http://tinyurl.com/pgv5r

Scientists have confirmed some human mutations in the last 5000-15000 years.

Care to copy and paste the article? You need to subscribe, and though it is free, it is also a pain in the ass.

Though I doubtr it will convince anyone.

Very odd, I didn't need to register...

---

Genes show humans are still evolving

New York Times News Service

Published March 7, 2006



Providing the strongest evidence yet that human beings are still evolving, researchers have detected some 700 regions of the human genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection, a principal force of evolution, within the last 5,000 to 15,000 years.

The genes that show this evolutionary change include some responsible for the senses of taste and smell, digestion, bone structure, skin color and brain function.

Under natural selection, beneficial genes become more common in a population as their owners have more progeny.

Three populations were studied: Africans, East Asians and Europeans. The selected genes affect skin color, hair texture and bone structure.

The study of selected genes may help physical anthropologists explain why people over the world have a such a variety of distinctive appearances, said Spencer Wells, director of the Genographic project of the National Geographic Society.

"There is ample evidence that selection has been a major driving point in our evolution during the last 10,000 years, and there is no reason to suppose that it has stopped," said Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the University of Chicago who headed the study.

The findings are in Tuesday's issue of PLoS-Biology, published by the Public Library of Science, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

as if any more evidence were needed.

you're wasting your time here, these christians are closed to the truth, and nothing you present to them as evidence in front of them will convince them, well it will convince them, but they will never admit it to themselves or anyone else.

maybe get some evangelist preachers to read it out to the congregation? or write it out in metaphors in a 2000 year old book? that'll convince the fuckers.

What have you proven here? Do you honestly believe that these complex genetic “blueprints” happened to be created by random chance? How does this in anyway provide proof to Darwin’s theory, do you think you were brought about ultimately from inorganic(no life) matter? To me the obvious assumption would be that human genetics were “coded” by a “Coder”.. a creator? The “origin” of the genetic code leads to a metaphysical or magical element, outside the legitimate view of physical science.

tuned

quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

as if any more evidence were needed.

you're wasting your time here, these christians are closed to the truth, and nothing you present to them as evidence in front of them will convince them, well it will convince them, but they will never admit it to themselves or anyone else.

maybe get some evangelist preachers to read it out to the congregation? or write it out in metaphors in a 2000 year old book? that'll convince the fuckers.

If you have that kind of attitude then why are you even here?





[This message has been edited by Zay (edited 03-08-2006).]

I thought my response was well thought out and presented… Is your real quarrel that you can’t debate what I said? You posted what you thought, and I gave my response… I’m sorry, were hoping everyone would jump on your band wagon and plainly agree with all your bullshit? No thanks. You’ve got my response, try to debate it or don’t.

tuned

quote:Originally posted by tuned:

What have you proven here? Do you honestly believe that these complex genetic “blueprints” happened to be created by random chance? How does this in anyway provide proof to Darwin’s theory, do you think you were brought about ultimately from inorganic(no life) matter? To me the obvious assumption would be that human genetics were “coded” by a “Coder”.. a creator? The “origin” of the genetic code leads to a metaphysical or magical element, outside the legitimate view of physical science.

tuned

It's not that I believe in there not being a creator, it's that I don't believe in one because there is no evidence of one. It's as simple as that.

quote:Originally posted by tuned:

What have you proven here? Do you honestly believe that these complex genetic “blueprints” happened to be created by random chance? How does this in anyway provide proof to Darwin’s theory, do you think you were brought about ultimately from inorganic(no life) matter? To me the obvious assumption would be that human genetics were “coded” by a “Coder”.. a creator? The “origin” of the genetic code leads to a metaphysical or magical element, outside the legitimate view of physical science.

tuned

They weren't created by random chance, they were created through the process of evolution, which is not random chance. As the article clearly states, it is through natural selection that these genetic codes are being selected, and being passed on, something which is not chance.

Moreover, since you bring up a "coder"/"Creator", then please explain why we have sequences in our DNA that do absolutely nothing. Explain why "junk DNA" exists. This is something to be expected if we came about through a process of evolution, as an organism has no imperative to throw out DNA that does not prove to be harmful; however, is not compatible with an intelligent creator/designer/coder as useless, "junk DNA" is sub-optimal.

P.S. Incredulity isn't a valid argument. Just because you refuse to accept the possibility, doesn't mean it isn't true.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-08-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



P.S. Incredulity isn't a valid argument. Just because you refuse to accept the possibility, doesn't mean it isn't true.



I don't ignore the possibility, but absence of evidence is absense of evidence, and nobody shuold pressure you to believe in something they can't back up.

Thank you for the great response Rust.

quote:They weren't created by random chance, they were created through the process of evolution, which is not random chance. As the article clearly states, it is through natural selection that these genetic codes are being selected, and being passed on, something which is not chance.

Perhaps I’m missing the point. I was referring to the actual origin of this natural selection. How do you explain where all of these things come from? Where did the genetic codes originate? Scientists are trying to decipher how the genome mechanism works, but they haven’t a clue about how the procedure originated, or why.

quote:Moreover, since you bring up a "coder"/"Creator", then please explain why we have sequences in our DNA that do absolutely nothing. Explain why "junk DNA" exists. This is something to be expected if we came about through a process of evolution, as an organism has no imperative to throw out DNA that does not prove to be harmful; however, is not compatible with an intelligent creator/designer/coder as useless, "junk DNA" is sub-optimal.

Regarding the presence of so-called “junk DNA” (within the human genome), which supposedly reveals an evolutionary heritage. Isn’t it also possible that the so-called “junk” may serve a function that is not understood at present? Even scientists will admit that the “junk DNA” may provide much knowledge for future use within the organism. Bare in mind that for years evolutionists alleged that we have numerous “junk” organs within our bodies that are “vestiges” of our primitive ancestry, but with the advancement of scientific knowledge, those “vestigial” organs have been demonstrated to be eminently useful.

tuned

quote:Originally posted by Zay:

I don't ignore the possibility, but absence of evidence is absense of evidence, and nobody shuold pressure you to believe in something they can't back up.

I was speaking to tuned. He was using his refusal to believe in the possibility of evolution, as some sort of argument against it (i.e. "Do you honestly believe that these complex genetic “blueprints” happened to be created by random chance? "), which it is not.

Reluctance to believe in something because of lack of evidence, is completely legitimate. Trying to argue that just because it seems impossible to you, that something must be false (which is what tuned was doing), is not.

quote: He was using his refusal to believe in the possibility of evolution, as some sort of argument against it.

I don’t refuse to believe in the possibilities, but my argument is more along the lines of this… With all the theories and religions, I find that evolution actually lacks evidence and makes an attempt to “skirt” around the real issues. If you weren’t referring to Zay with that statement, then I will.

tuned

quote:Originally posted by tuned:



Perhaps I’m missing the point. I was referring to the actual origin of this natural selection. How do you explain where all of these things come from? Where did the genetic codes originate? Scientists are trying to decipher how the genome mechanism works, but they haven’t a clue about how the procedure originated, or why.

If you're talking about the origins of life itself, then that is a different topic. Evolution deals with what has happened after life is in place. Case in point, if a god created life, evolution would still be true. That's the position of the Catholic Church for example.

So if you're talking about the origins of life, that's another topic for another thread.

quote:

Regarding the presence of so-called “junk DNA” (within the human genome), which supposedly reveals an evolutionary heritage. Isn’t it also possible that the so-called “junk” may serve a function that is not understood at present? Even scientists will admit that the “junk DNA” may provide much knowledge for future use within the organism. Bare in mind that for years evolutionists alleged that we have numerous “junk” organs within our bodies that are “vestiges” of our primitive ancestry, but with the advancement of scientific knowledge, those “vestigial” organs have been demonstrated to be eminently useful.

Of course, the possibility exists, but it would be ridiculous to base our opinions now, on a hypothetical discovery decades later that we don't know is even possible let alone have any indications that will happen at all.

We should base ourselves on the evidence now, and that evidence puts in doubt the idea that some "designer" designed the human genome.

As for the vestigial organs, "vestigial" does not mean "without use". When scientists speak of vestigial organs, they mean remnants of something which has been lost, so to speak. For example, the appendix produces some small amount of antibodies; yet it still represents a remnant of the caecum in vertebrates, therefore it is a vestigial organ.

Now since you bring up an example, I'll bring one of my own. The eye. The eyes in vertebrates have a design flaw - and a very blatant and elementary one at that. The eye of vertebrates has a blind spot that is the result of an inverted retina, something which other animals in the animal kingdom do not have (e.g. octopuses). This could have simply been resolved had our eyes not had this inverted retina, yet they do. This completely refutes the "intelligent designer" as this goes beyond "sub-optimality" and goes into the realm of anatomical ignorance. To claim that a "designer" designed the eye, is to claim that his ignorance was so big, that he knows less than what he himself created.

quote:I don’t refuse to believe in the possibilities, but my argument is more along the lines of this… With all the theories and religions, I find that evolution actually lacks evidence and makes an attempt to “skirt” around the real issues. If you weren’t referring to Zay with that statement, then I will.

Yet, you were implying that it's improbability (according to you) was somehow an argument of it being false. Were you not? If not, then that's exatly how it seemed.

Also, could you please explain why you feel evolution lacks evidence? On what are you basing that assertion? Virtually all the sciences, from computer science to genetics, support evolution completely. There is plenty of evidence.

Here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-08-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by tuned:

What have you proven here? Do you honestly believe that these complex genetic “blueprints” happened to be created by random chance? How does this in anyway provide proof to Darwin’s theory, do you think you were brought about ultimately from inorganic(no life) matter? To me the obvious assumption would be that human genetics were “coded” by a “Coder”.. a creator? The “origin” of the genetic code leads to a metaphysical or magical element, outside the legitimate view of physical science.

tuned

yeah gene sequences have to have been coded by someone, because they are called "codes"

^that is the kind of simplistic response i expect from the mystical mumbo jumbo brigade.

genes are just complex chemicals you dumbfuck, in fact look at us, we are made out of complex chemicals, we are one giant complex molecule! there is nothing mystical about us, we are so very very real in all respects.

quote: If you're talking about the origins of life itself, then that is a different topic. Evolution deals with what has happened after life is in place. Case in point, if a god created life, evolution would still be true. That's the position of the Catholic Church for example.

So if you're talking about the origins of life, that's another topic for another thread.

I disagree. The topic is very much one in the same. If you say evolution only deals with what has happened after life is in place then how do you explain the hundred of Evolution vs. Creationism debates? The vast majority of evolutionary scientists hold that life evolved entirely without ANY intervention of a higher Being. Evolution is by definition a naturalistic science. Evolutionary scientists mock Creation and/or Intelligent Design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a "science," they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested, it must be "naturalistic." Creation is by definition "supernatural." God, and the supernatural, cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes), therefore Creation and/or Intelligent Design cannot be considered a science. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered. However, the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed. Both Creation and evolution are faith-based systems when they speak of origins.

quote: As for the vestigial organs, "vestigial" does not mean "without use". When scientists speak of vestigial organs, they mean remnants of something which has been lost, so to speak.

I don’t see how this contradicts what I said? Your obviously understood the point I was trying to make, so I don’t think I need to clarify this unless you want me to.

quote: Now since you bring up an example to support your claims, I'll bring one of my own. The eye. The eyes in vertebrates, have a design flaw - and a very blatant and elementary one at that. The eye of vertebrates has a blind spot that is the result of an inverted retina, something which other animals in the animal kingdom do not have (e.g. octopuses). This could have simply been resolved had our eyes not had this inverted retina, yet they do. This completely refutes the "intelligent designer" as this goes beyond "sub-optimality" and goes into the realm of anatomical ignorance.

The argument is based on a simple-minded assumption and ignorance of what the retina actually does. Do we really understand the complexities of the retina enough to address this issue? This argument for design flaws in the eye is based entirely on our ignorance of the human body. Yes, it would seem better at first glance to put the nerves behind the retina, but what are the tradeoffs involved? What valuable functions would be lost by moving the location of the nerves? Would other complex changes have to be made in order for the system to work? Perhaps the proposed rerouting of the nerves in the eye is not even possible without major deleterious changes to the body. (It can be done in the octopus, but does that tell us anything about primates?) The complex sequence of changes that occur as the human egg develops into an embryo places restraints on what parts of the body can go where - and perhaps the retina and the nerves of the eye are constrained by this process in humans. Perhaps the genetic alteration required to move the nerves behind the retina would lead to undesired consequences to blood chemistry, brain function, or other systems.

quote: Also, could you please explain why you feel evolution lacks evidence? On what are you basing that assertion? Virtually all the sciences, from computer science to genetics, support evolution completely. There is plenty of evidence.

I’d like to retract my statement and instead say this, Evolution, at least in regards to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than Creation does.

quote: genes are just complex chemicals you dumbfuck, in fact look at us, we are made out of complex chemicals, we are one giant complex molecule! there is nothing mystical about us, we are so very very real in all respects.

Your response offered no insight or argument whatsoever, who’s the real “dumbfuck”?

tuned

quote:Originally posted by tuned:



I disagree. The topic is very much one in the same. If you say evolution only deals with what has happened after life is in place then how do you explain the hundred of Evolution vs. Creationism debates? The vast majority of evolutionary scientists hold that life evolved entirely without ANY intervention of a higher Being. Evolution is by definition a naturalistic science. Evolutionary scientists mock Creation and/or Intelligent Design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a "science," they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested, it must be "naturalistic." Creation is by definition "supernatural." God, and the supernatural, cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes), therefore Creation and/or Intelligent Design cannot be considered a science. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered. However, the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed. Both Creation and evolution are faith-based systems when they speak of origins.



The evolution vs. creationism debates come from the fact that biblical creationists maintain that god created species as is. That these species did not evolve, but that every single species in the world, that exists now, or has existed at some point in time (in any part of the universe), was created exactly that way by a god. That's not compatible with evolution, and is therefore where the debates come in.

The fact that evolution does not deal with the origins of life is really not up to debate. Evolution says that genetic change coupled with a success in reproduction produces gradual changes in species to the point of speciation. That simply cannot occur in something is not alive. An atom cannot have genetic change, and therefore cannot speciate. The nucleosynthesis of atoms (i.e. the formation of Elements from atoms, elements which lead to the formation of amino-acids, proteins, RNA and then life) cannot be explained by evolution. Evolution, by it's very definition does not and cannot deal with the origins of life itself, but only with what happens afterwards. What deals with the origins of life is commonly called "abiogenesis". And yes, many scientists do believe in both abiogenesis, and evolution; yet that in no way means they are the same. They are two different theories, with different evidence supporting each one.

As for the rest of your argument, it is creationists who have already arrived at the conclusion that the bible is correct and then attempt to mangle, trample, distort and even lie in order to make the evidence fit into their already-reached conclusion. Thankfully, that is not the case in science, as science bases its conclusions on the evidence; if the evidence changes, so do the conclusions. This is clearly seen in the changes that have been done to Darwin's initial theories - current evolutionary theory is not exactly what Darwin proposed initially - a testament to Science adapting to the ever changing facts and not trying to force the facts to fit their own personal conclusions.

quote:

I don’t see how this contradicts what I said? Your obviously understood the point I was trying to make, so I don’t think I need to clarify this unless you want me to.

I was explaining to you how the fact that they are useful (which you mention when you say, "with the advancement of scientific knowledge, those “vestigial” organs have been demonstrated to be eminently useful") is irrelevant as they being vestigial organs is not refuted. As such, they still exist as evidence against creationism.

quote:

The argument is based on a simple-minded assumption and ignorance of what the retina actually does. Do we really understand the complexities of the retina enough to address this issue? This argument for design flaws in the eye is based entirely on our ignorance of the human body. Yes, it would seem better at first glance to put the nerves behind the retina, but what are the tradeoffs involved? What valuable functions would be lost by moving the location of the nerves? Would other complex changes have to be made in order for the system to work? Perhaps the proposed rerouting of the nerves in the eye is not even possible without major deleterious changes to the body. (It can be done in the octopus, but does that tell us anything about primates?) The complex sequence of changes that occur as the human egg develops into an embryo places restraints on what parts of the body can go where - and perhaps the retina and the nerves of the eye are constrained by this process in humans. Perhaps the genetic alteration required to move the nerves behind the retina would lead to undesired consequences to blood chemistry, brain function, or other systems.



The fact that it is done in other species besides the octopus (numerous other species) is evidence enough that it can be done. If you maintain that you cannot, then it would be your burden to prove that, not Science's. Until you do, the eye has this blatant flaw, that is irreconcilable with an intelligent designer.

Not to mention that if the designer is omnipotent, your objections are rendered trivial. He would be able to overcome any obstacle, and therefore it would mean he deliberately chose a sub-optimal design, something which puts his very existence in doubt.

quote:

I’d like to retract my statement and instead say this, Evolution, at least in regards to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than Creation does.

Seeing as evolution does not deal with regards to origins, then you have no objection.

It seems to me that you're confused, and have been mixing evolution and abiogenesis. The two are different theories, and while many scientists hold both of them, that does not mean that they are the same. Again, to use the example of the Catholic Church, they believe that evolution is true, yet they believe god created the universe itself. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html

[Note: In the second point, they are using the term "Abiogenesis" in its broad definition to mean any explanation for the genesis of life, while I'm using it as the more narrow definition of 'the theory of the chemical origins of life']



quote:

Your response offered no insight or argument whatsoever, who’s the real “dumbfuck”?

tuned

Could you please say to whom you're replying to when you make your posts? I did not say what you just quoted, yet since you put it below what I have said (without mentioning who actually said it) it gives the impression that I did.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-08-2006).]

Good show Rust. You’re obviously much more educated in this area then I, but when it really comes down to it we are discussing things that cannot (at least not of yet) be proven or disproved; simple because they aren’t facts. It comes down to this, we are really both relying on some form of faith to answer questions that, “science” can’t answer. Thanks for the discussion.

tuned

Nothing in Science is proven completely, if by that you mean "cannot possibly be otherwise". Science allows for things to change over time - it allows for a possible falsification depending on future experiments, future evidence, and future observations.

Yet that being the case does not then mean that scientific theories are based on "faith". They are based on humongous amounts of evidence, so much so that we can effectively call them scientific fact.

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

- Biologist Stephen Jay Gould

So while we can say that evolution is not an inmutable fact (i.e. that the possibility of it being somehow false exists), we can definately say belief in it is not based on faith, but based on evidence.

Lets try this. “It comes down to this, we are really both relying on some form of faith(instead of faith; insert "belief", "trust" or "confidence") to answer questions that, “science” can’t answer. Because you said it yourself, “evolution is not an inmutable fact”

tuned

In that case, yes. Belief in evolution entails confidence in the theory of evolution.

The reason I object to the use of the word "faith" is because "faith" often brings with it, either theological matters or an implication of a lack of evidence; neither which describe Science.

link to similar article: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8812&print=true

quote:Originally posted by tuned:

I don’t refuse to believe in the possibilities, but my argument is more along the lines of this… With all the theories and religions, I find that evolution actually lacks evidence and makes an attempt to “skirt” around the real issues. If you weren’t referring to Zay with that statement, then I will.

tuned

Darwin and his assistants compiled information on plants and animals and put forth originally, a synopsus of records suggesting development of these plants and animals and mating habits of the animals.

I dont see anyone trying to “skirt” around any "real issues".I think it is ridiculous to dismiss the comprmised idea of God over seeing the development of that which he "created" - I'd rather imagine the beginning of this existance in the proposition that what is relative to God is not relative to all that we see.

In creating, evoulotion would only add to the potential final attainment or product or achievement...?!?

I never doubted the existance of mutations as a result of natural selection.

However, i'm waiting for proof that one species will eventually evolve into another.

natural selection != evolution

I'm not against evolution, i just don't think it has been proven.

1. Mutations don't happen as a result of natural selection, they get passed on as a result of natural selection.

2. If you agree that mutations do happen, and that natural selection does occur, then there's really nothing else you need for evolution to happen except time.

Unless you can prove that there is some sort of magical barrier that prevents these mutations/variations from ultimately culminating in a new species, then evolution happening must remain a certainty.

3. We observe evolution all the time.

a) We've observed the creation of new species:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

b) We've observed it by other means. Since the evolution of species makes predictions, if we find those predictions to be true, we can corroborate that a species did in fact evolve into another one. Suffice to say, we've corraborated predictions made by evolution all the time.

quote:Originally posted by tuned:

What have you proven here? Do you honestly believe that these complex genetic “blueprints” happened to be created by random chance? How does this in anyway provide proof to Darwin’s theory, do you think you were brought about ultimately from inorganic(no life) matter? To me the obvious assumption would be that human genetics were “coded” by a “Coder”.. a creator? The “origin” of the genetic code leads to a metaphysical or magical element, outside the legitimate view of physical science.

tuned

you malaligned, idiotic, uneducated bitch, read very carefully:

evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life

evolution only deals with the changes from one species to another.

quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

...we are one giant complex molecule!



*jaw drops*

*hysterical laughter*

I have no problem with evolution; changes happening in our informational makeup. I have no problem with natural selection either. New species forming? Fine with me (as long as they do not involve new information).

The only problem I have is believing that new information (as opposed to random garbage) will eventually result for it. The chances against such things happening are too high for me to believe it.

Oh ma gawd

You're all stupid can't you see that gawd created everything as it is and no changes have occured

But seriously 'mutations' only happen in single celled orgamisms 'selective breeding' happens in things that have sex.

quote:Originally posted by DarkMage35:



The only problem I have is believing that new information (as opposed to random garbage) will eventually result for it. The chances against such things happening are too high for me to believe it.

I already explained this to you in that other thread. Any mutation can add information. If you agreed with micro-evolution, then you agree that adding information is possible.

It's not only possible, but observed in the laboratory countless times:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

quote:Originally posted by Zay:

Very odd, I didn't need to register...

---

Genes show humans are still evolving

New York Times News Service

Published March 7, 2006



Providing the strongest evidence yet that human beings are still evolving, researchers have detected some 700 regions of the human genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection, a principal force of evolution, within the last 5,000 to 15,000 years.

The genes that show this evolutionary change include some responsible for the senses of taste and smell, digestion, bone structure, skin color and brain function.

Under natural selection, beneficial genes become more common in a population as their owners have more progeny.

Three populations were studied: Africans, East Asians and Europeans. The selected genes affect skin color, hair texture and bone structure.

The study of selected genes may help physical anthropologists explain why people over the world have a such a variety of distinctive appearances, said Spencer Wells, director of the Genographic project of the National Geographic Society.

"There is ample evidence that selection has been a major driving point in our evolution during the last 10,000 years, and there is no reason to suppose that it has stopped," said Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the University of Chicago who headed the study.

The findings are in Tuesday's issue of PLoS-Biology, published by the Public Library of Science, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune



What this article is describing is small adaptations, which everyone knows has been happening always... (That's what makes people different). That is a classic example of microevolution, which creationists know and believe very well. That doesn't mean that man came from ooze.

quote:Originally posted by Zay:

http://tinyurl.com/pgv5r

Scientists have confirmed some human mutations in the last 5000-15000 years.

this doenst prove anything as long as different people are interbreeding together the change of genes will continue to change

thats just how the human body works if it wasnt for that we would all be carbon coopies of eachother

It should be mentioned mutations adding 'information' has also been observed in nature. Such as the rather cool bacteria that evolved the ability to eat nylon (a man made product).

quote:Originally posted by rodrat16:

this doenst prove anything as long as different people are interbreeding together the change of genes will continue to change

thats just how the human body works if it wasnt for that we would all be carbon coopies of eachother

Exactly.......

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

It should be mentioned mutations adding 'information' has also been observed in nature. Such as the rather cool bacteria that evolved the ability to eat nylon (a man made product).

How can you add something that isn't there to begin with? Where does, whatever you're adding, come from? In order for their to be addition, you need to two sets of numbers in order to obtain a quotient or a sum. This would be like suggesting that if we had two apples, another one would come out of nowhere. You say, 'From the seeds." But that isn't adding anythin. The apples already had that in their genetic code. That isn't adding at all. I think you are confusing recessive genes with another organism requiring something new. The truth is, the gene has always been there, since the beginning, but not every successive organism will recieve a certain quality. This is like the argument that cockroaches 'evolved' a resistence to pesticides, or whatever. Let's say we have 100 roaches and they are sprayed with an insecticide. 2 of them survive, one male, and one female. They didn't evolve anything, they simply survived. The truth is, they always had that antibody, and now their successors will inherit it as well. That's like expecting us to believe that an animal can 'evolve' the nanosecond that its sprayed. First of all, that completely goes against evolution and its millions of years of time for 'evolvement.' Does that make sense? Its a recessive trait. We all have recessive traits. If a specific trait allowed for our survival in that instance, that isn't an example of evolution, its an example of an organism survivng because it didn't lose that information, as the other weaker roaches did.

hyroglyphx, it's obvious you don't know much about chemistry which is detrimental if you want to understand biology. Chemistry isn't about adding similar things like two apples. You can add oxygen and hydrogen but what you will get is water which has its own properties that are different from oxygen and hydrogen. Thus, a mutation can turn a previously useless part of DNA into a part that can produce a helpful protein (or an already useful part into a more useful one). This is adding information.

The cockroach example is actually supporting evolution and it shows that you don't understand evolution since you use it. Of course the cockroach doesn't "evolve" the moment it was sprayed. They always had the antibody, and always means all their life. Why should they have it since all the other cockroaches, including their parents, didn't? The answer is mutation. Adding natural selection which in this example is surviving the spray, what you have is evolution : the next generation of cockroaches will be resistant to spraying. If there was no spraying, then the mutated gene would be lost soon since no natural selection would act on it.

quote:Originally posted by rodrat16:

this doenst prove anything as long as different people are interbreeding together the change of genes will continue to change

thats just how the human body works if it wasnt for that we would all be carbon coopies of eachother

Did you read the articles at all? Because the article isn't showing the normal gene exchange in reproduction. It's talking about new gene mutations which code for a better digestion of lactose (among other things). That is, genes which didn't exist before, and thus, genes that are not merely the result of breeding.

So you are saying that bacteria have recessive genes that give them the ability to eat nylon, a man made product that hasn't even been around for 100 years. Ok sure. I would ask if you have even read the studies on this bacteria but we already know you don't bother to read creationist studies let alone real science.

IIRC the bacteria had an insertion mutation that caused a frameshift, which adjusted the enzymes produced by the bacteria. Normally this bacteria would die out but in this case it just happened to be around a food the enzyme could degrade (behind a nylon manufacturing plant (A building for the slow among us)) and found a food source no other bacteria were touching, thus it thrived and reproduced.

"Insertions add one or more extra nucleotides into the DNA. They are usually caused by transposable elements, or errors during replication of repeating elements (e.g. AT repeats). Insertions in the coding region a gene may alter splicing of the mRNA, or cause a shift in the reading frame (frameshift), both of which can significantly alter the gene product. Insertions can be reverted by excision of the transposable element." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

Maybe you should learn first, talk second. Nah, that's and evil secular science idea, it's always better to open your mouth first and learn never.



Edited to add: (which will of course break the link) the recessive gene idea is pretty empty, the number of recessive genes an organism would need to provide the constant appearance of a beneficial mutation in any environment is huge. When dealing with extreme changes that require a specific environment to survive it's even more crazy. Take this bacteria, although the mutated version can still eat its old food, it can't do so very well and would probably die out from competition. This means if the nylon eating ability is recessive, practically 1/4th of all bacteria should die after being 'born' just because of this single recessive gene (not to mention the thousands others).

Carriers of the reccesive gene would thus reproduce at 3/4ths the speed of non carriers. Given the high reproduction and competition in the bacteria world, this dangerous reccesive gene would be breeded out rather quickly.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 03-09-2006).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elfstone:

hyroglyphx, it's obvious you don't know much about chemistry which is detrimental if you want to understand biology. Chemistry isn't about adding similar things like two apples. You can add oxygen and hydrogen but what you will get is water which has its own properties that are different from oxygen and hydrogen. Thus, a mutation can turn a previously useless part of DNA into a part that can produce a helpful protein (or an already useful part into a more useful one). This is adding information.

It isn't adding anything, you just said it yourself. Its simply bringing a trait out of rescession because it was dormant. That is microevolution. Adding hydrogen to oxygen is only adding what already exists. You are suggesting that something brand new comes out of nothing. (Well, not you, but the writers of that article.)

The cockroach example is actually supporting evolution and it shows that you don't understand evolution since you use it. Of course the cockroach doesn't "evolve" the moment it was sprayed. They always had the antibody, and always means all their life. Why should they have it since all the other cockroaches, including their parents, didn't?

What would compel you to believe that the parents of their offspring didn't have this trait? How would know either way? And how would it have an antibody for resisting a manmade pesticide long before any concievable relevance to its survival? Whatever genetic marker it possesses, just so happened to resist the insecticide. You're making it sound as if nature 'knew' that pesticides would be invented, which is indicative of intent and a purpose. If you believe that, then believe in a Creator who has cockroaches for a reason and seeks to preserve them for a specific reason, whether we understand that reason or not.

The answer is mutation. Adding natural selection which in this example is surviving the spray, what you have is evolution : the next generation of cockroaches will be resistant to spraying. If there was no spraying, then the mutated gene would be lost soon since no natural selection would act on it.

You would have to say that things are evolving 'better' all the time. Most evolutionists balk at this, one because it goes against natural occurances, and two, because it suggests that its ordained by intent, which again, is indicating that 'something' cognizant introduced that. Does nature have a mind?

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

So you are saying that bacteria have recessive genes that give them the ability to eat nylon, a man made product that hasn't even been around for 100 years. Ok sure. I would ask if you have even read the studies on this bacteria but we already know you don't bother to read creationist studies let alone real science.

IIRC the bacteria had an insertion mutation that caused a frameshift, which adjusted the enzymes produced by the bacteria. Normally this bacteria would die out but in this case it just happened to be around a food the enzyme could degrade (behind a nylon manufacturing plant (A building for the slow among us)) and found a food source no other bacteria were touching, thus it thrived and reproduced.

"Insertions add one or more extra nucleotides into the DNA. They are usually caused by transposable elements, or errors during replication of repeating elements (e.g. AT repeats). Insertions in the coding region a gene may alter splicing of the mRNA, or cause a shift in the reading frame (frameshift), both of which can significantly alter the gene product. Insertions can be reverted by excision of the transposable element." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

Maybe you should learn first, talk second. Nah, that's and evil secular science idea, it's always better to open your mouth first and learn never.



Edited to add: (which will of course break the link) the recessive gene idea is pretty empty, the number of recessive genes an organism would need to provide the constant appearance of a beneficial mutation in any environment is huge. When dealing with extreme changes that require a specific environment to survive it's even more crazy. Take this bacteria, although the mutated version can still eat its old food, it can't do so very well and would probably die out from competition. This means if the nylon eating ability is recessive, practically 1/4th of all bacteria should die after being 'born' just because of this single recessive gene (not to mention the thousands others).

Carriers of the reccesive gene would thus reproduce at 3/4ths the speed of non carriers. Given the high reproduction and competition in the bacteria world, this dangerous reccesive gene would be breeded out rather quickly.



Carbon copies of chromosomes and DNA hardly serve the purpose of accounting for genetic and trait variations within a species. Offspring are not identical copies of their parents. They are the combination of both their parents genetic information. That is why my son, though he looks alot like me, isn't my carbon copy. My traits we're obviously more dominant than that of my wifes. But the variability is finite. There is only so much information that can keep being expressed in newer organisms. This means that there is a definite stopping point within genetic information. The sex cell of a plant or animal may contain an allele for different traits but not both factors are needed to express the traits. Some are dormant, waiting for expression.

Each inherited characteristic is determined by two heredity factors, one the genes from each parent which determine whether a gene will be dominant or recessive. Its always there, and always has been there, since the beginning. That isn't inserting what doesn't exist, its just a new combination. That's just you asserting that it is. Evolutionists seem to think that that the more complex form of organism the more genetic codes are needed. But coral has just as much DNA markers as we do. And if you sequence their genome it clearly shows this. See, its assumed, and poorly so, that life is evolving bigger and better... (They never like to say that because of its implications), but it isn't. Life is actually losing information all the time. We have been getting 'weaker' since the orignal inception. Between us, and coral, or whatever, we have different DNA that can't jump gaps. That's why its impossible. Evolution tries to make this possible because it needs it in order to have primordial ooze, evolve 'up' to an evolutionist. They can't explain this at all. Its recessive traits, that already exist, that give us the appearance of a new genetic structure. But coral can't be human, and human can't be coral, and coral will always be coral, and humans will always be humans.

As for your nylon-eating bacterium, enzymes are not just the product of frames shifting, it is also the product of 140 point mutations. Many of these mutations are silent and many are not. 47 amino acids out of 392 of the enzymes have been changed. It seems to me that many of these altered amino acids are essential to the catalytic effect of the enzyme. The probability of getting multiple random mutations in the (x) amount of years it took to evolve these enzymes. If the evolution of this enzyme had to rely on random point mutations, it could have never evolved. Thus, if only 6 of these 47 mutations were essential for the evolution, the probability of achieving it can't even get off the ground. So, if the evolution could not be random, then it would have to be non-random, that would have been triggered by the environment. That means that the capability is built into the bacterium and the environment simply triggers a specific point mutation. If it so happens to be beneficial to its survival, more power to the bacteria. That doesn't mean that it evolved the feature, it means the feature was brought out of a latent state due to its enviornment. That is not evolution in the Darwinian sense. That is microevolution, something both of us agree on. Moreover, why not just attribute it to an intelligence if it isn't random? This is just another example of macroevolutionists trying to confuse the laymen, and saying, "See, evolution does occur!"

Wow, that was sad.

So you explain something most of us already know as evidenced from our posts. Which doesn't answer anything.

You lie about evolutionists.

You don't actually address my points about recessive genes not being an effective answer.

Then you steal your answer about the Nylon bug from here, http://members.tripod.com/aslodge/id89.htm

You ignore the beginning of the letter which shoots your claim that no new information exists all to hell, "(The short answer is, the mutation does yield an increase of information, but was it random?)"

Good job. Dumbass.



For those who might want to learn about evolution and this example, this page has information from the group that researched it, as well as replies to arguments against it such as the one Hyro stole. http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Read what he says! I'm not stealing your article, I'm showing that the article counters what you initially said. The article say that all of the information was already there..... That isn't macroevolution, at all! You used a poor example, and your own article points that out. What you are claiming is that point mutations can cause completely new organsism. It doesn't. And the fossil record still doesn't support your assertion, and we still don't any new organisms 'evolving.' Why not? Because you're trying to make what is biologically impossible, possible.

It's not my article. It doesn't counter the bacteria example and you didn't even read it. Now you are lying again when you say "What you are claiming is that point mutations can cause completely new organsism." Of course I claimed nothing of the sort.

More whining trying to get away from being caught stealing, and lying... again.

I don't think anyone buys it, but I'm sure your God is watching you. Maybe you should spend more time fearing him. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Read what he says! I'm not stealing your article, I'm showing that the article counters what you initially said.

How fucking pathetic.

Had you copied exactly what the article said, yet somehow didn't cite the source, that shitty excuse would be within the realm of possibility. But that's not the case, at all. You deliberately removed that parts which would have clued anyone reading it (even if they had no prior knowledge of that article) that those weren't your words, but someone else's. You intend to pass them off as your words. You are a liar and a thief. Period.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Beta69:

It's not my article. It doesn't counter the bacteria example and you didn't even read it. Now you are lying again when you say "What you are claiming is that point mutations can cause completely new organsism." Of course I claimed nothing of the sort.

That is what you're saying, whether its implicit or explicit. ALL of the genetic information was there at the beginning, and you are trying to find a clever way to show that it isn't. Its just a new combination. But eventually it will hit a wall. And that's why even though chimps and humans share 98.5% DNA similarity can't procreate with one another.

More whining trying to get away from being caught stealing, and lying... again.

LOL! I used your own argument, from the article you provided, to show that it isn't possible. Even he said that all the information was already there! So how is me using the article you just posted, 'stealing, lying, and cheating?' Did you, or did not, have the intent of using the article for me to see it? Did you, or did you not, intend for it to be spoken about? Why don't think about that. I did, and I read it, and I showed you, the error using your own article. LOL! Give me a break!!!! Here you go again, you trying to derail the argument, which you've still never posted, to try and discredit me using your own artcle! Yeah, I know he's all in support of evolution. But see, I have this crazy idea of posting secular arguments against themselves. Why? Because if I posted a Creationist site, you'd just discredit that, and call it creationist psuedo-science. And do I post creatinist sites? Nope. Do you post evolutionist sites? Yep. But don't get mad when I point out the flaw in it.

Stop trying to derail the argument, and turn it into a topic about me.

You can't insert genetic information that doesn't already exist, and you try to hide in the confusing terms of micro and macro evolution in order to steer people to your view.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

How fucking pathetic.

Had you copied exactly what the article said, yet somehow didn't cite the source, that shitty excuse would be within the realm of possibility. But that's not the case, at all. You deliberately removed that parts which would have clued anyone reading it (even if they had no prior knowledge of that article) that those weren't your words, but someone else's.

LOL! I showed all the points where he, himself was pointing out possibilities and impossibilities, coming straight from his mouth. And that's what I've been doing all along, which both you and Beta keep overlooking. And I used all secualr sources. Stop trying to derail the argument! We all know you do it. You beat a dead horse with semantics and never address what we are actually discussing.

You intend to pass them off as your words. You are a liar and a thief. Period.

LOL! Most of it was my own words. And I showed the points in his article that are in agreement with small adaptations, that have nothing to do with evolution in a Darwinian sense. Nothing at all! I'm just pointing out that evolutionists try to apply macroevolution (a phenomenon that has never been shown) is completely separate from small adaptations. The original poster fell for this bait and switch, and so I'm showing him why his article doesn't hold much water. Just because you don't like what I say, don't call me a liar. It's a fact that you can't insert genetic information from thin air! Think real hard about that. All he was pointing out was the Mendelian law concerning heredity, something we already know about, and something that creationists have been pointing out since the beginning of their ministry.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

LOL! I showed all the points where he, himself was pointing out possibilities and impossibilities, coming straight from his mouth. And that's what I've been doing all along, which both you and Beta keep overlooking. And I used all secualr sources. Stop trying to derail the argument! We all know you do it. You beat a dead horse with semantics and never address what we are actually discussing.

Sorry, but more bullshit isn't going to help your case.

1. We're talking about your blatantly plagiarised response to the nylon processing bacterium. Beta posted that article after you had plagiarised it, and he did so in order to prove that you had stolen your response. That article isn't his, it's someone else's, and you plagiarised it pure and simple.

2. Do yourself a favor and don't complain about "derailing" threads as if you held some sort of high ground, specially not in the very thread where you're proven to be a liar and a thief. Hell, the very act of accusing me of "derailing a thread" is derailing this thread (according to your logic), which would make you a hypocrite on top of a liar.

quote:LOL! Most of it was my own words. And I showed the points in his article that are in agreement with small adaptations, that have nothing to do with evolution in a Darwinian sense. Nothing at all! I'm just pointing out that evolutionists try to apply macroevolution (a phenomenon that has never been shown) is completely separate from small adaptations. The original poster fell for this bait and switch, and so I'm showing him why his article doesn't hold much water. Just because you don't like what I say, don't call me a liar. It's a fact that you can't insert genetic information from thin air! Think real hard about that. All he was pointing out was the Mendelian law concerning heredity, something we already know about, and something that creationists have been pointing out since the beginning of their ministry.

More fabrications. Nobody here has said that a frame shift mutation is macro-evolution, or that one simple mutation proves macro-evolution. That is a lie on your part.

What was being argued was that mutations can add information. In particular, please read Beta's statement which sparked your argument with him: "It should be mentioned mutations adding 'information' has also been observed in nature. Such as the rather cool bacteria that evolved the ability to eat nylon (a man made product)."

He has argued that mutations can add information, and gave an example of one such mutation. He never once claims that frame shift mutations, in and of themselves, are proof of macro-evolution. He argued that they added information; which they do, as the very article you decided to plagiarise - in a pathetic attempt at passing it off as your own words - points out. The article you plagiarised states:

"The short answer is, the mutation does yield an increase of information, but was it random"

Hence, the claim which he made was entirely vindicated.

You're now trying to twist Beta's words to mean something entirely different, because you know you've been caught red-handed, and what's more pathetic, because the article you were caught red-handed with refutes you.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-09-2006).]

1. We're talking about your blatantly plagiarised response to the nylon processing bacterium.

No, we were talking about mutations leading to evolution. Beta brought up nylon-eating bacteria, and I pointed out where he got the belief and used the article, from an evolutionist, to refute its errors.

Beta posted that article after you had plagiarised it, and he did so in order to prove that you had stolen your response. That article isn't his, it's someone else's, and you plagiarised it pure and simple.

Beta posted it because that's where he got his information from. You think Beta invented the nylon-eating bacterium theory? Aside from that, this is in my favorites folder because someone has used this very argument before. Make note that there is a break in my post, distinguishing the topic, which was his bacteria. And no, I didn't post the whole article, because some of it had nothing to do with the immediate topic. I'm showing the portions, which again, go against their own theory. Evolutionists tend to refute their own theory without even trying to.

Do yourself a favor and don't complain about "derailing" threads as if you held some sort of high ground, specially not in the very thread where you're proven to be a liar and a thief. Hell, the very act of accusing me of "derailing a thread" is derailing this thread (according to your logic), which would make you a hypocrite on top of a liar.

Who's derailing anything other than you? Beta got his info from a secular source. I also used the secular source on a topic he brought up. So how is me using his own evidence against him, derailing?

More fabrications. Nobody here has said that a frame shift mutation is macro-evolution, or that one simple mutation proves macro-evolution. That is a lie on your part.

Really, then what was the purpose of bringing it up if it wasn't to support macroevolution????? The original poster gave us a link to an article on how evolution is true. I, and someone else, pointed out that the example given was one of microevolution. BOTH you and Beta argued that point. Then Beta brought up the bacteria, which is applicable to microevolution. Aside from that, if it wasn't about macroevolution, then what is your point?

What was being argued was that mutations can add information.

Which is macroevolution, because it would have to be by necessity. How else could you genetically propel an amoeba to a man, if there were not newly inserted information?

In particular, please read Beta's statement which sparked your argument with him: "It should be mentioned mutations adding 'information' has also been observed in nature. Such as the rather cool bacteria that evolved the ability to eat nylon (a man made product)."

He has argued that mutations can add information, and gave an example of one such mutation. He never once claims that frame shift mutations, in and of themselves, are proof of macro-evolution. He argued that they added information; which they do, as the very article you decided to plagiarise - in a pathetic attempt at passing it off as your own words - points out. The article you plagiarised states:

"The short answer is, the mutation does yield an increase of information, but was it random"

Hence, the claim which he made was entirely vindicated.

No, there is never new genetic information. And the article said that there was no new genetic information, (which I put in caps because I was quoting from it, not stealing it). I just used the argument to support my stance.

You're now trying to twist Beta's words to mean something entirely different, because you know you've been caught red-handed, and what's more pathetic, because the article you were caught red-handed with refutes you.

LOL! Once again, what was his purpose for bringing it up, if it was simply a way of showing microevolution? You and I both know he was trying assert that new genetic information does exist, and so he used the bacterium to support it. And I showed how the inventor of that theory, himself, was at odds with it. He had to agree that random occurances couldn't have produced it. Did he still come up with some excuse? Yeah. But I put in caps where he falls short, and the rest of the article that isn't concurrent with his overall theory.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



No, we were talking about mutations leading to evolution. Beta brought up nylon-eating bacteria, and I pointed out where he got the belief and used the article, from an evolutionist, to refute its errors.

Yes. I also mentioned your plagiarisation which is what I was refering to. Of course, you know this, but you don't want to dwell on the fact that you were being dishonest.

quote:



Beta posted it because that's where he got his information from. You think Beta invented the nylon-eating bacterium theory? Aside from that, this is in my favorites folder because someone has used this very argument before. Make note that there is a break in my post, distinguishing the topic, which was his bacteria. And no, I didn't post the whole article, because some of it had nothing to do with the immediate topic. I'm showing the portions, which again, go against their own theory. Evolutionists tend to refute their own theory without even trying to.

1. Beta posted two articles. One of them showed exactly what you had plagiarised. Where he got the information from I couldn't care less.

2. I didn't say that Beta "invented" anything, stop putting words in my mouth.

3. You avoided the conclusion of what plagiarised, which was that Beta was correct and therefore, that mutations can add information.

quote:



Who's derailing anything other than you? Beta got his info from a secular source. I also used the secular source on a topic he brought up. So how is me using his own evidence against him, derailing?



Like I said, "the very act of accusing me of "derailing a thread" is derailing this thread (according to your logic), which would make you a hypocrite on top of a liar". You accusing me of derailing threads and arguing semantics, is a derailment of the thread as well (if we follow your logic); making your objection a laughable one.

quote:



Really, then what was the purpose of bringing it up if it wasn't to support macroevolution????? The original poster gave us a link to an article on how evolution is true. I, and someone else, pointed out that the example given was one of microevolution. BOTH you and Beta argued that point. Then Beta brought up the bacteria, which is applicable to microevolution. Aside from that, if it wasn't about macroevolution, then what is your point?

If you're asking 'why', the it's obvious you didn't even bother reading the fucking thread.

DarkMage35 says:

"

The only problem I have is believing that new information (as opposed to random garbage) will eventually result for it. The chances against such things happening are too high for me to believe it."

I tell him that is false, that mutations can indeed add information, and that we've observed so in the laboratory.

Beta replies with:

"It should be mentioned mutations adding 'information' has also been observed in nature. Such as the rather cool bacteria that evolved the ability to eat nylon (a man made product)"

The conversation was a reply to DarkMage's claim. DarkMage claimed that it was impossible (not just in this thread, but also in another one - which I alluded to in my reply to him) and then me and Beta argued that they could.

quote:

Which is macroevolution, because it would have to be by necessity. How else could you genetically propel an amoeba to a man, if there were not newly inserted information?

Nobody is arguing that adding information isn't a part of macro-evolution, the point being that the bacterium was mentioned specifically to prove that mutations can add information. Whether or not that particular mutation also supports evolution or not, is another discussion.

quote:



No, there is never new genetic information. And the article said that there was no new genetic information, (which I put in caps because I was quoting from it, not stealing it). I just used the argument to support my stance.

What was said was that information could be added. That's' exactly what the article you plagiarised supports. To quote it again, for your sake:

"The short answer is, the mutation does yield an increase of information, but was it random?"

quote:

[b]

LOL! Once again, what was his purpose for bringing it up, if it was simply a way of showing microevolution? You and I both know he was trying assert that new genetic information does exist, and so he used the bacterium to support it. And I showed how the inventor of that theory, himself, was at odds with it. He had to agree that random occurances couldn't have produced it. Did he still come up with some excuse? Yeah. But I put in caps where he falls short, and the rest of the article that isn't concurrent with his overall theory.



1. He said that information could be added via mutations, period. This is clearly seen in his post. You then proceeded to run with that in order to argue something else.

2. Since the article supports the idea that they do add information, then Beta was completely correct. What would be up to debate is whether or not they are random in that particular case. That, while pertaining to macroevolution, does not pertain to a reply aimed at the claim that information cannot be added.

Even then, that's exactly why Beta posted the second site, which refutes the points made in the one you plagiarised.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-10-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



It isn't adding anything, you just said it yourself. Its simply bringing a trait out of rescession because it was dormant. That is microevolution. Adding hydrogen to oxygen is only adding what already exists. You are suggesting that something brand new comes out of nothing. (Well, not you, but the writers of that article.)

Dormant trait out of recession? When did I say that? Do you know what mutation is? It is an error in DNA replication, which means change, which means something new. There's nothing "dormant" here. It doesn't come out of nothing. The A, T, C and G molecules of DNA are available in the cell, so if a copy of a TCCGAGA segment becomes TACGAGA in error, then it is something new that didn't come out of nothing. Genetic information is the amount of genetic code that contributes to protein production. Which means that in the case of a previously non-contributing DNA segment that becomes contributing by mutation error, then we have information increase.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



What would compel you to believe that the parents of their offspring didn't have this trait? How would know either way? And how would it have an antibody for resisting a manmade pesticide long before any concievable relevance to its survival? Whatever genetic marker it possesses, just so happened to resist the insecticide. You're making it sound as if nature 'knew' that pesticides would be invented, which is indicative of intent and a purpose. If you believe that, then believe in a Creator who has cockroaches for a reason and seeks to preserve them for a specific reason, whether we understand that reason or not.

Of course, there's no such thing as nature "knowing" anything. The fact that cockroaches happen to become resistant to pesticides is not surprising because their reproduction and thus their mutation rate is high. A mutation that helps them be resistant is to be expected, and to persist in the presence of pesticides. If there were no pesticides the relevant gene would not persist (unless it has an additional benefit which is possible), but there's absolutely nothing ruling out its reappearance. Once more, mutation is random, natural selection is not. No intent or purpose.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



You would have to say that things are evolving 'better' all the time. Most evolutionists balk at this, one because it goes against natural occurances, and two, because it suggests that its ordained by intent, which again, is indicating that 'something' cognizant introduced that. Does nature have a mind?



One, noone's balking and no, it does not. Two, no it doesn't again. You really don't understand what natural selection is, do you?

"Better" is an accepted term, but it is only in relation to an organism's environment. Organisms evolving become more fit for their environment. Should their environment change faster than they can reproduce, the "better" becomes meaningless. I fail to see where you see intent or a mind at work here.

Rust is right.

I posted a comment about the nylon bacteria, you plagerized half a letter about the bacteria. I posted the site you stole from and the part you didn't copy which refuted you. Then I posted a site which explains the bacteria and refutes the section you posted.

I don't see how this can be so hard for you to understand Hyro. If you really want to keep the thread on topic you would stop trying to distort what happened (who are you trying to fool, it's all recorded in the forum), just accept you stole and lied and decide not to do it again. However if you want to be hypocritical you can continue to argue you 'won' the argument and didn't steal at all.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 03-10-2006).]

Besides point mutations there are also deletions and insertions. Additionally, entire genes (or gene segments) can be transpoed (copied) to another section of the genome. The copy can then become mutated and become a different gene. Thus 'new information' is created all the time. In bacteria parts of their circular chromosome can be excised and from a "plasmid" the plasmid can replicate itself, express genes, become mutated, and transfer to another organism by a process called conjugation. There are other processes besides what I have mentioned here. Genetics is not a simple as "just point mutations" ... something creationists [intentionally] fail to realize.

Anyways, here an interesting study on human-chimp differences.

Most human-chimp differences due to gene regulation

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/yu-mhd030906.php

pfft. Evolution, everyone knows the aliens fucked the monkey.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Rust is right.

I posted a comment about the nylon bacteria, you plagerized half a letter about the bacteria. I posted the site you stole from and the part you didn't copy which refuted you. Then I posted a site which explains the bacteria and refutes the section you posted.

I don't see how this can be so hard for you to understand Hyro. If you really want to keep the thread on topic you would stop trying to distort what happened (who are you trying to fool, it's all recorded in the forum), just accept you stole and lied and decide not to do it again. However if you want to be hypocritical you can continue to argue you 'won' the argument and didn't steal at all.



Look, the only thing I thought incorrect was that you used the post about bacterium. I was looking it up because of your initial post, among other links, and confused it with what you actually posted. What you posted was a Wikipedia link. I had alot of links open at the time and was looking at the link in question, and alot of others. I thought you had posted it. I thought when you mentioned the bacterium, that was the link you posted. That was my mistake. My apologies. You didn't initially post it. You posted the Wikipedia link. So I got confused. Nonetheless, I wasn't stealing the article. I thought you had posted it and so I was responding and pointing out all of the points that I agree with. That's why I was getting pissed, because I was like, how are you gonna angry for me reading the article you posted and then talked about the points? And that's also why I thought you guys were just trying to steer the topic off course, to get around talking about the actual issue. In any case, it still makes me look bad. I guess you won't let me live that one down. If you did that I might be inclined to do the same thing. In any case, I understand what you're trying say. As far as the initial premise goes, I still don't see how you can get something that doesn't exist. That's a metaphysical mystery. But with recessive traits, it only gives the illusion of something new, but it was already in the genes from the get-go.

quote:Originally posted by tuned:

Lets try this. “It comes down to this, we are really both relying on some form of faith(instead of faith; insert "belief", "trust" or "confidence") to answer questions that, “science” can’t answer. Because you said it yourself, “evolution is not an inmutable fact”

tuned

I love this argument. It's a cop-out at the lowest level.

What you're saying is "I can't prove you wrong, so I'll just prove you equal to me. Then nobody wins!"

It's like a self-destruct button.

Religion is based on pure faith.

Science is based on faith, verified by gross amounts of evidence to back it up.

QED.

Dormant trait out of recession? When did I say that?

I din't say you, I said (well, the writers of that article).



Do you know what mutation is? It is an error in DNA replication

Yes, I know.

which means change

Yes, I know.

which means something new.

Only a new variablity, not new genetic code.



The A, T, C and G molecules of DNA are available in the cell, so if a copy of a TCCGAGA segment becomes TACGAGA in error, then it is something new that didn't come out of nothing.

I know. What you are describing is a new order of an already extant molecule(s). That's just changing the order. That's why organisms don't look exactly alike. But its still a dog, or a human, or a duck, or whatever else. You can sort or lose existing information, but you can't create information that doesn't exist. For instance, lets say that your code looks like this: ABACCBA. But your offspring's code looks like this: BACCBAA. That isn't acquiring something new at all, that's just changing the order, which is a completely natural occurance. What you're suggesting, apparently, is that out of ABACCBA, a mutation will cause it form an entirely new genetic marker. That makes as much sense as gaining an entirely new peice of a puzzle that was never in the box to begin with. If one parent has the code of, say, BBADCA, then the offspring may or may not acquire that "D" marker. And even if he does, it may be a recessive trait that shows up on his or her offsrping as a dominant feature. Does that make sense? So, you can't acquire anything that doesn't already exist, otherwise, we should expect to see alot more variation than we do.



Genetic information is the amount of genetic code that contributes to protein production. Which means that in the case of a previously non-contributing DNA segment that becomes contributing by mutation error, then we have information increase.

No. If this were the case, then why aren't there abundant cases of mutations causing wonderful things? 100,000 to 1, you don't want mutation to occur. Most mutations may be silent, but that's only because there are specific protein enzymes to prevent mutations. The ones remaining are typically horrific. Mutations lead to the steady degradation of information.

Of course, there's no such thing as nature "knowing" anything. The fact that cockroaches happen to become resistant to pesticides is not surprising because their reproduction and thus their mutation rate is high. A mutation that helps them be resistant is to be expected, and to persist in the presence of pesticides. If there were no pesticides the relevant gene would not persist (unless it has an additional benefit which is possible), but there's absolutely nothing ruling out its reappearance. Once more, mutation is random, natural selection is not. No intent or purpose.

I agree with most of what you said. But that isn't evolution in the Darwinian sense. That is simple survival due to natural selection. Nothing 'evolved' at all. I think you don't understand what evolution really means. Macroevolution asserts that things are getting better with time as more, and more mutations are occuring that have to be beneficial. They claim they don't believe that, but really, how else would there be simple creatures to complex creatures? It the exact opposite. Things are degrading with time, because mutations cause the degradation of genetic information, and as I already said, you can't add an A,B,C,D to get an E. You just a variation of ABCD = DCBA. BCAD. ADCB. Etc...

"Better" is an accepted term, but it is only in relation to an organism's environment. Organisms evolving become more fit for their environment. Should their environment change faster than they can reproduce, the "better" becomes meaningless. I fail to see where you see intent or a mind at work here.

"Charles Darwin made a note to himself pertaining to evolution, "Never use the words higher or lower" (9). (However, the word "higher" in this forbidden sense appears half a dozen times in the first edition of Darwin's Origin of Species. Even today, if you assert that a human is more highly evolved than a flatworm or an amoeba, there are darwinists who'll want to fight about it. They take the position, apparently, that evolution has not necessarily shown a trend toward more highly organized forms of life, just different forms:

All extant species are equally evolved. — Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, 1995 (11)

There is no progress in evolution. — Stephen Jay Gould, 1995 (12)

We all agree that there's no progress. — Richard Dawkins, 1995 (13)

The fallacy of progress — John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry, 1995 (14)

But this ignores the plain facts about life and evolution."

"There is also a serious difficulty to understand how any re-shuffling of amino acids could occur at all in the context of a canonical terrestrial-style primeval soup. To link two amino acids together requires the removal of a water molecule and the supply of some 150 times more energy than heat in the Earth's oceans could supply. In the absence of a joining enzyme used by biology or without an excessively large flux of ultraviolet light at the ocean surface, no new arrangements could be achieved. But even if chemical barriers for the linkages are artificially and miraculously removed, the really vast improbability of 1 in 10 ^40,000 poses a serious dilemma for the whole of evolutionary science. Life could not be an accident, not just on the Earth alone, but anywhere, anywhere at all in the Universe. The facts as we now see them point to one of two distinct conclusions: an act of deliberate creation, or an indelible permanence of the patterns of life in a Universe that is eternal and boundless. For those who accept modern cosmological views as gospel truth, the latter alternative might be thought unlikely, and so one might be driven inescapably to accept life as being an act of deliberate creation. Creation would then be brought into the realm of empirical science. The notion of a creator placed outside the Universe poses logical difficulties, and is not one to which I can easily subscribe. My own philosophical preference is for an essentially eternal, boundless Universe, wherein a creator of life somehow emerges in a natural way. My colleague, Sir Fred Hoyle, has also expressed a similar preference. In the present state of our knowledge about life and about the Universe, an emphatic denial of some form of creation as an explanation for the origin of life implies a blindness to fact and an arrogance that cannot be condoned."



[This message has been edited by hyroglyphx (edited 03-10-2006).]

so, what, we used to be humans, now we've left that mutation behind?

adaptation isn't evolution. it's adaptation. they're two seperate words for two seperate (but related) concepts. the fact that skin color changes over time or that bones can be longer or shorter don't make yu a new species. thats what everybody is really waiting for- defining proof that species have changed. once you have that, we'll all be happy.

and please don't equate me with the dipshit creationists that you normally see making this argument. I'm trying to make you think critically, not believe in some invisible or whatever.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I wasn't stealing the article.

Since many people don't realize it I should point out that when you make a post on a forum you are basically signing your name to it, thus it's assumed it is all your words unless specified. If you copy someone else's work but don't specify you copied it, that's plagiarism, which is stealing.

One of the reasons you will notice I post a link after everything I quote that's from another site.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I still don't see how you can get something that doesn't exist.

In many cases mutations are just copy errors. DNA is 'read' in small groups, a frame shift mutation changes these groups and can have a big effect. A horrible example (since DNA is not like words) take this string I saw earlier: heartheartheartheart. How it is read makes a huge difference, is it heart heart heart heart or hear the art hear the art? A similar change can happen when a frameshift causes the DNA to be read differently than before.

He's also assuming that frame shifts are the only possible mutation. There is addition, deletion, chromosomal duplication...

quote:Originally posted by Vai:

pfft. Evolution, everyone knows the aliens fucked the monkey.



Hell yeah,

you tell'm

god made the world as it is in 6 days, lets leave it at that

n'Kay

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I wasn't stealing the article.

Since many people don't realize it I should point out that when you make a post on a forum you are basically signing your name to it, thus it's assumed it is all your words unless specified. If you copy someone else's work but don't specify you copied it, that's plagiarism, which is stealing.

No, I understand. I just thought you had posted the link of the nylon bugs, but you had posted something from Wikipedia. So I assumed we were discussing the post, and thought there would be no reason to post the link, only because I thought you had just posted it. Nonetheless, I got over-zealous and should have checked more carefully. It was only until Rust broke it down, and I went back to the threads and opened the links, that I realized exactly what you were saying. That was my bad and I apologize.

In many cases mutations are just copy errors. DNA is 'read' in small groups, a frame shift mutation changes these groups and can have a big effect. A horrible example (since DNA is not like words) take this string I saw earlier: heartheartheartheart. How it is read makes a huge difference, is it heart heart heart heart or hear the art hear the art? A similar change can happen when a frameshift causes the DNA to be read differently than before.

Then we actually agree. Of course changing the order can have serious adverse affects to any given organism. What I was arguing, was if, for example, someone said that from heartheartheartheart, that you could get heart/art/ear/[fart]... Know what I'm saying? Where did the 'f' come from? Neither of the parents have the 'f' chromosome, so it would be a complete mystery as to the 'f's' origins. There should always be an h/e/a/r/t, and any combination of them, but the 'f' should never exist.

Like I said, not the best example since DNA isn't like words or the alphabet (since there are basically on 4 letters in its alphabet). In the case of getting something "new" it's often the cause of a point mutation which is often a malfunction in replication resulting in a different 'letter' being replicated.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



I know. What you are describing is a new order of an already extant molecule(s). That's just changing the order. That's why organisms don't look exactly alike. But its still a dog, or a human, or a duck, or whatever else. You can sort or lose existing information, but you can't create information that doesn't exist. For instance, lets say that your code looks like this: ABACCBA. But your offspring's code looks like this: BACCBAA. That isn't acquiring something new at all, that's just changing the order, which is a completely natural occurance. What you're suggesting, apparently, is that out of ABACCBA, a mutation will cause it form an entirely new genetic marker. That makes as much sense as gaining an entirely new peice of a puzzle that was never in the box to begin with.

That's exactly what happens. In the same way that you have hydrogen and oxygen in the box, and then you get water which was never in there. Here's another example : "rgnlloiiay"

is a sequence of letters that contains no information. If I just change the order, I get "originally" which is a recognizable, meaningful word : information. It's so easy to understand that I suspect you don't want to.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



If one parent has the code of, say, BBADCA, then the offspring may or may not acquire that "D" marker. And even if he does, it may be a recessive trait that shows up on his or her offsrping as a dominant feature. Does that make sense? So, you can't acquire anything that doesn't already exist, otherwise, we should expect to see alot more variation than we do.

No, it doesn't make any sense. A single "letter" of the code never corresponds to a trait.

Just changing the order CAN produce information. Information isn't about quantity, it's about quality. There is lots of DNA code that contains no information and that's because it doesn't contribute to making protein. What is the thing that specifies whether a DNA segment contains information or not? That's right, it's the ORDER of the A,T,C and G molecules in it. If the order wasn't important, US congress wouldn't approve 3 billion $ so that the human genome could be mapped (= finding the order!).



quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



No. If this were the case, then why aren't there abundant cases of mutations causing wonderful things? 100,000 to 1, you don't want mutation to occur. Most mutations may be silent, but that's only because there are specific protein enzymes to prevent mutations. The ones remaining are typically horrific. Mutations lead to the steady degradation of information.

Where did I imply that mutations cause "wonderful things", let alone those being "abudant"? Making things up that are easy to refute is called a strawman.

Mutations are change. Change can lead to information loss, information increase or it could have no effect. Most of the time it has no effect and that's because the biggest percentage of DNA is noncoding (has no information). So, "100,000 to 1 you don't want mutation to occur" is another thing you made up. Even if mutation has an effect on information, it doesn't mean that information decrease is harmful to the individual. For example, a gene that contributes to a disease does contain information; a mutation of it that causes it to lose information is helpful for the organism.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



I agree with most of what you said. But that isn't evolution in the Darwinian sense. That is simple survival due to natural selection. Nothing 'evolved' at all. I think you don't understand what evolution really means.

I don't think you have the right to use this last sentence when it is clear that you never read anything on evolution from a non-creationist source.

Secondly, you are changing the subject because we were talking about nature having intent or purpose. You ignored this and moved to something else. Anyway, I'll let it go for now...

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Macroevolution asserts that things are getting better with time as more, and more mutations are occuring that have to be beneficial. They claim they don't believe that, but really, how else would there be simple creatures to complex creatures? It the exact opposite.

You selectively ignored everything I said about "better" being in relation to the environment. Your tactics are becoming frustrating.

The above paragraph doesn't make much sense but I'll reply hoping I got it correctly. Simple creatures stay simple when they are succesful in their environment. A perceived "improvement" in a stable environment could actually be superfluous, especially when it usually costs the organism precious energy to maintain. Complexity begins to appear when the environment changes and "improvements" are crucial for the organism's survival. Note, again, that "imrovement" isn't something absolute. It is in relation to the environment.



quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Things are degrading with time, because mutations cause the degradation of genetic information, and as I already said, you can't add an A,B,C,D to get an E. You just a variation of ABCD = DCBA. BCAD. ADCB. Etc...

Read above about how it's the order that makes up information and not the letters themselves.



As for the rest bunch of nonsense you posted :

Is it too difficult to mention your sources? I am a layman and I have no trouble using my own words and my limited knowledge to get a point across. Quoting out of context and posting irrelevant nonsense from creationist sources you don't acknowledge (why? embarrassed?), are contributing nothing and aren't accomplishing anything.

That's exactly what happens. In the same way that you have hydrogen and oxygen in the box, and then you get water which was never in there.

All you are doing is combining oxygen to hydrogen. They are still compounds that were there, and always have been. You are suggesting that by combining two already extant molecules, that something completely differnet forms. H2O is just a combination of already existing molecules. What you are asserting, apparently, is that from H and O, you can get Plutonium, or whatever the case may be.

Here's another example : "rgnlloiiay"

is a sequence of letters that contains no information. If I just change the order, I get "originally" which is a recognizable, meaningful word : information. It's so easy to understand that I suspect you don't want to.

The more we argue, the more seems that we are actually in agreement. I don't think you understand what I'm talking about. Changing the order causes something new. My son or daughter recieved genes from both my wife and I. The combination makes him and her a totally new person. But they only recieved what was already in our genes, not something completely different. What I'm saying is, you have, lets say, ABCD. You can change the order, but the letters itself is still the same, only the combo changed. From ABCD, you'll never get 1234, which is what some of you are apparently claiming. Does that make sense?

No, it doesn't make any sense. A single "letter" of the code never corresponds to a trait.

Just changing the order CAN produce information.

No, it can't produce new information, and if it can, its never been witnessed. Changing the order only ensures that you won't have a carbon copy, a twin, an identical. But you can change the order 500 different ways, but in the end, you'll still have a human being, or whatever else. Again, what some of you are apparently suggesting, is that changing the order can mysteriously introduce another variable to the equation that doesn't exist. From ABCD, how are you ever going to get 1234, or even ABCD4? Does that make sense?

Information isn't about quantity, it's about quality.

Agreed. Which is why I brought up coral a few posts ago. Coral has as high of a number of DNA as humans. They are almsot equal in complexity of the molecules, themselves, but obviously its the quality that is going to allow for say, a higher intelligence.

If the order wasn't important, US congress wouldn't approve 3 billion $ so that the human genome could be mapped (= finding the order!).

I'm not suggesting that the order isn't important. When did I ever say that it wasn't? And losing information is also a detriment, depending on what exactly you are losing. I never said that sorting information couldn't be a bad thing. Once again, we are talking about new genetic information that's being introduced. Why can't chimps procreate with humans? Because though their code is similar, its different enough to prevent this crossing over. Now, cytologists have managed to splice parts of one animals DNA to another animal, to create a chimera, but its so nominal that it doesn't create a new animal, just a new breed. That's why dogs can look different. But its still a canine and always will be. And even if they did this through genetic manipulation, nature wouldn't be able to replicate it.

Where did I imply that mutations cause "wonderful things", let alone those being "abudant"?

I didn't say you did. I'm saying, if what you are suggesting is true, then we should see so many oddities that it would be obvious that this transmogrification is occuring. This is the same thing in the evolutionary paradigm. If all these changes occured, then where the hell are all of the transitional forms? If there are, say 3 billion creatures walking, flying, crawling, or swimming on earth, not including those extinct, where are the absolutely necessary evolvements? Why do fossil forms appear abruptly in the strate layers? Why don't we see them walking around?



Mutations are change. Change can lead to information loss

Agreed.

information increase

I guess that's all dependant on what you mean by increase. The information doesn't upgrade like someone is upgrading software, and even supposing it did, that would require a programmer (i.e. God, or whatever) to implement that. Otherwise, what you're saying is an animal can cognizantly change its own genetic code, long before its even born.



or it could have no effect.

Agreed.

I don't think you have the right to use this last sentence when it is clear that you never read anything on evolution from a non-creationist source.

I've read it all... Afterall, I was a strong proponent of evolution just four years ago. These are metaphysical mysteries that has been so inept to answer its own questions, lacks so much evidence, that I hardly see why you treat it as gospel truth. You would have to admit that it requires a great deal of faith on your part to still stand by it so wholeheartedly. Creationsim is far from being proven, and I accept that. But the current theory eaves me so undesired that I cannot support it. I could be a theistic evolutionist. I wouldn't affect my faith in God. I don't believe in Creationism because of the Bible. I believe in it because of the physical evidence. I don't understand what your beef is, especially when its own proponenets, including Darwin himself, knew that there are huge pieces missing. Darwin hoped that one day, his missing pieces would fit. Well, we're still waiting. And as I said, they tend to hang out in the confusing terms of microevoution and macroevolution. If macro is simply a magnification of microevolution, then where is the evidence supporting it?

Secondly, you are changing the subject because we were talking about nature having intent or purpose. You ignored this and moved to something else. Anyway, I'll let it go for now...

I'm just answering the questions as you present them. If you'd like to go back to nature having a mind, or not, by all means lets speak about it. I'm just following the flow of the dialogue.

You selectively ignored everything I said about "better" being in relation to the environment. Your tactics are becoming frustrating.

Oh, I understood what you meant, and even posted an article that goes into exactly what you're saying. But seriously, simple to complex is indicative of 'progress,' is it not? So how is it that you're going to totally overlook that? You seem to be fine with believing that a paramecium can eventually become a human, but in the same breath, claim that it isn't actually progress??? What would you call it then? Falling up? Its certainly not deteriorating, according to them. And we know that contradicts everything we know about genetics.

The above paragraph doesn't make much sense but I'll reply hoping I got it correctly. Simple creatures stay simple when they are succesful in their environment.

So the clumsy, slow Coelecanth that they thought had been extinct for 350 million years must be succesful? But its still alive. Why hasn't it changed? People say that sharks haven't changed much over time because its successful. I could agree with something like that, but a Coelecanth hasn't changed at all, which tells me that it isn't close to being as old as they claim, which just gives all the more reason to abandone aeons of time. And unfortunately, none of the Darwinian model is verifiable by much of anything.



A perceived "improvement" in a stable environment could actually be superfluous, especially when it usually costs the organism precious energy to maintain. Complexity begins to appear when the environment changes and "improvements" are crucial for the organism's survival. Note, again, that "imrovement" isn't something absolute. It is in relation to the environment.

Really? Higher intelligence is only suitable in some enviornments? The mind of an artist evolved from survival reasons, because.......? Because why? You're describing progress, and never talk about degradation, which is by far, a more common occurance.

As for the rest bunch of nonsense you posted

Nonesense? Come on, man.... Give me a little more credit than that, even if you disagree. I certainly don't think you're an idiot or that you're spouting completely erroneous claims. Why can't you lend me a little credit?

Is it too difficult to mention your sources? I am a layman and I have no trouble using my own words and my limited knowledge to get a point across. Quoting out of context and posting irrelevant nonsense from creationist sources you don't acknowledge (why? embarrassed?), are contributing nothing and aren't accomplishing anything.

I'm a laymen too. I aspire to be more, but for the time being, I read, and read, and read, until I have the time to get into it more seriously. What I posted was not from a Creationist source, or an evolutionists source. It was the perfect, objective source. They fault Creation and Evolution, because their theory is unique.... So, no, I'm not embarrassed by my source

And here it is.

http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm



[This message has been edited by hyroglyphx (edited 03-10-2006).]

hydroglyphix, you are a fucking idiot. you have proven this time and time again, post after post. you have no regard for logic or intellectual honesty. you make up your mind beforehand, and then look for evidence to support your opinion. any educated person can see this, and smell your bullshit.



in short, fuck off.

In each case, however, the faithful subject's faith is in an aspect of the object that cannot be logically proven or objectively known. Faith can also be defined as accepting as true something which one has been told by someone who is believed to be trustworthy. In its proper sense faith means trusting the word of another.

Disprove the scientific method with just you faith, do not use scientific terms. Let God guide you....

that doesn't make any sense.

are you saying to take faith over the theory of evolution? you are really unclear.

if you are saying to take faith over evolution, then you are a dumbass and i am discrediting all of your posts.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

that doesn't make any sense.

are you saying to take faith over the theory of evolution? you are really unclear.

if you are saying to take faith over evolution, then you are a dumbass and i am discrediting all of your posts.

Read between the lines much?

I am trying to say that posting something about evolution in here is pointless. The reason being is that many here will attempt to disporve the proveable with the unproveable(faith). Often "big" words of science are dragged through the religous muck. This is usually used by people who

a) want to sound informed

b) try to prove you wrong through your own methodology

c) have backed themselves into a corner and have nowhere to go

I am not here to offend anyone, but merely am attempting to have you disprove a provable truth, evolution in this case, with just your faith. If you can prove faith than you are most likely bullshitting. Also, if God does exsist say a prayer and begin to type as if you're guided by the hand of God...

well then i guess i agree with you. inasmuch as i understand you. seriously your not a schizo are you? because what you have typed doesn't exactly make sense.

Schizo? No, far from that.

You still understand what I have put forth though, correct?

I sure hope so...

Also, not to keen on communication through text, seems so impersonal...

no, i don't understand what you are saying completely.

i am asking for clarification.

how does what you are saying relate to evolution?

He's basically telling hyro to stop trying to use 'science' to disprove evolution or to prove god.

Anyways, Hyro, read my post at the top of this page. It expains how new and more information can arise through genetics.

Through mutation, the folowing can happen to a gene.

Point mutation

AATAACGCATTA --------> TATAACGCATTA

Insertion

AATAACGCATTA --------> AATAAGCGCATTA

Deletion

AATAACGCATTA --------> ATAA_GCATTA

Reading frame of original gene:

AAT AAC GCA TTA

Reading frame of point mutant:

TAT-AAC-GCA-TTA

Reading frame of insertion:

AAT-AAG-CGC-ATT-A...

Reading frame of deletion:

AAT AAG CAT TA...

You can also mix and match all these types of mutations, so you can have multiple insertions, insertions and deletions...

One thing that is believed to drive the evolution of complex eukaryotes is gene duplication. Entire genes are duplicated to another section of the genome. This allows for genes to be tweaked by evolution without losing their main function.

Say you have some genes (G1, G2 , G3)

G1--G2--G3 ---mutation--> G1---G2---G4

G1--G2--G3 ---duplication--> G1--G2--G3--G3

---muation--> G1--G2--G3--G4 (what's that? Its a brand new gene, and no old gene was lost in the process!)

Thank you PAU for helping put what I was saying into standard english. Still, my criticism is not aimed at one person but in fact is for those who claim to know science; furthermore, when they use their claimed knowledge of "science"(I view it as a bastardization)to further religous views with the general, NASCAR watching, public. Although the public can be blamed just as much for not pursuing these claims and nit picking the "truth" behind them;also, the public needs to take upon itself the burning sword of truth to develop their own ideas instead of adhereing to the herd mentality of accepting what is told to them "as is" because the percieve the person(s) telling them such to be more infromed.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



All you are doing is combining oxygen to hydrogen. They are still compounds that were there, and always have been. You are suggesting that by combining two already extant molecules, that something completely differnet forms. H2O is just a combination of already existing molecules. What you are asserting, apparently, is that from H and O, you can get Plutonium, or whatever the case may be.

Are you saying that water is NOT completely different from oxygen and hydrogen? That's the only thing I am asserting [even though nuclear physics has shown that you can get a completely different element from another element (see nuclear fission)]. You seem to have trouble with the concept of "emergence". Sometimes the object of study is just greater than the sum of its parts.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



The more we argue, the more seems that we are actually in agreement. I don't think you understand what I'm talking about. Changing the order causes something new. My son or daughter recieved genes from both my wife and I. The combination makes him and her a totally new person. But they only recieved what was already in our genes, not something completely different. What I'm saying is, you have, lets say, ABCD. You can change the order, but the letters itself is still the same, only the combo changed. From ABCD, you'll never get 1234, which is what some of you are apparently claiming. Does that make sense?

No, it doesn't because that's NOT what I am claiming and I think it should be pretty clear by now. When I have repeatedly stressed that the order is important, and you have agreed too, why do you still argue that ATTCGA is the same as TATCGA (same letters, different order)? It's not the letters themselves that cause the change, it is the ORDER.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



No, it can't produce new information, and if it can, its never been witnessed. Changing the order only ensures that you won't have a carbon copy, a twin, an identical. But you can change the order 500 different ways, but in the end, you'll still have a human being, or whatever else. Again, what some of you are apparently suggesting, is that changing the order can mysteriously introduce another variable to the equation that doesn't exist. From ABCD, how are you ever going to get 1234, or even ABCD4? Does that make sense?

Again, it seems you don't understand the importance of the order. The order is a variable on its own. Let me try to explain how this works in my understanding (if someone knows better, please correct or add). A DNA sequence is used to code a useful molecule (protein). This happens because each of the DNA molecules (A, T, C and G) can "connect" with a certain number of aminoacids (which make up proteins). This means that the sequence GGATCT can code a specific number of proteins. If you change even one letter's order making the sequence GAGTCT, then it's possible this codes a completely different set of proteins, or no proteins at all. So, if you change the order 500 hundred times (randomly) as you say, you will probably get a dead baby. So you see, changing the order is much more than just not getting a twin. Also, check out http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Agreed. Which is why I brought up coral a few posts ago. Coral has as high of a number of DNA as humans. They are almsot equal in complexity of the molecules, themselves, but obviously its the quality that is going to allow for say, a higher intelligence.

Sure. I hope you realize though that "quality" refers to the order in the DNA sequence.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



I'm not suggesting that the order isn't important. When did I ever say that it wasn't? And losing information is also a detriment, depending on what exactly you are losing. I never said that sorting information couldn't be a bad thing. Once again, we are talking about new genetic information that's being introduced. Why can't chimps procreate with humans? Because though their code is similar, its different enough to prevent this crossing over. Now, cytologists have managed to splice parts of one animals DNA to another animal, to create a chimera, but its so nominal that it doesn't create a new animal, just a new breed. That's why dogs can look different. But its still a canine and always will be. And even if they did this through genetic manipulation, nature wouldn't be able to replicate it.

I don't see how the above is relevant. None of it refutes that mutations can add information. You also seem to imply that a single mutation can create a new species which is absurd.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



I didn't say you did. I'm saying, if what you are suggesting is true, then we should see so many oddities that it would be obvious that this transmogrification is occuring. This is the same thing in the evolutionary paradigm. If all these changes occured, then where the hell are all of the transitional forms? If there are, say 3 billion creatures walking, flying, crawling, or swimming on earth, not including those extinct, where are the absolutely necessary evolvements? Why do fossil forms appear abruptly in the strate layers? Why don't we see them walking around?

Firstly, a species is not defined on anatomical differences but on reproductive incompatibility. There are plenty of species alive today that look exactly the same but do not mate with each other.

Secondly and most importantly, speciation usually occurs in geographic isolation (to understand this, think that a newly mutated gene has better chances of surviving in smaller populations). Combined with the intricacies of the fossilization process, the so called "gaps" are not surprising, they are to be expected.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



information increase

I guess that's all dependant on what you mean by increase. The information doesn't upgrade like someone is upgrading software, and even supposing it did, that would require a programmer (i.e. God, or whatever) to implement that. Otherwise, what you're saying is an animal can cognizantly change its own genetic code, long before its even born.

I've been through what information increase is and why it isn't always positive. So, no, it's not an "upgrade" and it doesn't require a programmer, just a mutation.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



I've read it all... Afterall, I was a strong proponent of evolution just four years ago. These are metaphysical mysteries that has been so inept to answer its own questions, lacks so much evidence, that I hardly see why you treat it as gospel truth. You would have to admit that it requires a great deal of faith on your part to still stand by it so wholeheartedly. Creationsim is far from being proven, and I accept that. But the current theory eaves me so undesired that I cannot support it. I could be a theistic evolutionist. I wouldn't affect my faith in God. I don't believe in Creationism because of the Bible. I believe in it because of the physical evidence.

Give me a break! There is no physical evidence for creationism. The only thing creationism has is false evidence against evolution which is nowhere near being evidence for itself. Noone is treating evolution as gospel truth. That is creationist territory. Evolution theory, like all scientific theories, changes whenever new data is available. But there has been NO evidence whatsoever to discard it. That's not a reason to say we treat it like gospel, anymore than saying the sun rises in the east is treating this theory as gospel.

You say the current theory leaves you undesired, so you cannot support it?? Not that this is a democracy that needs your support, but you actually admit you don't accept it because you don't LIKE it? And you expect to be taken seriously when you talk about evidence? And btw, does not believing in a literal Genesis affect your faith?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



I don't understand what your beef is, especially when its own proponenets, including Darwin himself, knew that there are huge pieces missing. Darwin hoped that one day, his missing pieces would fit. Well, we're still waiting. And as I said, they tend to hang out in the confusing terms of microevoution and macroevolution. If macro is simply a magnification of microevolution, then where is the evidence supporting it?

You've been shown the evidence countless of times. Either read them (and better start with highschool chemistry) and refute them or quit. Where is the evidence supporting creation?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



You selectively ignored everything I said about "better" being in relation to the environment. Your tactics are becoming frustrating.

Oh, I understood what you meant, and even posted an article that goes into exactly what you're saying. But seriously, simple to complex is indicative of 'progress,' is it not? So how is it that you're going to totally overlook that? You seem to be fine with believing that a paramecium can eventually become a human, but in the same breath, claim that it isn't actually progress??? What would you call it then? Falling up? Its certainly not deteriorating, according to them. And we know that contradicts everything we know about genetics.

No, it's neither progress, nor failing up. You always think in black and white. Progress suggests there is a goal, and there is no goal in evolution. It's not failing up either because we do survive. These terms simply do not apply. Stop thinking religiously. If Earth was more like Venus, we'd better stick to being bacteria because being human would be a failing up.



quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



So the clumsy, slow Coelecanth that they thought had been extinct for 350 million years must be succesful? But its still alive. Why hasn't it changed? People say that sharks haven't changed much over time because its successful. I could agree with something like that, but a Coelecanth hasn't changed at all, which tells me that it isn't close to being as old as they claim, which just gives all the more reason to abandone aeons of time. And unfortunately, none of the Darwinian model is verifiable by much of anything.

Do you have to be told the same things a hundred times? Did you read somewhere that evolution states "species must change this much for this amount of time"? Why do you make up new rules so that you can shoot them down (aka strawmen). First of all, you can't know if Coelecanth hasn't changed at all, all we have is fossils. It hasn't changed appearance, that is all. This has absolutely no effect on the theory and after being told how it works a million times (and claiming you have read about it) you should know it.



quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Really? Higher intelligence is only suitable in some enviornments? The mind of an artist evolved from survival reasons, because.......? Because why? You're describing progress, and never talk about degradation, which is by far, a more common occurance.

I am not describing progress, it is you who sees it as progress because you can't escape from the religious mindset that humans are special.

Just because higher intelligence evolved in certain environments doesn't mean that it is only suitable in them. This goes for almost every trait. If you are interested in human evolution there are tons of books, I'm currently reading "Becoming Human" by Ian Tattersall, I'll get back to you when I'm done.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Nonesense? Come on, man.... Give me a little more credit than that, even if you disagree. I certainly don't think you're an idiot or that you're spouting completely erroneous claims. Why can't you lend me a little credit?

Well, for one it's hard when you tend to ignore things and make up others. In any case, the second paragraph you posted (for which you DID NOT post a source, it's clearly a creationist one) discusses abiogenesis which you know has nothing to do with evolution and also equates natural selection with chance which IS nonsense.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



I'm a laymen too. I aspire to be more, but for the time being, I read, and read, and read, until I have the time to get into it more seriously. What I posted was not from a Creationist source, or an evolutionists source. It was the perfect, objective source. They fault Creation and Evolution, because their theory is unique.... So, no, I'm not embarrassed by my source

And here it is.

http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm



Well, this site contains the usual fallacies about entropy and also equates progress with higher complexity which is quite arbitrary. You do realize that it is a semi-scifi site that debunks creationism even more than evolution. I suppose you are just comfortable with anything against evolution.

Now post the source of the second paragraph.

Coelacanth

It should be noted the Coelacanth is a whole genus of fish and the modern versions have changed since the fossilized ones lived. Lets not forget that fossils are just bones and sometimes impressions of flesh. In the fossil record we only see large changes because we have no tissue or DNA. An animals bones can stay quite similar yet the animal can be quite different.

Evolution also doesn't require animals to always change.

Macro evolution.

It's interesting that creationist groups have moved the goal posts a number of times and redefined "macro evolution" to make sure they can say "Micro true, Macro not." Originally it was that no new species can arise (some creationists still stick to this) that has been shown untrue so they moved to the more fluid "kind" and often refuse to define what a kind is beyond kindergarten terms (Dog, cat, whale, fish). Because that provides a lot of evolutionary room they have since gone to the "no new information" argument, and pulled the same trick with "information" refusing to give it a solid definition (the less solid a definition that easier they can say "Ha, that isn't new information").

This all leads to some fun stuff. The more species "kinds" encompasses the more 'de-evolution' needs to take place after noah. It's gotten to a point where after noah practically every newborn was a different species than its parent. It also means a ton of clutter in that original species genes.

Although I've already given one example why the "it's just recessive" argument fails, another is that if animals never evolve but 'de-evolve' through recessive genes, we should be able to look at their genes and figure out exactly where they are headed in the future. This would be an amazing discovery for medical science. Just think, they could start developing drugs today for a disease that wont hit till 2030. But it's not true.

you people are not yusing your heads . god created the earth not evulution . I dont care how much proof you try to give me . you talk about what you read in science try the BIBLE. whats in there is what I bealeve .



ps. this is my opinion

Apparently the bible doesn't contain a spell checker.

If you aren't being sarcastic (it's quite hard to tell) I assume you are faithful to that and don't use any kind of science, invention, medication that isn't based on scripture, right?*

*I have always found it so ironic that creationists attack the very basis of biology and geology (among others) yet I have never talked to a single one who shunned technology or medicine that have come out of these obviously wrong beliefs that are 'only theories'. Nor have I found a single one who after claiming "creationism is science" use any products discovered using said science.



[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 03-13-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by super chick:

you people are not yusing your heads . god created the earth not evulution . I dont care how much proof you try to give me . you talk about what you read in science try the BIBLE. whats in there is what I bealeve .



ps. this is my opinion

I have read the Bible, not because of faith or higher calling. The reason for reading it is so I can use the massive amounts of contradicitions. Of course your GOD did not create evulution nor did man, because it is not even a word or term, simply it doesn't exsist. God did not create Earth, Earth was created by gravitanional force that clumped large and small chuncks of rock into a celestial body. Also, if you believe the Bible you should slaughter everyone who works on sunday, children who disobey their parents must be stoned to death, and anyone who thinks about coveting anything of course must be stoned to death. You have your work cut out for you now, get started and start practicing those spelling abilites.

No shit humans are still evolving, ever hear of uniformitarianism? Did you really think that we would evolve into what we are now and then the process of evolution would just stop?

hyroglyph doesn't seem to understand that a single tiny change in GAGCTACA will result in a different RNA code, which when turned into protein will result in a completely different protein, and therefore a completely different 3d "shape" to the resulting globular protein. all proteins are essentially simple, it is the way they fold themselves up (which comes from slight changes in the order) which creates variety in proteins



hyroglyph go back to school you science dunce.

NO Im not being sarcastic . NO we should not stone people for working on sunday . your idea of how the world was created is not what I think and you whont change my mind. where did the rocks come from? huh. and you should not covet. but we must ask for forgiveness. will talk later

I dont get mad at people for not thinking as I do. I just let them no what I think.

and as fore the spelling . it was a miss print.

So basically you will ignore the evidence God left in the earth showing he used evolution because you worship the human idea that the human written bible is literal. Got it.

Still curious about my questions, do you refuse to use technology and products discovered by these theories which you don't believe are true?

lol

she is apparently a born again xian or something, she didn't even understand the implications of your post, beta.

go read something other than the gospels super chick...

quote:Originally posted by super chick:

and as fore the spelling . it was a miss print.



I apologize if this comes across as sounding like an insult, as that is not how it is intended. But,for your sake, I honestly hope that you are either 10 years old or just someone pretending to be ignorant in order to make fun of the religious population.

No offense intended, but if you are truely the way you present yourself, you do more harm to your cause by expressing yourself than you would by remaining silent.

quote:Originally posted by super chick:

NO Im not being sarcastic . NO we should not stone people for working on sunday . your idea of how the world was created is not what I think and you whont change my mind. where did the rocks come from? huh. and you should not covet. but we must ask for forgiveness. will talk later

where did the rocks come from?

all the elements are product of nuclear fusion in stars. the earth is agregated out of the heavy elements created by our sun, hydrogen fused to become all the other atomically heavier elements, eventually agregating together because of gravity,

you guys have your ideas I have mine whats so wrong about that? no IM not 10 . your idea of how rocks became is nice but where did the stares com from? no reason to take offence at what my thoughts are .

ah, where did the stars come from? stars are formed out of the vast clouds of hydrogen.

where did the vast clouds of hydrogen come from? that is the question, but i'm pretty sure the answer isn't "god"

You may have ideas but they aren't correct.

Of course I'm still curious if you use any products based on your ideas and shun anything made with our wrong ideas.

Edit: I should add that evolution or modern geology is not anti-God. Lets say God snapped the stars into existence, poof, there they are. Doesn't mean geology, biology or evolution is wrong. (of course the study of Gods creation says he didn't just snap the stars into existence).

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 03-17-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Zay:

If you have that kind of attitude then why are you even here?

Precisely !

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

link to similar article: http: //www.news cientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8812&print=true (http: //www.news cientist.c om/article .ns?id=dn8 812&print= true)

This deals with adaptation ONLY.

Adaptation is not what the theory of evolution relies upon.

It relies on MACRO-EVOLTUION, of which we have never had a shred of evidence.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 03-17-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

hydroglyphix, you are a fucking idiot. you have proven this time and time again, post after post. you have no regard for logic or intellectual honesty. you make up your mind beforehand, and then look for evidence to support your opinion. any educated person can see this, and smell your bullshit.



in short, fuck off.

*watches dolefully as kenwih consults his Atheist Handbook on how to deal with debates they are losing*

Yep, ad hom.

Every single time.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

link to similar article: http: //www.news cientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8812&print=true (http: //www.news cientist.c om/article .ns?id=dn8 812&print= true)

This deals with adaptation ONLY.

Adaptation is not what the theory of evolution relies upon.

It relies on MACRO-EVOLUTION, of which we have never had a shred of evidence.

quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

where did the vast clouds of hydrogen come from? that is the question, but i'm pretty sure the answer isn't "god"

Give us the other "options", since the answer can't possibly be "God".

That's a pile of rubbish everybody knows it was the greys, they needed workforce for the gold mines and so they tok the genetic material of dolphins and mixed with apes thus creating mankind.

I have substantial evidence to prove this, if you don't believe me contact I'll enlighten you!

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

This deals with adaptation ONLY.

Adaptation is not what the theory of evolution relies upon.

It relies on MACRO-EVOLUTION, of which we have never had a shred of evidence.



I already provided the evidence for what you call "macro-evolution". Either refute it, or kidnly stop making these baseless statements and lies.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

This deals with adaptation ONLY.

Adaptation is not what the theory of evolution relies upon.

It relies on MACRO-EVOLUTION, of which we have never had a shred of evidence.

Please define macro evolution. (if you say changes between kinds you will need to define kinds, if you say no new information you will need to define information. Then you will need to show how the examples given in this thread are not valid).

Or is this another case where it's just easier to repeat a sound bite than to actually treat your supposably scientific beliefs like science?

why am I here ? the thread is called STILL DONT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION .I still dont . whell I will come back later I get a strange idea that I am not welcome .

You are welcome here.

However I'm not sure you have a full understanding of what dismissing evolution and geology for creationism means. The small view of the situation is that many biologists see evolution as the binding force of biology and base a lot of the research that has provided effective cures on evolution. Our understanding of geology drives a lot of projects including where we should find oil to turn into gasoline.

On the larger side of things all the theories you dismiss are based on scientific principles, the same ones that have brought you everything from computer technology to power plants and new clothing materials, etc.

By using products that have been created with these theories and science while dismissing the same theories and science seems a bit hypocritical. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

Along with that you say you only believe in what the scripture says. Yet there has not been a single new invention created through creation science. If you truly believe in the scripture and nothing else you should be living more like the Amish.

It seems quite common for creationists to claim science is wrong while still benefiting from said science.

Edit: I should add that creation science began to be abandoned by science before evolution when it was discovered the then new field of modern geology could better predict where oil would be found where flood geology could not.

Modern creationist like to pretend there is some sort of evolutionist conspiracy against them but in reality it was creationist who began to disprove creationism before evolution hit the scene.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 03-18-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

*watches dolefully as kenwih consults his Atheist Handbook on how to deal with debates they are losing*

Yep, ad hom.

Every single time.

whatever man

i saw no reason to reiterate the issues rust already brought up. anybody that can reason can see the flaws in his arguments...

why would i want to see the athiest handbook?

evolution has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of god, silly.