Question on arbitrary lines

Hello,I was invited here regarding my internet article The Bible and Science.My main purpose was to speak to those fundamental ultra literalists who insist on a 6,000 to 20,000 year old earth and universe. AIG and ICR would be the best examples of what I am referring to.It seems the discussion here centers around my alleged "arbitrary line" at evolution.To get into this - you have to define the terms... such as evolution and speciation. I am not against evolution in any form. For example, I accept that speciation (based on the reproductive isolation definition) does occur.This demands that I accept evolution (based on the change with respect to time definition). Further, I accept natural selection - extinction being rather undeniable.Where I would "draw the line" is if someone states as fact that evolution has occurred on the order of molecules to man by purely random means.All actual witnessed occurrences of evolution I have seen involve merely errors in genetic information. Examples would include dropped genes, duplication errors, even redistribution errors (a genetic shuffling if you will).What remains to be seen is: new, additional, and functional genetic information for new structures which were not already present.I am open to this - but am very skeptical that it will be shown/discovered.The Cambrian explosion with it's new time constraint of possibly as few as 2 or 3 my is drastically to small a time frame to come up with 70 new phyla - the number of which has ever since been decreasing.Regards,
VR

<<<
Evolution isn't random. Mutations are random, but natural selection is the opposite of random.
>>>As I see it, you need lots of new coding for new structures before selection can decide what works best.By far the majority of mutations are harmful - not helpful to the organisms viability. You would need quite a few beneficial mutations at once to produce a benefit in a higher level life form.<<<
Mere errors in genetic information is what leads to evolution. For example, if a gene is duplicated, now you have an extra gene. If that gene isn't expressed, then natural selection won't act on it, and it will be free to mutate at whatever mutation rate that species has. If it eventually mutates into something that is expressed, then natural selection will act on it.
>>>A duplicate gene is just that. Evolution needs lots of new genes (with new, unique, and additional) genetic code for new structures in higher level life forms. You have to have the entire genetic information base increasing at orders of magnitude levels.<<<
The genetic duplication I just described is new information. How else did you want new information to come?
>>>A designer... in my case, God.<<<
New structures do not generally just appear unless they are a repeat of a previous structure. A mutant might be born with an extra set of legs, but not with say, a pair of wings growing out of its back. More likely is a mutant with, say, an extra vertebrae than its parents. Such things happen, when the structure is just a repeat of a current structure.
>>>Thanks for helping explain my point.<<<
New structures come from old ones, they don't show up fully formed. Lungs evolved from swim bladders. Lobster claws evolved from legs. Wings evolved from legs, as did mammal flippers. All these things are the result of "mere" genetic errors, such as gene duplication, which you described.
>>>Since they do not show up fully formed, can you explain to me how half a lung (or claw, or flipper) could present a clear advantage for natural selection to act upon.<<<
Do you have a reference for this, and if it happened, then how could it be too small a time?
>>>This pertains to recent discoveries in China by Chen Junyan and others. His work puts an upper limit of merely 3 million years for its duration! The finds are in the Chengjiang Shale deposits in Yunnan China (some of the best preserved found). The source for this is Chinese National Geography (Sept 1999): pages 6-25.This is admittedly not an easy source to come by. As for an readibly available resource you can read lots on the net on the Chengjiang Shale. A good starting point is this English translation of an early Chinese article: http://dawning.iist.unu.edu/...a/bjreview/97Apr/97-13-7.htmlAs to the time frame... Too small a time frame for your methods - not mine.Regards,
VR

<<<
Why does it have to happen all at once?
>>>To be beneficial.<<<
Neither of these constitute "new information" to you, for whatever reason.
[snip]
A whole new gene via processes that, to you, add no "new information" to the genome. Ergo, your assertations that these process don't add "new" information are clearly wrong.
>>>I don't want to get into the nuances of information theory - but surely you realize that in higher order life forms you need tremendous amounts of new, unique, and additional information to get from a few random molecules to man!I am willing to grant evolution (even information gaining type) in simple life forms (like a virus or simple bacteria) because of their incredible population sizes, simple genetic coding, small body sizes, and ultra fast reproduction rates. But when you apply models like this to higher order life (like mammals) - it will go extinct before you get a mutation driven new structure that not only forms but happens to be one that's beneficial.<<<
Mutation is all you need to add new information because information can be generated at random so long as it is filtered through natural selection. This has been modeled extensively.
>>>This is an unfounded (or at least poorly founded) assertion. Every model that I have seen takes tremendous liberties, shortcuts, and work with a purpose in mind - and falls vastly short of proving that randomness can take you from molecules to man.<<<
You can claim that "molecues to man" (I hate that term) is prevented by some kind of theoretical barrier, but no evidence of that barrier has ever been found. The evidence is pretty clear that random mutation + natural selection is sufficient to account for all of life's complexity.
>>>Why do you take issue of the term molecules to man? Don't you believe this happened? If you do - I can only guess that your issue is that it glaringly displays the difficulty and unlikelihood of it taking place.There is no evidence for a lack of a barrier either.Please excuse the following if you are not an atheist...But if you are - or even agnostic...If all this was a long ago settled argument - why do boards such as this exist?Why are you here?My motivation is to show evidence for my faith - What benefit could an atheist derive from discussions here:Pat each other on the back for being right?
Make fun of stupid creationists - or what?Regards,
Lane

<<<
Because some people are so motivated by ideology that they deny the findings of science - and expect others to deny them as well. Furthermore as ID theorists push into our schools, I'm trying to fight them to assure that my future children can get a proper science education free of ridiculous religious dogma.
>>>Pardon the pun, but I've "evolved" a little beyond arguing for the sake of arguing. I won't waste our joint time much more.I am curious to "cut to the chase" What cosmology model do you put your faith in? Do you believe in a timeless universe, an infinitely recycling universe, or an infinite number of universes, transpermia or what?The reason I ask is because of the odds of our universe and all the fine tuning requirements. While I share your disgust for typical creationism - the universe is full of design evidence.Further, I can't get past how depressing such an outlook must be. You see nothing special about man? Do you not have questions along the lines of consciousness, conscience, religious need, etc.How could anyone who believes as this give any comfort to anyone in time of tragedy? For example - What could you do for one of your children if they were the surviving spouse of a terrorist attack victim? Tell them:"Don't worry, you will be happy to know that everything your spouse was is now merely worm food."Not a pleasant world view in my opinion.VR