Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,486 Year: 6,743/9,624 Month: 83/238 Week: 0/83 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can random mutations cause an increase in information in the genome?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 310 (287581)
02-17-2006 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Garrett
02-17-2006 9:22 AM


Re: Question outstanding!
quote:
Until you can produce evidence of mutations that lead to changes above the species level, you are relying on faith to hold that position.
Well, evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming -- the evidence exists in many different fields of biology, and is observed by many different scientists using a variety of different observational and experimental methodologies. The evidence is so overwhelming that we can safely say that evolution is an established fact.
Now, the only process that we know of that produces heritable variation is genetic mutations. We do observe genetic mutations, so they exist, and we have no other mechanism for inheretance, and so we can safely say that the evidence does suggest, quite strongly, that mutations (with natural selection) lead to changes above the species level.
No faith required.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 9:22 AM Garrett has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 10:09 AM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 257 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 11:56 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Garrett
Member (Idle past 6420 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 242 of 310 (287582)
02-17-2006 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by crashfrog
02-17-2006 9:42 AM


Re: Question outstanding!
I grasp all of these concepts. When I said "produce" I meant via mutations over "howevermany" years, not reproductively. It's fairly obvious that a gerbil won't give birth to a non-gerbil....but thanks for the confidence in my rationality.
I also realize that speciation is the source of new species. However, you're being dishonest if you suggest that mutations aren't the means of acheiving the change required. Regardless...I asked for evidence of changes ABOVE the species level, not at the species level.
The point is there is no observable evidence that suggests that speciation will ever lead to a new Order, for instance. And unless the first simple organisms were primates...this would eventually be required.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2006 9:42 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2006 11:14 AM Garrett has replied

Garrett
Member (Idle past 6420 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 243 of 310 (287584)
02-17-2006 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Chiroptera
02-17-2006 9:53 AM


Re: Question outstanding!
You admitted that faith was required in your answer.
"we can safely say that the evidence does suggest, quite strongly"
This may be faith based on reason, but it is still faith when absent empirical proof. I understand your assumptions. Because you are a naturalist and we have no other natural mechanism that produces heritable variation, and you assume heritable variation must be the means of getting to our current forms of life, then obviously it happened. No matter how scientific you make it sound...it's still an assumption based on logic...not fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Chiroptera, posted 02-17-2006 9:53 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Modulous, posted 02-17-2006 10:15 AM Garrett has replied
 Message 258 by Chiroptera, posted 02-17-2006 12:00 PM Garrett has not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 239 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 244 of 310 (287586)
02-17-2006 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Garrett
02-17-2006 10:09 AM


drifting off topic, but...
This would make an interesting PNT, if you're interested I'll do the hard work.
You admitted that faith was required in your answer.
"we can safely say that the evidence does suggest, quite strongly"
You bolded suggest, may I bold a different word:
"we can safely say that the evidence does suggest, quite strongly"
You seem to be suggesting that if the evidence infers a conclusion, that is faith. Your definition of faith is so broad it includes everything, including my conclusion that my computer is on a desk. If we take everything on faith, what use is the word.
If you want to discuss faith, reasonable doubt, and science, gimme a shout and I'll write something up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 10:09 AM Garrett has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 10:27 AM Modulous has not replied

Garrett
Member (Idle past 6420 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 245 of 310 (287594)
02-17-2006 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Modulous
02-17-2006 10:15 AM


Re: drifting off topic, but...
Almost. I'm suggesting that if the evidence infers a conclusion that isn't verifiable, you rely on faith. Your example of taking it on faith that your computer is on your desk is apples to oranges. You can easily prove that your computer is on your desk by reaching out and touching it. However, it's not possible to prove that changes ABOVE the level of species can occur. Evolutionists would be the first to admit this since they take such great time to occur.
And I'm actually not even suggesting that your perspective is illogical. If only natural means exist, then what you suggest must be fact. However, if supernatural means exist then there are another set of assumptions that are equally as logical.
The question, then, is....which is more logical to assume supernaturalism or naturalism. Since every effect must have a cause...I would say supernaturalism.
If you want to work up a topic...go ahead. I'll drop in as I have time available.
This message has been edited by Garrett, 02-17-2006 10:27 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Modulous, posted 02-17-2006 10:15 AM Modulous has not replied

Garrett
Member (Idle past 6420 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 246 of 310 (287605)
02-17-2006 10:42 AM


Why don't the "commoners" get it?
I think we're hitting on the main problem most "common" americans have with the theory of evolution. Looking at past polls (I don't have the exact numbers right now), most americans are still skeptical.
I know that most of the scientific community views these people as dumb rednecks or whathaveyou, but the fact is the majority of them realize that the overarching concept of change ABOVE the level of species is not verifiable.
Until evolutionists are willing to admit that they can't prove these level of changes and that they reach the conclusions based on logical assumptions, the community as a whole will be skeptical of their intentions. Most evolutionists, including many in this thread, assert that evolution is a fact hoping the average person doesn't know otherwise, or not realizing themselves that micro doesn't prove macro.

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Wounded King, posted 02-17-2006 10:55 AM Garrett has replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 287 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 247 of 310 (287611)
02-17-2006 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Garrett
02-17-2006 10:42 AM


Re: Why don't the "commoners" get it?
I know that most of the scientific community views these people as dumb rednecks or whathaveyou, but the fact is the majority of them realize that the overarching concept of change ABOVE the level of species is not verifiable.
That seems to be a pretty sweeping assumption. Are you sure most of them don't realise that they aren't related to no monkey?
What does macro even mean 'above' the level of speciation? How would you show it? How novel would a feature need to be before we decide to that itis sufficient to demarcate change 'above' the level of species.
I assume that by 'above' the level of species you mean that speciation is not sufficient.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 10:42 AM Garrett has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 11:03 AM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 251 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 11:16 AM Wounded King has not replied

Garrett
Member (Idle past 6420 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 248 of 310 (287615)
02-17-2006 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Wounded King
02-17-2006 10:55 AM


Re: Why don't the "commoners" get it?
What you did verify is your smug attitude towards anyone with different views. Gotta love that evolutionary mindset.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Wounded King, posted 02-17-2006 10:55 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by AdminOmni, posted 02-17-2006 11:10 AM Garrett has not replied

AdminOmni
Inactive Member


Message 249 of 310 (287620)
02-17-2006 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Garrett
02-17-2006 11:03 AM


ADMIN IRRITATION: Put it back on-topic
Garrett, you moved the thread off-topic, introducing the notion of "common folks" and "dumb rednecks."
Now move it back by addressing the topic rather than your appraisal of your opponent's mindset.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
    Trust me.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 248 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 11:03 AM Garrett has not replied

    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 1721 days)
    Posts: 19762
    From: Silver Spring, MD
    Joined: 03-20-2003


    Message 250 of 310 (287626)
    02-17-2006 11:14 AM
    Reply to: Message 242 by Garrett
    02-17-2006 10:02 AM


    Re: Question outstanding!
    Regardless...I asked for evidence of changes ABOVE the species level, not at the species level.
    That sentence still has no meaning to me. Mutations happen at the genetic level, not at or under or above the "species" level.
    The point is there is no observable evidence that suggests that speciation will ever lead to a new Order, for instance.
    Speciation is not the source of new orders, or classes, or other such taxa. The source of new orders, classes, or other such taxa is biologists determining that it would be more convinient to group some organisms in a new order, class, or other such taxa.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 242 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 10:02 AM Garrett has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 252 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 11:19 AM crashfrog has replied
     Message 253 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 11:24 AM crashfrog has replied

    Garrett
    Member (Idle past 6420 days)
    Posts: 111
    From: Dallas, TX
    Joined: 02-10-2006


    Message 251 of 310 (287628)
    02-17-2006 11:16 AM
    Reply to: Message 247 by Wounded King
    02-17-2006 10:55 AM


    Re: Why don't the "commoners" get it?
    More people who just knew they weren't 'related to no monkey' (insulting US southern slur the creation of Wounded King, not I):
    Blaise Pascal
    Issac Newton
    Michael Faraday
    James Joule
    Gregor Mendel
    Louis Pasteur
    Joseph Lister
    George Washington Carver

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 247 by Wounded King, posted 02-17-2006 10:55 AM Wounded King has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 254 by jar, posted 02-17-2006 11:31 AM Garrett has not replied
     Message 255 by AdminOmni, posted 02-17-2006 11:32 AM Garrett has not replied

    Garrett
    Member (Idle past 6420 days)
    Posts: 111
    From: Dallas, TX
    Joined: 02-10-2006


    Message 252 of 310 (287630)
    02-17-2006 11:19 AM
    Reply to: Message 250 by crashfrog
    02-17-2006 11:14 AM


    Re: Question outstanding!
    I didn't ask for evidence of MUTATIONS above the species level...but evidence for CHANGES above the species level. The only evidence would be intermediate forms. The few debateable examples don't seem to be numerous enough. In other words, how do you account for the seeming stasis in the fossil record?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 250 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2006 11:14 AM crashfrog has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 259 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2006 12:04 PM Garrett has not replied

    Garrett
    Member (Idle past 6420 days)
    Posts: 111
    From: Dallas, TX
    Joined: 02-10-2006


    Message 253 of 310 (287632)
    02-17-2006 11:24 AM
    Reply to: Message 250 by crashfrog
    02-17-2006 11:14 AM


    Re: Question outstanding!
    To answer the problem of transistional forms with the response that groupings are determined by scientists and are therefore of no consequence, is a red herring. Regardless of the classification system used, the biological features of an organism would change, going through transitional periods, between different classifications. No evidence exists for the vast majority of these transitions....rather they are accepted a priori based on a preconceived worldview dedicated to uniformitarianism and naturalism.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 250 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2006 11:14 AM crashfrog has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 260 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2006 12:10 PM Garrett has not replied
     Message 261 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-17-2006 12:12 PM Garrett has not replied
     Message 262 by NosyNed, posted 02-17-2006 12:19 PM Garrett has not replied

    jar
    Member (Idle past 93 days)
    Posts: 34140
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 254 of 310 (287636)
    02-17-2006 11:31 AM
    Reply to: Message 251 by Garrett
    02-17-2006 11:16 AM


    How absolutely silly.
    Blaise Pascal 1623-1662
    Issac Newton 1643-1727
    Michael Faraday 1791 - 1867
    James Joule 1818-1889
    Gregor Mendel 1822-1884
    Louis Pasteur 1822-1895
    Joseph Lister 1827-1912
    George Washington Carver 1864-1943
    First, you have provided no evidence that any of them would not accept the TOE had they known about it.
    Second, Origins was not published until 1859, so the evidence in support of the TOE was just beginning to be found during their lifetimes.
    Third, modern genetic support for the TOE wasn't available until around 1959.

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 251 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 11:16 AM Garrett has not replied

    AdminOmni
    Inactive Member


    Message 255 of 310 (287637)
    02-17-2006 11:32 AM
    Reply to: Message 251 by Garrett
    02-17-2006 11:16 AM


    Garrett Goes to Time-Out Corner
    Garrett, take a break.
    Despite your protests, you are responsible for your own off-topic messages, not WK--and you are responsible for ignoring fair warning.
    This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-17-2006 11:32 AM

    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
    Trust me.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 251 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 11:16 AM Garrett 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