|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4518 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Adding information to the genome. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Which do not constitute a nett increase in information. I think I made that clear.
You do realize that this "no new information" is a talking point derived from a fundamentalist religious belief in "the fall" don't you? They believe that from perfect creation there is nowhere to go but down. Unfortunately, this belief in "the fall" is not supported by science, nor is the absolute mandate that there can be no new information in the genome. Those unsupported religious beliefs would perhaps be more appropriate for one of the Religion Forums rather than the Science Forum. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
...if you have the scientific data to support this, the debate is over. Let's see it. Then the debate is over. Scientists have only to convince other scientists, relying on empirical evidence. That has long since been done. We don't need to convince creationists who don't rely on empirical evidence in the first place. No amount of empirical evidence will be enough. Creationists rely, instead, on scripture and "divine" revelation. No amount of scientific evidence will convince a committed creationist of anything outside of scripture and revelation. But that doesn't make it correct. Nor does that detract from what science has learned over the years. (The number of religious beliefs that have been disproved is large, and still growing. Think: global flood, young earth, lightning and other natural disasters caused by angry gods, demons responsible for disease, etc. The list is long but laughable.) And that's why there are some 38,000 Christian denominations or sects--they don't rely upon empirical evidence to ascertain which, if any, of their beliefs are accurate. When two interpretations or beliefs collide--whamo-splat! You have schism! Another sect or denomination added to the list. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Unfortunately, this belief in "the fall" is not supported by science, nor is the absolute mandate that there can be no new information in the genome. What about the first and second laws of thermodynamics? They certainly point to a universe who structure is that of conservation and not innovation as required by the evolutionary theory. First, while the second law of thermodynamics may apply to the universe as a whole it does not necessarily apply to subsections of the universe--you, for example. Because of your ability to acquire energy from the outside you are able to temporarily reverse the overall entropy of the universe. The earth does the same thing, using energy from the sun. This means, of course, that creationists who use the second law as an argument against evolution are displaying a gross misunderstanding of that law. Also, evolutionary theory does not require innovation. It explains evolution as descent with modification. That means that subsequent generations can have more, less, or about the same level of whatever "innovation" means. The religious belief in "the fall" does not agree with real world data. Third: the first law of thermodynamics doesn't enter into the discussion at all. An aside--I love it when creationists start quoting scientific laws, as if either they understood them or as if those laws actually meant what creationist websites led them to believe. On another website evolutionists were assured that "the second law of thermal documents" showed that evolution couldn't happen. We were also assured that the odds against evolution producing some result or other were 1720 against. Moral: you should understand something about science before you start to lecture scientists on the details, lest you look silly rather than erudite.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
No other field of science is based on a fundamental theory that is unrepeatable, unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.
Sorry, that is creationist propaganda designed to drive a wedge, in the minds of those who don't know any better, between evolutionary sciences and "other" sciences. Not surprisingly, it is also false. The new field of genetics could have caused a major revision, or even a falsification, of portions of the theory of evolution but instead it supported the theory to a great degree. Of course there were some changes--that's to be expected in science--but everything turned out to be pointed in the same general direction. Scientists for some reason don't see evolutionary sciences as "unrepeatable, unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific." Ever wonder why? Perhaps creationists should not try to dabble in science, eh? Being against science and the scientific method because of their religious beliefs, they tend not to learn enough about it to make meaningful comments. (I still remember the creationist who, on another website, lectured us on "the second law of thermal documents.") Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
The new field of genetics could have caused a major revision Motoo Kimura stated that his Neutral Theory showed the "great majority" of evolution at the molecular level was caused by genetic drift and not natural selection. You don't regard this as a major revision? Kimura studied proteins and genes, and showed that they exhibited little evidence of natural selection, whereas studies of whole organisms showed a great deal of natural selection. Not hardly the same thing at all! And evolution works with whole populations. No, genetics did not overturn previous theory, nor did Kimura.
Perhaps creationists should not try to dabble in science, eh? Being against science and the scientific method because of their religious beliefs, they tend not to learn enough about it to make meaningful comments. Which ones in particular? Isaac Newton? John Sanford? Simon Conway Morris? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
I think "willfully ignorant" would be a better term than any that you used.
But you are correct that creationists must strive to remain ignorant of the facts, because the facts don't corroborate their beliefs. They have no choice because they can't accept those facts. That has led to the whole field of creation "science," which seeks to shoehorn those beliefs into some semblance of scientific language in order to allow creationists to continue to believe that science corroborates their beliefs when the exact opposite is more often the case. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
"Kimura [standing beside a pond of colored carp]: As between the carp and me, there are many [genetic differences], but the surprising fact is that most of these mutations do nothing to help establish the differences between a human being and a fish. The carp and I both need hemoglobin to do exactly the same job of carrying oxygen around the body. Yet one half of all the chemical units in my hemoglobin molecules are different from the carp's. That unnecessary sort of evolution, and my studies of its rate and pattern, suggest to me that natural selection has had no reason for preferring one variant of the molecule over another. I think chance plays a much greater part in evolution, and natural selection a lesser part, than biologists supposed a few years ago."
NO! NO! NO! So according to Kimura, the evidence for Natural Selection is non-existent in the evolution of hemoglobin. Some variants of hemoglobin work, and some don't. Natural selection weeds out those that don't. That doesn't mean that all successful variants have to be the same! There are often many solutions to a given problem genetic. This is well illustrated in an on-line lecture that I have cited several times: Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
The facts show that evolution adds information to the population genome of evolving species. The facts show that traits exist in new populations that did not exist in ancestral populations. Decidedly not true. If there were such "facts" (as opposed to guesses, suggestions, hopeful extrapolations and legends disguised with scientific terminology) this forum would not exist. You would have us believe that no new traits were added to the genome from the Australopithecus level to modern man???!!? That's a ridiculous thing to try to peddle! And it is contradicted by the facts. Face it, your religious belief in "no new information," based, presumably, on the religious concept of "the fall," just doesn't hold water. This thread is full of examples of added information, but you just won't accept the evidence. Unfortunately, you have provided an example of "willful ignorance," confirming some comments that I posted in the Peanut Gallery just minutes ago. You also confirm the previous post there by RAZD. But I guess evidence doesn't matter when you have belief, eh? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Your picture of Lucy and your comment make no sense.
They certainly do not refute my post that information had been added to the genome of that level of critter to get to modern humans.
Would those facts include a list of transitional hominids linking Australopithecus and Homo Sapiens? I'd be very interested to see it.
Nonsense. Willful ignorance again. So would the scientific community in general, actually. Just because you refuse to accept scientific findings does not make them go away. But you want transitionals? See below:
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024