we just haven't ever seen information added to DNA----I just don't see how this can be so confusing.
Adaptation of existing information? YES
Information added to build new features, ex nihlo? NO
...also on the front end of evolution, they haven't the foggiest idea on what the intermediate forms would be and how to keep the intermediate forms stable through the advent of DNA-based life forms. Evolution starts nowhere and then goes nowhere.
If you weren't speculating on pure conjecture I might hypothetically agree with you.
Maybe.
*closes hatch on space ship and leaves for home planet*
I have followed Fellowship's link, and this is the website of the author.
It is, frankly, a joke.
In the meantime, I've posted two links above. One of them shows how neanderthals are related to hom sap and we can tell because we have extracted mitochondrial DNA from neanderthal fossils and how we can see inherited resistance to insecticides in the genes of fruit flies.
Hassan it is funny how you do exactly what I would expect. You don't even consider anything from my perspective. What is it you take issue with the links I have posted?
Instead of being simply ignoring why not deconstruct the arguments that are being made on the creationism side and tell me why you disagree.
Earth is definitely not a closed system (the Sun supplies it with a not considerable amount of energy). 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: another item on an evolution thread's checklist.
Earth is definitely not a closed system (the Sun supplies it with a not considerable amount of energy). 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: another item on an evolution thread's checklist.
Indeed. Closed meaning no influence from a supernatural being "God"
trumptman, I'm curious. Why do scientists in the earth and life sciences accept evolution? Why do people like my botanist brother-in-law use it every day in their work? Why aren't the actual experts in the relevant fields seeing these glaringly obvious flaws that people like you and Fellowship, who I'll generously call amateur biologists, see?
Are they all atheists, dupes, stupid, blind, brainwashed, what? It just doesn't make sense. Every scientist lives for the the opportunity to overthrow an old theory and replace it with their own. To be an Einstein or a Copernicus. Why aren't they doing it? You realize you are advocating a conspiracy theory here, right?
And why do people believe that there is a religious agenda to this? Because in our experience that's where the anti-evolution always comes from. I'd say it's a pretty damn good guess to infer that an anti-evolution perspective comes from a Christian conservative agenda, because that's where it has always comes from in the past.
Are you a Christian conservative? You seem to be denying that that's your perspective.
I think you exaggerate the matter quite a bit. First of all I have stated that I find microevolution, recombining current DNA, manipulation of current traits, even splicing traits out of one creature into another to all be valid science. I call this microevolution. Even the Catholic church will admit to this science and it is likely what your brother in law, a botanist, uses.
Secondly I posted a list of scientists in the earth and life sciences who do not believe evolution is a full explanation. That is also something I wish to emphasize myself. Evolution can explain somethings, but as the sole answer regarding origins of life it falls short.
I have not advocated a conspiracy theory. In fact if anything it is just the opposite. I have said that scientists are very human and fallible in human ways. I have suggested that in this fallibility they will make leaps of reasoning, pass on unverified information, and lastly the majority of people in any area seldom seek to break the mold, buck conventional wisdom, or be the nail that sticks out.
This is true of about 75%-80% of all people. Science is no different. That isn't a conspiracy, it is just a plain statement about human nature. Lastly, there are times they do admit them. The answers to the problems might satisfy someone who wishes to continue their reasoning but not someone who doesn't. Punctuated equilibrium is just this sort of answer. However you don't see biologists advertising that the fossil record shows huge explosions of sudden change with staticness in between.
Lastly again consider how most human experts act. They have invested all their time, even perhaps their lives into certain beliefs and solutions. If I asked you why a Windows consultant always recommends Windows, even when other solutions are better, it would understood as human nature on display.
Likewise if a botanist can use microevolution in his work, why wouldn't he make the logical leap for macro to continue to be true as well. It preserves everything he has learned and used for years. There is no loss of ego.
Think about how controversial the view of some dinosaurs evolving to birds has been. There are likely scientists in that field who still cling to their old beliefs. They might until they die and it will be more readily accepted by new generations. This is true for all human endeavors.
Hassan it is funny how you do exactly what I would expect. You don't even consider anything from my perspective. What is it you take issue with the links I have posted?
Instead of being simply ignoring why not deconstruct the arguments that are being made on the creationism side and tell me why you disagree.
Fellowship
But you haven't even READ my links!
Anyway, Mark Eastman's website has a quote from Isiah on the top, the guy's a priest, and there are links to "news" stories with titles like "Giant Bird With 14 ft Wingspan Seen in Alaska!" and "Peruvian Burial Stones with Dinosaur Etchings."
Information added to build new features, ex nihlo? NO
How is building an immunity to pesticides not building a new feature?
Are you only considering an external physical feature? In that case, would removing a feature be the semi-proof you're looking for? If so, some male elephants are now being born without tusks so they are no longer a target for hunters.
Anyway, Mark Eastman's website has a quote from Isiah on the top, the guy's a priest, and there are links to "news" stories with titles like "Giant Bird With 14 ft Wingspan Seen in Alaska!" and "Peruvian Burial Stones with Dinosaur Etchings."
I did read your links while the 3rd one seemed mis-labeled
adding "information" is quite trivial actually... DNA polymerase is somewhat mistake prove and sometimes, though rarely will duplicate entire stretches over again (this gives the recognised genetic disorder fragile X). Repeats of genes provide the chance that the second copy could be modified such that it takes on a new role or alternatively supplements the original gene. Taken to the upteenth modification, the "duplicate" gene product doesnt have to look anything like the first one and have a distinct function from the original, which still exists in its working form, and thus new "information" as you put it has been "created".
If that doesnt convince you nothing will. Every system that is autoduplicative at some level can make mistakes and make two copies in one. At that point all bets are off on to where that system will end up.
How is building an immunity to pesticides not building a new feature?
Are you only considering an external physical feature? In that case, would removing a feature be the semi-proof you're looking for? If so, some male elephants are now being born without tusks so they are no longer a target for hunters.
---that is a good question---the immunity is there already in a few of the "subjects", you basically just kill off the population that doesn't have the immunity, and are left with the survivors that can handle the poison.
---that is a good question---the immunity is there already in a few of the "subjects", you basically just kill off the population that doesn't have the immunity, and are left with the survivors that can handle the poison.
good call... most questions of resistance dont develop through mutations but that is because insecticides target specific already existing proteins (indeed many drugs/antibiotics do this).
Tyrell: Death. Well, I'm afraid that's a little out of my
jurisdiction, you--
Roy: I want more life, fuucker.
Tyrell: The facts of life. To make an alteration in the evolvment of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.
Roy: Why not?
Tyrell: Because by the second day of incubation, any cells that have undergone reversion mutations give rise to revertant colonies like rats leaving a sinking ship. Then the ship sinks.
Roy: What about EMS recombination.
Tyrell: We've already tried it. Ethyl methane sulfanate as an alkalating agent and potent mutagen. It created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before he left the table.
Roy: Then a repressive protein that blocks the operating cells.
Tyrell: Wouldn't obstruct replication, but it does give rise to an error in replication so that the newly formed DNA strand carries the mutation and you've got a virus again. But, uh, this-- all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you.
Comments
you guys, you guys....
we just haven't ever seen information added to DNA----I just don't see how this can be so confusing.
Adaptation of existing information? YES
Information added to build new features, ex nihlo? NO
...also on the front end of evolution, they haven't the foggiest idea on what the intermediate forms would be and how to keep the intermediate forms stable through the advent of DNA-based life forms. Evolution starts nowhere and then goes nowhere.
If you weren't speculating on pure conjecture I might hypothetically agree with you.
Maybe.
*closes hatch on space ship and leaves for home planet*
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I have followed Fellowship's link, and this is the website of the author.
It is, frankly, a joke.
In the meantime, I've posted two links above. One of them shows how neanderthals are related to hom sap and we can tell because we have extracted mitochondrial DNA from neanderthal fossils and how we can see inherited resistance to insecticides in the genes of fruit flies.
Hassan it is funny how you do exactly what I would expect. You don't even consider anything from my perspective. What is it you take issue with the links I have posted?
Instead of being simply ignoring why not deconstruct the arguments that are being made on the creationism side and tell me why you disagree.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Stoo
Earth is definitely not a closed system (the Sun supplies it with a not considerable amount of energy). 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: another item on an evolution thread's checklist.
Indeed. Closed meaning no influence from a supernatural being "God"
I never said Earth.
Fellowship
Audio Stream
Fellowship
Originally posted by BRussell
trumptman, I'm curious. Why do scientists in the earth and life sciences accept evolution? Why do people like my botanist brother-in-law use it every day in their work? Why aren't the actual experts in the relevant fields seeing these glaringly obvious flaws that people like you and Fellowship, who I'll generously call amateur biologists, see?
Are they all atheists, dupes, stupid, blind, brainwashed, what? It just doesn't make sense. Every scientist lives for the the opportunity to overthrow an old theory and replace it with their own. To be an Einstein or a Copernicus. Why aren't they doing it? You realize you are advocating a conspiracy theory here, right?
And why do people believe that there is a religious agenda to this? Because in our experience that's where the anti-evolution always comes from. I'd say it's a pretty damn good guess to infer that an anti-evolution perspective comes from a Christian conservative agenda, because that's where it has always comes from in the past.
Are you a Christian conservative? You seem to be denying that that's your perspective.
I think you exaggerate the matter quite a bit. First of all I have stated that I find microevolution, recombining current DNA, manipulation of current traits, even splicing traits out of one creature into another to all be valid science. I call this microevolution. Even the Catholic church will admit to this science and it is likely what your brother in law, a botanist, uses.
Secondly I posted a list of scientists in the earth and life sciences who do not believe evolution is a full explanation. That is also something I wish to emphasize myself. Evolution can explain somethings, but as the sole answer regarding origins of life it falls short.
I have not advocated a conspiracy theory. In fact if anything it is just the opposite. I have said that scientists are very human and fallible in human ways. I have suggested that in this fallibility they will make leaps of reasoning, pass on unverified information, and lastly the majority of people in any area seldom seek to break the mold, buck conventional wisdom, or be the nail that sticks out.
This is true of about 75%-80% of all people. Science is no different. That isn't a conspiracy, it is just a plain statement about human nature. Lastly, there are times they do admit them. The answers to the problems might satisfy someone who wishes to continue their reasoning but not someone who doesn't. Punctuated equilibrium is just this sort of answer. However you don't see biologists advertising that the fossil record shows huge explosions of sudden change with staticness in between.
Lastly again consider how most human experts act. They have invested all their time, even perhaps their lives into certain beliefs and solutions. If I asked you why a Windows consultant always recommends Windows, even when other solutions are better, it would understood as human nature on display.
Likewise if a botanist can use microevolution in his work, why wouldn't he make the logical leap for macro to continue to be true as well. It preserves everything he has learned and used for years. There is no loss of ego.
Think about how controversial the view of some dinosaurs evolving to birds has been. There are likely scientists in that field who still cling to their old beliefs. They might until they die and it will be more readily accepted by new generations. This is true for all human endeavors.
Nick
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Hassan it is funny how you do exactly what I would expect. You don't even consider anything from my perspective. What is it you take issue with the links I have posted?
Instead of being simply ignoring why not deconstruct the arguments that are being made on the creationism side and tell me why you disagree.
Fellowship
But you haven't even READ my links!
Anyway, Mark Eastman's website has a quote from Isiah on the top, the guy's a priest, and there are links to "news" stories with titles like "Giant Bird With 14 ft Wingspan Seen in Alaska!" and "Peruvian Burial Stones with Dinosaur Etchings."
Originally posted by ena
Adaptation of existing information? YES
Information added to build new features, ex nihlo? NO
How is building an immunity to pesticides not building a new feature?
Are you only considering an external physical feature? In that case, would removing a feature be the semi-proof you're looking for? If so, some male elephants are now being born without tusks so they are no longer a target for hunters.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
But you haven't even READ my links!
Anyway, Mark Eastman's website has a quote from Isiah on the top, the guy's a priest, and there are links to "news" stories with titles like "Giant Bird With 14 ft Wingspan Seen in Alaska!" and "Peruvian Burial Stones with Dinosaur Etchings."
I did read your links while the 3rd one seemed mis-labeled
I read them all.
Take a listen
Audio stream
Fellowship
Off to bake some cakes while it downloads.
Originally posted by Stoo
Fellowship, 15MB of MP3? I'm scared...
Off to bake some cakes while it downloads.
Yes I am still listening to it and it is well worth the time.
I ask all evolutionists to listen to it and consider what Mark is saying.
Audio stream
Fellowship
adding "information" is quite trivial actually... DNA polymerase is somewhat mistake prove and sometimes, though rarely will duplicate entire stretches over again (this gives the recognised genetic disorder fragile X). Repeats of genes provide the chance that the second copy could be modified such that it takes on a new role or alternatively supplements the original gene. Taken to the upteenth modification, the "duplicate" gene product doesnt have to look anything like the first one and have a distinct function from the original, which still exists in its working form, and thus new "information" as you put it has been "created".
If that doesnt convince you nothing will. Every system that is autoduplicative at some level can make mistakes and make two copies in one. At that point all bets are off on to where that system will end up.
Originally posted by bunge
How is building an immunity to pesticides not building a new feature?
Are you only considering an external physical feature? In that case, would removing a feature be the semi-proof you're looking for? If so, some male elephants are now being born without tusks so they are no longer a target for hunters.
---that is a good question---the immunity is there already in a few of the "subjects", you basically just kill off the population that doesn't have the immunity, and are left with the survivors that can handle the poison.
Originally posted by ena
---that is a good question---the immunity is there already in a few of the "subjects", you basically just kill off the population that doesn't have the immunity, and are left with the survivors that can handle the poison.
good call... most questions of resistance dont develop through mutations but that is because insecticides target specific already existing proteins (indeed many drugs/antibiotics do this).
Roy: Death.
Tyrell: Death. Well, I'm afraid that's a little out of my
jurisdiction, you--
Roy: I want more life, fuucker.
Tyrell: The facts of life. To make an alteration in the evolvment of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.
Roy: Why not?
Tyrell: Because by the second day of incubation, any cells that have undergone reversion mutations give rise to revertant colonies like rats leaving a sinking ship. Then the ship sinks.
Roy: What about EMS recombination.
Tyrell: We've already tried it. Ethyl methane sulfanate as an alkalating agent and potent mutagen. It created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before he left the table.
Roy: Then a repressive protein that blocks the operating cells.
Tyrell: Wouldn't obstruct replication, but it does give rise to an error in replication so that the newly formed DNA strand carries the mutation and you've got a virus again. But, uh, this-- all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you.
Roy: But not to last.
Kill me.
Please.
Audio Link
I think if you listen to it start to finish you will have to come to terms with the truth.
I could be wrong but Hassan it is rather compelling.
Fellowship
I will continue listening.
Fellowship