Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Word Evolutionists
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 93 (119416)
06-28-2004 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by crashfrog
06-27-2004 2:33 AM


quote:
Now, that's just not true. Slight "uphill" changes, at random, must be possible. I mean, if I have a random letter generator, there's a slight random chance that it'll generate, at random, a meaningful sequence. It's mathematical fact.
Meaningfull sequences can occur. Thats how we see such diversity in kinds when they reproduce. However evolution needs changes that natural selection simply cannot make. Fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to mammals etc It goes on and on. But we dont see these changes because they cannot occur. So why have they occured in the premeval past millions of yrs ago?.
quote:
So, answer the question. If you had one process that took us downhill most of the time, but occasionally, randomly took us uphill; and then you had a process that kept us from going downhill and only let us go uphill; and put them together, wouldn't you have a process that would take us nowhere but uphill, very slowly? Sounds like we would to me.
The only uphill that occurs is a beneficial mutation. A fruitfly with larger wings, or a dog with hairier fur for the cold. These are still working with information present not adding. It cannot account for what we see today in the diversity, and evolutionists believe it all came from a common ancestor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2004 2:33 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2004 7:57 AM almeyda has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 92 of 93 (119455)
06-28-2004 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by almeyda
06-28-2004 5:13 AM


However evolution needs changes that natural selection simply cannot make.
Once again you've conflated natural selection and random mutation.
Selection doesn't create, and mutation doesn't select. Honestly what's so confusing about that that you can't tell the difference?
Try to keep it straight this time: new sequences come about as a result of mutation. Natural selection weeds out all but the ones that add additional information. The result is a continuing process of gaining information.
The only uphill that occurs is a beneficial mutation.
Right. Those changes provide slight uphill travel. Natural selection provides a bias - a ratchet, you could imagine it - to prevent us from going down the hill.
What's the result? Steady uphill travel. What's had to understand about that, almeyda?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by almeyda, posted 06-28-2004 5:13 AM almeyda has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 93 of 93 (119546)
06-28-2004 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by almeyda
06-28-2004 5:04 AM


Thanks again for replying - hopefully you understood my frustration.
However, I still don't believe you have begun to refute my mechanism.
One problem is that many of your arguments are based on gross morphology of organisms (dogs growing feathers), when the point at hand is the addition of new genetic information:
A canine kind will not change into a new kind of animal, this would be a increase in information.
Again - this statement has nothing to do with one gene becoming two useful genes with divergent function.
Another problem is your terminology:
When we talk about a mutation in a dog, we mean a change in structure.
No 'we' don't, a mutation is simply a change in the sequence of DNA, and says nothing about the impact on gross morphology. You are arguing against my DNA-based mechanism with an absurd organism morphology argument.
It is a mutation, which is downhill.
Again, incorrect. A mutation is neither 'uphill' or 'downhill' - in any case, I've provided a mechanism by which one gene can diverge into many, and others have provided cases of genes becoming more efficient or gaining new properties (sounds both 'uphill' and like additional genetic information).
Evolution must be observed all around us. We must be able to point to millions of instances were a dog grew feathers, then many mutations later into a bird.
Evolution does NOT predict that we would regularly see such gross morphological changes and speciation within our lifetimes. Also, you reveal your simplistic view of evolution here, that one mutation can cause feathers to sprout, and a few more turn a dog into a bird.
However it seems that a mutation has remixed the genes etc causing more information. Which is not case as it cannot add new genetic data.
This statement is particularly disappointing to me. You ask for a mechanism for the 'addition of genetic information,' so I give you one. You say it seems plausible, but it has to be wrong. Why? Because you claim "it cannot add new genetic data". What does this mean? It sounds like you are simply being stubborn in the face of a very plausible mechanism.
In any case, you still have NOT refuted the validity of the mechanism: duplication and/or rearrangement, followed by mutation, produces more genes with divergent function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by almeyda, posted 06-28-2004 5:04 AM almeyda 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