"Slanted" Eyes in Orientals

quote:

---

You've given no evidence for creation yet, only refutation of evolution while apparently unwittingly supporting it. You claim that "animals stay stagnant" as evidence for creation, but above describe the evolution of differences in humans.

---

The "evolution" of humans is not evolution at all. The changes in races are not due to evolution but natural selection dealing with genes already present.

quote:

---

Perhaps most importantly, if you want to use the term "kind," you absolutely must give a definition of it for this debate to be valid. Without a valid definition we cannot begin to discuss where one kind ends and another begins...

---

Kinds are a group of organisms that can interbreed among themselves, but not with another group. Crossing a male ass and a horse produces a mule. Hybrids between zebras and horses (zorse) and zebras and donkeys (zeedonk, zonkey, zebrass) also occur. But they are from a common equine kind. This is not due to evolution but created kinds to reproduce after their own therefore with natural selection, different types of these kinds can arise. The reason creationists can use this as evidence for creation and against evolution is because it is consistent with what God says in Genesis 1:21,24,25.
God created all kinds, or basic types of creatures and plants with the ability to produce variety in their offspring. These varieties come from recombinations of the existing genetic information created in the beginning (natural selection). Properly understanding adaptation by natural selection which gets rid of information does not involve the addition of new complex DNA information. Thus evolutionists should not teach that it demonstrates ‘evolution happening’, as if it showed the process by which fish could eventually turn into people.

You state: I think you are defending yourself through the concept of existing genetic variance in the founder population, but referring to one of your earlier posts: Here you admit mutation-based change in reproductively isolated groups resulting in changes in features. This is evolution. I repeat: You are very concerned about whether you consider a genetic change "degenerative" or not. That has nothing to do with defining whether or not evolution has occurred, and is a subjective term (loss of pigment may be thought of as "degenerative" at the equator, but "progressive" closer to the poles).If you want to get technical, "changes in allele frequencies" can be substituted for "genetic changes". It doesn't matter if the allele frequencies change because of introduction of new alleles (mutation) or because of selection changing existing proportions of existing alleles.A reply to the issue of "kind" will follow.

Thank you for providing a specific definition of "kind." I commend you for doing so. Here is your definition: So it follows, if I could show you a species, that upon a genetic mutation, split into two separate populations incapable of interbreeding, that would be evidence of one kind splitting into two, and thus provide some proof of evolution.Well, here it is: The researchers witnessed a speciation event in a closed population they were studying, a single gene mutation changed the shell pattern of a snail, and the constraints of the new shell shape prevent the snails with the two types of shells from aligning their genitals to mate. But, the old-shelled snails could mate with the old-shelled, and the new-shelled could mate with other new-shelled snails.Thus snails with the shell-changing mutation are incapable of "interbreeding" with the ones without the mutation - even if they are sitting next to each other in the same pond.I think the snail example is powerful: Humans witnessed it, it is based on a single gene mutation, that mutation prevents mating between those with and without the mutation (reproductive isolation), and the shell pattern is visibly different (morphology difference).I'll be interested to hear what your response is.I hope it is not, "But it's still a snail."That would violate your definition of "kind".

quote:

---

No im definately not. For evolution to have occured all types of life would have to have been descended by natural on going proccesses from a single life form. But for this to have worked there must be a process that can generate information in living things. This is where the theory of Natural selection comes into play. But natural selection cannot explain new species, natural selection has never achieved progresive additional amounts of genetic information, only a decrease

---

there is no difference between small scale evolution (what you are describing... the shift within 'kind') and large scale evolution (the shift between 'kind'). evolution simply is. the bible supports it as the theory stands today, and darwin founded it on the idea that god created the world in a way other than was commonly thought. maybe we're wrong... new theories are bound to come along. i can't wait; it will be an interesting journey. but there is no reason to limit god to a simplistic idea that is not even supported by traditional interpretations of scripture. and no, i'm sorry. the common beliefs of the new religious reicht are not traditional interpretations. the torah is a jewish book and we christians should defer to them on its interpretation.

Let's pretend we have two organisms in front of us that can't interbreed.How do we tell if they're from the same kind and have lost the ability to interbreed (which creationists tell us happens sometimes) or if they're from two different kinds and have never been able to interbreed?

quote:

---

Here you admit mutation-based change in reproductively isolated groups resulting in changes in features. This is evolution.

---

Mutations are not evolution!. Evolution is evolving into higher more complex life forms not devolving with mutations and already existing genes. There has been a loss of genetic information, the opposite of what molecules-to-man evolution needs. As evolution has no way to get either any initial information, or the information necessary for each increase in complexity, creationist quite often rule out evolution as the way living things came to be.

Mutations do that, though. They're new gene alleles. Like that new Hemoglobin C gene that confers resistance to malaria without the same anemic consequences of Hemoglobin S. What are you talking about? Random mutation and natural selection provide that capability. Random mutation is the source of random strings and natural selection filters out all but the ones with additional "information", whatever that is.You're saying that "evolution has no process to generate new information", but evolution - or the mechanisms of evolution, anyway - are that process.

quote:

---

What are you talking about? Random mutation and natural selection provide that capability. Random mutation is the source of random strings and natural selection filters out all but the ones with additional "information", whatever that is.

​

You're saying that "evolution has no process to generate new information", but evolution - or the mechanisms of evolution, anyway - are that process.

---

What your speaking of is something like microevolution, little by little and over millions of yrs, things can change to different species and can form higher more complex life forms. Which can then lead to macro, molecules to man etc. But were here in the present. How do we go from that one celled organism into all living things. If evolution means anything at all, it means that it has produced massive amounts of gain in information to form what we see today. But if you have only a one-celled thing in a pond, it doesnt have the information in the DNA. This cell does not have information to produce brains, blood, eyes, ears etc. So for evolution to work it needs to add new information into the genes. But in all observations of natural selection, adaptation are all downhill processes. And you cant add up lots and lots of losses and expect a gain. Im sure evolutionists dont mind mutations and loss of information but likewise they must have uphill changes happening constantly!. And of course not all mutations are bad and can lead to adaptation to certain environments but this is a loss and is not 'evidence of evolution'.In an evolutionary framework for example there was once living things but no lungs. They hadnt evolved yet, So there was no information for lungs, they had to come from somewhere. Then lungs but no feathers etc, progressive information. It would help evolutionists or better yet be necessary to point to examples of this. I think evolutionists would agree that natural selection doesnt do this. The only chance evolutionists have is with mutations, but this is just copying mistakes. Copies of our information, reshuffling etc. It cannot account for the complexity we see today, in organic design, in DNA. For example lets say i lent you a video tape and you made a copy and then a another copy. This leads to defects and the defects get copied along. This will not produce a brand new video tape (Very stupid example but try to imagine). So this is the problem of mutations. This does not mean a mutation cannot be beneficial, there are a few because a defect can be a benefit. There is no mechanism for matter to generate new information.Dr Dawkins a man whos books has sold millions and who is never lost for words was stoped like a deer in the headlights in the video 'From Frog to a Prince' when asked if he could give one example of a mutation or any evolutionary procces which has added information to the genome. He could not provide. And this is the bankruptcy of the evolutionary theory.

By random mutation and natural selection; proven, observed processes with the creative power to give rise to phenomenal species change. Only if you define "downhill" as "any change from what was before." In that case, of course, it's a contradiction in terms to ask for an "uphill change", because you've already defined "change" as "downhill."Pretty clever, Almeyda, but not clever enough. There's more than enough examples of mutations that confer positive, advantageous traits. I just gave you one before - human Hemoglobin C. I did already. Actually, in that session, he gives several examples of information-increasing mutations. Why didn't you see or hear any of them? The creationists who made the video edited them out.Here's a little more about that video fraud: CB102.1: Dawkins interviewed about evolution increasing informationDoesn't it ever anger you, Almeyda, how creationists lie to you? I know it angered me when I found out. I used to be a creationist too, you know.

Do you have a link where this increased information in living things due to natural selection can be found.

quote:

---

Doesn't it ever anger you, Almeyda, how creationists lie to you? I know it angered me when I found out. I used to be a creationist too, you know.

---

What have they lied about?.

quote:

---

Dr Dawkins should have been in a position to show any scientific (observable and testable) evidence that mutations and natural selection can add information. However, the video shows that Dawkins was unable to provide any experimental evidence, and gave an ‘answer’ completely unrelated to the question.

---

Whats the creationists conspiracy against Dawkins?.

quote:

---

RD: ‘ I was challenged to produce an example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome. It is a question that nobody except a creationist would ask ’

​

GB: That question actually came at the end of the interview. At the beginning, Philip Hohnen asked several general questions on the origin of new information. These questions are recorded on tape and may be viewed, either on tape or transcripted, by anyone interested in the exact nature of the questions. Dawkins objected to the questions and stopped the recording. He claimed that questions on the origin of new information were invalid, and that nobody ever asked him such questions. I responded that the question of information was perfectly valid, and very important to the evolution-creation debate.

---

Dawkins also says that these questions are just questions creationists ask. But it is relevant to the battle for truth. For evolution to be a valid answer to origins they must show how an evolutionary process can give an increase in information.

Almeyda, if you're not even going to read my posts, don't bother replying, ok? You seriously didn't ask a single question that my previous post didn't address.If you want to know more about human Hemoglobin C, why don't you search on http://www.pubmed.org? It's an open database of biological literature.

quote:

---

For evolution to be a valid answer to origins they must show how an evolutionary process can give an increase in information.

---

Thats easy; at its simplest, a heap of sand is more complex than a scattering of sand, and that can occur entirely naturally. We are starting to use 'biologival' methods to 'grow' computer programmes, seeing as the necessary complexity has surpassed our capacity to consciously design.

I guess you didn't read the scientific definition I gave you (twice) otherwise you would realize that "evolving into higher more complex life" is not part of it. I'm sure you'll deny it by your incorrect VCR tape analogy, but duplication and rearrangement at chromosomal and smaller genetic units is a means to increase the "genetic information."I think your misconception on this point comes from the idea that: if a gene is copied, you'd just have two copies of the same gene, and therefore nothing new would come of it.If so, you are not thinking about what happens later, as the two copies of the gene accumulate different mutations, and diverge in function. Indeed, evolution predicts that one copy of the gene would be lost if no changes occurred since completely redundant function would leave no selective force to have both copies.This is why we have what are called "gene families," a simple example being the ERBB receptor family. It has four members, duplicated from a single ancestral ERBB receptor gene, but each member has since changed sequence, and hence function. Thus the receptors' ligand specificities have diverged, as has their downstream signaling pathways. Overtly, ERBB2 has a dysfunctional ligand-binding domain, while the ERBB3 has an inactive kinase domain. Loss of any one ERBB results in embryonic lethality. ("Lower" organisms like the fruit fly and nematodes have one ERBB gene homologue.)Also, duplications and rearrangments can "remix" existing genes, coding for hybrid proteins with functions from each of the original proteins. These hybrid genes can accumulate mutations.Also, duplications/rearrangments can leave gene coding sequence intact, but change regulatory elements associated with the gene, causing it to be expressed in a new tissue site, or at a different level.So, it is not that every single gene has arisen by chance. Most genes are made up of domains that have similar sequence and produce protein domains with similar function. Thus, only one ancestral kinase domain could have been duplicated to produce the hundreds of different genes containing a kinase domain.Imagine a gene with an extracellular domain that attaches to something outside of the cell. Duplication, rearrangment, and now a new hybrid gene exists with an extracellular binding domain and a cytoplasmic kinase domain - a kinase receptor is born...This kinase receptor can duplicate, rearrange, mutate; and now you have a family of several kinase receptors...

quote:

---

The researchers witnessed a speciation event in a closed population they were studying, a single gene mutation changed the shell pattern of a snail, and the constraints of the new shell shape prevent the snails with the two types of shells from aligning their genitals to mate. But, the old-shelled snails could mate with the old-shelled, and the new-shelled could mate with other new-shelled snails.

​

Thus snails with the shell-changing mutation are incapable of "interbreeding" with the ones without the mutation - even if they are sitting next to each other in the same pond.

​

I think the snail example is powerful: Humans witnessed it, it is based on a single gene mutation, that mutation prevents mating between those with and without the mutation (reproductive isolation), and the shell pattern is visibly different (morphology difference).

---

This is not evolution. This is just a mutation. Like a human being born without genetalia. Its still a human. Its just got a mutation. Mutations are not evolution. You must provide evidence of an increase in information. If that snail grew legs. That would be evolution. It evolved into a more complex thing. But it cannot because the information for legs is not in a snails genes.

If all mutation involves a loss of information, then how can you explain that some insects evolve wings, then lose wings and then evolve wings again? Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects {Nature, 421, 264 - 267 (16 January 2003); doi:10.1038/nature01313 -- click here for synopsis}Which one has less information than the other?Mutation is just a change in information.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}