the contrary, probably because you don't have any (other than your flyer, that only you can see). If the statistics are different between adoptees and foster children, please, so me.
But you won't. You just prefer to ignore any sources that are perfectly valid, and respond with absolutely nothing but with your opinion...and your flyer. I almost forgot about your flyer.
However, even if your magical flyer is real, the adoption issue is general, not specific to your household, or county. If everything is gravy where you live, then there are no more adoption problems? Wheres the logic? Or do you just care about you.
quote:
If you would do some research
Coming from someone who has done none, I find this really funny.
quote:
How about you quit posting foster care info and how about we drop this since it is off topic.
How about you offer some references supporting your view, instead of offering up random flyers, and opinions. Whats the matter? Searched all day and came up with my information??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Theodoric, posted 09-06-2010 9:41 AM Theodoric has not replied

Annafan
Member (Idle past 4578 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 304 of 752 (579975)
09-07-2010 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by dennis780
09-07-2010 1:54 AM


Re: What's the problem?
I guess I have to be thankful that you were unable to sufficiently subdue your trolling to drag me further into this. But please have fun with the more ardent and hardened regulars here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 1:54 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 7:58 AM Annafan has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 305 of 752 (579990)
09-07-2010 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by Vacate
09-07-2010 2:14 AM


Re: Claims
quote:
So dogs are neither evidence for "genetic loss" or "genetic gains". Fine with me, I just wonder why you said "Dog breeders do this to sell dogs with specific traits, but this results in genetic loss" but now your claiming "that all our traits have been here since God created us." So which is it?
Both. God created each animal after it's kind with enough genetic information to give us the variety we see today, and this information is slowly declining (generally speaking). And dog breeding is an example of genetic loss.
quote:
But none is needed to turn a Wolf into a Poodle?
Though I have no doubt in my mind that mutations did occur from wolf to poodle, no mutations are required.
quote:
If all the variety is via decay then how did you arrive at this conclusion?
quote:
If dogs evolved from wolves, which seems to be the case, then wolves must have had the capacity for this diversity somewhere in their genomes...
"These restrictive breeding practices reduce effective population size and increase overall genetic drift among domestic dogs, resulting in the loss of genetic diversity within breeds and greater divergence among them," writes Ostrander, who participated in a landmark study of the genomic relationship of 85 different dog breeds. "For example, variation among breeds accounts for 27% of total genetic variation, as opposed to 5-10% among human populations" (Parker et al., 2004).
http://www.nature.com/...icpage/genetics-of-dog-breeding-434
Game. Set. Match.
quote:
how you arrived at this conclusion, I know already how I arrived at it. So did you accept it blindly, just make it up, or do you have any supporting evidence?
I don't know how you arrived at it, but I do not, and cannot believe that all the information for the diverse life seen today came from a single source of any kind.
God created each animal, to reproduce after IT'S KIND. If what I believe is true, then each pair of species that went into the ark would have had the genetic diversity to explain the various species of organisms and animals alive today.
quote:
Care to explain why you made an assertion and don't mind tossing out some ridicule while dodging my asking for supporting evidence? Did you just make it up perhaps?
I have lost track of what this is about, but if you remind me, I will gladly.
quote:
I asked for you to show me the evidence that you have come to accept in our modern world
I have no idea what you are talking about, since I do not support darwins theory of evolution (in that a species can change into a new, usually more complex species given enough time).
quote:
You're not here to defend but you have no problem tossing out the assertions? Not very classy.
Fine fine. Where do you want to start? But I'm keeping my current topics up ahead of this.
quote:
the major unsupported claims will just have to rest on your good name and fine character?
Since you don't know me, it would be unwise to let what I say rest on my 'good character'. But since you offered no rebuttal to any of my claims, your next email will be left alone. I do my best to deal with those that are interested in arguing points of the topic, not those that are mad at my sources, but do not refute any claims made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Vacate, posted 09-07-2010 2:14 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Huntard, posted 09-07-2010 8:03 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 308 by jar, posted 09-07-2010 8:05 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 312 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2010 11:13 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 314 by Vacate, posted 09-07-2010 11:43 PM dennis780 has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 306 of 752 (579991)
09-07-2010 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Annafan
09-07-2010 4:56 AM


Re: What's the problem?
Yup goodbye, whatever that means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Annafan, posted 09-07-2010 4:56 AM Annafan has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 307 of 752 (579993)
09-07-2010 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by dennis780
09-07-2010 7:57 AM


Re: Claims
dennis780 writes:
Both. God created each animal after it's kind with enough genetic information to give us the variety we see today, and this information is slowly declining (generally speaking). And dog breeding is an example of genetic loss.
Do you agree that all modern domestic dogs are descended of wolfs? If so, does this mean that these ancestral wolfs had all the genetic information necessary to make all domestic dog breeds?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 7:57 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by dennis780, posted 09-08-2010 3:46 AM Huntard has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 308 of 752 (579994)
09-07-2010 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by dennis780
09-07-2010 7:57 AM


Re: Claims
dennis780 writes:
God created each animal after it's kind with enough genetic information to give us the variety we see today, and this information is slowly declining (generally speaking).
Ah, the old Super-Genome nonsense.
I assume you are familiar with Oetzi?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 7:57 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by dennis780, posted 09-08-2010 3:48 AM jar has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 309 of 752 (580026)
09-07-2010 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by dennis780
09-07-2010 1:20 AM


Re: What's the problem?
Thats funny. I never claimed to be a scientist, but I always research claims offered.
I'm not asking you for "research" I'm asking you to explain what the hell you meant, because your statement as written is unintelligible.
What caused the mutations of nucleotides 3,6,9,12,15,etc.
The same thing that causes mutations of nucleotides 1,2,4,5,7,8,10,11, etc. Mutations do not have the kind of specificity to attack the first and second base of a codon but ignore the third. I mean, surely you're aware that frameshift mutations are cyclic, right? That there are two ways to reverse them - reverse the indel or add another two to return to the original reading frame, minus or plus one additional residue? (the utility of Ames-strain bacteria for the detection of mutagenesis is based on this incredibly simple principle.)
I mean, surely you wouldn't pop up here and not know what you were talking about, right? Maybe you should be researching some of your own claims, first?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 1:20 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by dennis780, posted 09-08-2010 4:19 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 310 of 752 (580027)
09-07-2010 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by dennis780
09-07-2010 1:54 AM


Re: What's the problem?
Two experiments performed by different people should not yield similar results if genetic mutational gain is in fact, RANDOM.
Not so. That's not what "random" means.
For instance, rolling two dice and adding the result gives you a random number - this is the foundation of games of chance such as craps.
Yet, if you have a dozen people each roll two dice a hundred times and chart the results, every single one of them will produce something akin to this graph:
This is because "random" is not a synonym for "completely unreproducible." Frequently random results are very reproducible because the outcomes are probabilistic, as they are with mutation (same as with any chemical reaction.)
Usually experiments to detect mutations - say, an Ames culture - are selecting for a specific mutation. That doesn't mean that other mutations aren't happening - we know for a fact that they are, because we're using mutagens that simply can't have that kind of specificity - but that we're combining that with selection against all but one specific kind of mutation, so that we can get a general rate of mutation. If there was no selection of any kind there would be no way to distinguish mutants from non-mutants.
Even an evolutionist will argue that a negative mutation that is passed on will put that group of organisms or animals at an evironmental disadvantage, and more than likely die off, since they are not as 'fit' as those that do not have a harmful mutation affecting some aspect of survival.
But, of course, dead organisms don't pass on their genes. Dead organisms don't consume resources or occupy environmental niches (though they frequently are niches.) That means that populations of living organisms come to be dominated by the individuals who had mutations that increased, not decreased their fitness - they are, after all, the only ones left.
We are debating the SOURCE for new functional genetic code.
The source is the same as new nonfunctional genetic code - random mutation. Since mutations are random they produce a mix of functional and nonfunctional new genetic code. Natural selection serves to weed out nonfunctional genetic changes from functional ones.
Random mutation and natural selection is the source for functional genetic novelty and explains increases in complexity of organisms. The evidence for this is ample, has been given to you already, and was either not understood by you or simply ignored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 1:54 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by dennis780, posted 09-08-2010 4:35 AM crashfrog has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 311 of 752 (580029)
09-07-2010 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by dennis780
09-07-2010 2:04 AM


Re: Macroevolution again?
quote:
How many micros does it take for a macro?
You have 50 marbles. How many marbles do I have to take from you before you have a hundred?
Absolute non sequitur. Your answer doesn't address the question in any way.
A micro is change, not an addition or loss (although an addition or loss may cause that change). Each micro takes the individual farther from the original. It's like the old "telephone" game where one person gives a message to the next, and so on down the line. Eventually the message hardly resembles the original. That's what we are talking about here! Change. Eventually the population hardly resembles the original population. When those changes are significant, they can be called a macro although there was never a macro change all at once. The macro is only seen when looking at long time periods and in retrospect.
quote:
Because that is what forms a macro--a lot of little micros and a bit of time and selection pressure.
Since almost all evidences for microevolutionary change has been caused by genetic loss, I would argue the opposite, that micro evolution fights against macro evolution.
Nonsense! The macro is just a measure of change from the original population. In terms of human evolution it is not something that occurs from one generation to the next.
quote:
Each generation is very close in all traits to the previous one.
I'm a firm believer in variation within a species as well (micro evolution).
Glad to hear it, but that's a non sequitur again. And belief has nothing to do with science. Science deals with evidence. As is shown on these threads daily, when it comes to creationists, belief gets in the way of learning (as Heinlein noted).
quote:
When you look at grandfather, father, and son you see almost no change. But if you back off 300,000 years you will see a lot of changes, and if you go back 3,000,000 years you will see a lot more changes.
This is due to sexual reproduction. We are talking about the origin of new functional genetic information. You got the information from your parents. They got it from theirs, and so on. But where did it come from? For macro evolution to be true, all information must have a source. A period where, useful or not, a gene was formed by some process that contained useful information.
No, all information does not need an ultimate source; each individual gets his "information" from his parents. That's all the source we need to understand evolution, because we are tracking change over time, not origins.
And you ignored the point I made, in which I explained micros and macros. You seem to want some miraculous change, all at once or something, giving instant "new functional genetic information." Sorry, this comes in the form of a lot of micros, not as an instant macro.
Stay on topic, or GP so someone else can respond.
Whatever.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 2:04 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by dennis780, posted 09-08-2010 8:20 AM Coyote has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 312 of 752 (580035)
09-07-2010 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by dennis780
09-07-2010 7:57 AM


Re: Claims
God created each animal after it's kind with enough genetic information to give us the variety we see today, and this information is slowly declining (generally speaking).
If all organisms were programmed with the complete diversity of their "kind" (whatever that means) programmed into their genome during their creation as two individuals per kind, and that information is being slowly lost as time goes by, then it's very obvious what we should be observing - that species diversity should be declining across the board, as the diverse genomes within those kinds are slowly pruned.
But what we see is the complete opposite - that species diversity increases over time, that genomes increase in information content due to random mutation and natural selection, and that two individuals of one diploid species can have at most a diversity of four alleles per gene amongst the two of them.
So by simple observation we know that your position is false; the observations we make are of the exact opposite of a gradual decline from one expansive "supergenome." What we observe is most consistent with an evolutionary increase in species diversity due to random mutation and natural selection occurring over geologic time.
Though I have no doubt in my mind that mutations did occur from wolf to poodle, no mutations are required.
Wolves are a diploid species so two wolves can, at most, have only four alleles per gene among them. That's not enough alleles to account for all the genotypes present within the Canis lupis familiaris subspecies. While it's known that the effect of breeder selection on the dog genome has been one of contraction of diversity and the fixation on various recessive traits by selection against the dominant phenotype, many of those alleles don't exist in wolves. They're present as a result of mutations specific to dogs.
I don't know how you arrived at it, but I do not, and cannot believe that all the information for the diverse life seen today came from a single source of any kind.
The evidence for universal common ancestry is quite overwhelming. This evidence includes:
1) that all organisms use the same 20 basic amino acids, even though there are countless amino acids to choose from;
2) that all organisms use either the same codon-substitution rules or a slightly-modified version of it, even though there's no reason that should be the case;
3) that all organisms use the same four deoxyribonucleotides and the same four ribonucleotides even though there's no reason they should;
4) that we can chart genetic paternity/maternity via 16s ribosomal subunit across every living species, at an incredible level of statistical significance, even though there's no other reason we should be able to do that;
5) genetic engineering is possible; organisms are so fundamentally compatible that we can take toxic genes from bacteria and insert them into plants, or jellyfish luminescence genes into monkeys; we can put any gene into any other organism and, reliably, it will produce precisely the same protein product there as it did before;
and so on. There is more evidence for the common ancestry of all living and extinct organisms than for any other scientific proposition known to man; more evidence than there has ever been for any physical law, any medical diagnosis, any mathematical proof, or any finding of fact, guilt, or innocence by any court. Refusing to accept the ample evidence for universal common ancestry means closing your eyes to literally every field of science.
If what I believe is true, then each pair of species that went into the ark would have had the genetic diversity to explain the various species of organisms and animals alive today.
But two organisms don't have the genetic diversity to explain even their own species, much less a handful of related genera and families creationists so haphazardly lump as a "kind." It's simply a genetic impossibility. Contrary to physical and chemical law.
Therefore what you believe cannot be true. Diversity of population cannot increase to the extent that we observe it based simply on sexual recombination (and not at all in species that do not sexually reproduce), which proves that random mutation and natural selection is the source of the rest of the new information, and is the mechanism by which species diversify to such an extent that some of their members become a new species, altogether.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 7:57 AM dennis780 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 313 of 752 (580037)
09-07-2010 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by dennis780
09-07-2010 2:04 AM


Re: Macroevolution again?
You have 50 marbles. How many marbles do I have to take from you before you have a hundred?
None - you have to add marbles, just as random mutation and natural selection add functional information to an organism's genome.
Since almost all evidences for microevolutionary change has been caused by genetic loss
"Almost"? So, you admit there's been some evidence for microevolutionary change that adds genetic information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 2:04 AM dennis780 has not replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 314 of 752 (580158)
09-07-2010 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by dennis780
09-07-2010 7:57 AM


Re: Claims
God created each animal after it's kind with enough genetic information to give us the variety we see today
Perfect. Now would you kindly tell me how you arrived at this conclusion? You assert that bacteria do not have all the information present to make a human, but wolves do have all the information present to make every breed of dog. That's a testable statement. So I would expect that you arrived at this conclusion because someone tested it? Right?
I don't mean that someone hasn't done a test (hasn't made a human from bacteria or a cat from a dog), I mean an actual test that produced results.
I have lost track of what this is about, but if you remind me, I will gladly.
In message 288 you claimed that it was impossible for "the original bacteria on earth contained all the information required to form the diverse life today". I asked for supporting evidence. Not because I believe it to be true, but because I don't think you have evidence for any of your claims about "decay" or "information" or "kinds". I just figured if you could support that claim it would help for a baseline to all the other claims your making. (there you go, a reminder and a giveaway)
I have no idea what you are talking about
I asked for evidence that beetles lost their wings or fish lost their eyes. You laughed at me and supplied a quote from a guy talking about an opinion that Darwin had. As if that is any sort of evidence at all. That is what I was talking about.
Care to supply some evidence instead?
Fine fine. Where do you want to start?
Beetles losing their wings, bacteria not having information, dogs losing information, and just for fun "kinds".
Since you don't know me, it would be unwise to let what I say rest on my 'good character'. But since you offered no rebuttal to any of my claims, your next email will be left alone. I do my best to deal with those that are interested in arguing points of the topic, not those that are mad at my sources, but do not refute any claims made.
Your correct, your "good character" means nothing to me, I prefer the evidence. Feel free to start supplying it. I need not provide a rebuttal to your claims any more than I need to tell you that I enjoy hamburgers while asking you to explain why you like steak. You made the claims, I happen to have taken in interest in your supporting evidence.
I have every intention of refuting your claims, wait and see. I plan to let you do all the refuting by not supplying reasonable evidence to support them. Now that I have given up my plan I hope we can carry on with showing you're wrong about evolution.
Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 7:57 AM dennis780 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 315 of 752 (580180)
09-08-2010 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by dennis780
09-07-2010 12:55 AM


Now wait. You claim that mutation is the source for new information. This is your claim. Now you need to support your claim with evidence.
It is sufficient to support my claim by referring you to the meanings of the words "new", "information", and "mutation".
I can watch someone hotwire a car, does not mean that is the correct way for the engine to start, nor does it explain of everyone starts their cars this way, which they do not, since this is harmful to the car, damaging wiring components.
It would, however, prove that it is possible to hotwire a car.
Nothing. Other than you still refuse to give evidence to support mutational evolution.
This is, of course, untrue.
Explain what mutational processes can account for new information.
The process known as "mutation". I think we can all agree that this is a mutational process.
But not that these new arrangements are useful, nor that this information was not from a previous source.
The example and references I gave do in fact prove that.
What you have not argued is that any useful function comes about from these mutations.
The example and references I gave do in fact prove that.
If you are talking about Micro evolution, you win. But new functional genetic information would be required for macro evolution.
And as we can see, new functional genetic information is produced by mutation.
Loss or damage of any specific nucleotide sequences.
Which did not occur.
You have given me sources for genetic change. In one case, you offered an experiment that was repeated with similar results. This is NOT evidence for random mutation, since the odds of any organism mutating similar to another, if in separate conditions is a huge impossibility.
It's at long odds for any two given bacteria to undergo a mutation with similar effects. But what happens when you have lots of bacteria?
No one is claiming that all mutations are harmful, and anyone that does is silly. But the genetic material is due to a loss of information.
Not, in these experiments, according to your definition of genetic loss, which involved a gene becoming non-functional.
If you'd like to try another definition of "genetic loss", be my guest.
I read back in your posts (to some extent, I don't have all day), the experiment performed by different labs that yielded similar results is out. If random mutation is your claim for the origin of new genetic information, any such experiment would NOT yield the same results, unless the organisms themselves caused the change, in order to survive in harmful conditions of some kind. Random mutation should not be repeatable, since it is RANDOM.
Like throwing a six. Once one person has done it, it can never be done again, because that wouldn't be "RANDOM".
Of course, some people would say that it should happen one time in six, but I guess they don't have your deep and penetrating insight into everything.
If random mutation is your claim for the origin of new genetic information, any such experiment would NOT yield the same results, unless the organisms themselves caused the change, in order to survive in harmful conditions of some kind.
Does the unevidenced, impossible method by which the bacteria achieve this include a faculty of precognition?
Only it is demonstrably the case that mutations can happen, and happen repeatedly, before the bacteria are put into circumstances under which those mutations will be beneficial.
That's 'cos the mutations are random. Or because the bacteria, besides the ability to perform intelligent acts of genetic engineering on themselves, also have the ability to see the future.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by dennis780, posted 09-07-2010 12:55 AM dennis780 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024