Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-20-2019 10:23 PM
23 online now:
14174dm, AZPaul3, Coragyps, DrJones* (4 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,666 Year: 6,703/19,786 Month: 1,244/1,581 Week: 66/393 Day: 49/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gene pool deeper?
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6563
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 5 of 47 (106653)
05-08-2004 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Gup20
05-08-2004 5:19 PM


quote:
However, creationists believe that this is assumptive because no-where in nature can you observe the directional information gaining change required to make Darwinistic evolution possible.

Which is only a problem for creationists. Evolutionists don't see this as a problem because the creationist notion of "genetic information" is so muddled as to be useless for scientific purposes. It is possible to define information so as to be applicable to genetics, but then in this case it is not only possible for this type of information to increase, but such increases are observed.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Gup20, posted 05-08-2004 5:19 PM Gup20 has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6563
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 16 of 47 (106693)
05-08-2004 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by JonF
05-08-2004 8:52 PM


Thanks, JonF. These examples are quite fascinating. I am especially fascinating at the evolution of the "irreducibly complex" lactose metabolizing system. I simply cannot fathom how a creationist could deny that this is an example of increased genetic information, except, of course, creationists don't understand what "information" means.

I am puzzled by:

Behe is particularly scornful of the fact that the "new" galactosidase enzyme didn't evolve from scratch, but was produced by a small number of mutations in an existing gene, albeit in an operon far distant from the deleted galactosidase gene.

I thought that, except for a few irreducibly complex biochemical systems, Behe accepted evolution. What in the world does he think evolution is? How does he think evolution proceeds? I have always been astounded at his huge ego - he baits evolutionary biologists as, basically, not being smart enough to understand biochemistry, but he himself doesn't seem to understand evolutionary biology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by JonF, posted 05-08-2004 8:52 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by JonF, posted 05-08-2004 9:31 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6563
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 23 of 47 (106800)
05-09-2004 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Gup20
05-09-2004 4:41 AM


quote:
However, all mutations do result in a loss of information (specified complexity and order).

This is false. If you are going to assert this as fact you must demonstrate it to be true. You must actually provide a definition of "information". Please remember that the claim is that "information" cannot increase - you are implying that information is a quantity. You are therefore claiming that information is a number that is associated with a particular gene or collection of genes. So your definition should include a method for actually calculating the information in a particular gene. You should be able to demonstrate that by making a mutation, the same calculation on the new gene will result in less information than the original. Then, after proving that information is a real quantity that can be measured or calculated, and after showing how it cannot increase, you must explain why this concept is at all relevent to evolutionary theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Gup20, posted 05-09-2004 4:41 AM Gup20 has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6563
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 25 of 47 (106812)
05-09-2004 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Gup20
05-09-2004 3:23 PM


We have evidence in the fossil record of the jaw joint of the ancestral reptile transforming into the inner ear bones of the mammal. Would the individual steps indicate an increase in information? If so, what about this evidence that information does increase? If not, then could "information" be irrelevant to evolution?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Gup20, posted 05-09-2004 3:23 PM Gup20 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Gup20, posted 05-09-2004 7:06 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6563
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 30 of 47 (106840)
05-09-2004 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Gup20
05-09-2004 6:09 PM


hoo boy!
quote:
I clearly defined 'information' as specified complexity.

Which itself is not defined adequately.

--

quote:
As I stated before, no new information arose....As I demonstrated, this 'new ability' was at the price of a loss of information.

You demonstrated nothing. Calculate the information in the original bacterium and the information in the nylon eating bacterium, and show that the second number is smaller than the first.

--

quote:
Specific numbers are not needed to show directional change.

Yes, they are. You have not shown any directional change until you calculate two numbers accurately enough to show that there has been an increase or decrease. Until you actually calculate some numbers you are only engaging in what is called "hand waving".

--

quote:
Quantifying the information is simply over my head, so I choose not to try to present it here.

I believe it is over your head - this is how you were fooled by a slick sounding argument that has no meaning.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Gup20, posted 05-09-2004 6:09 PM Gup20 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Gup20, posted 05-09-2004 8:07 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6563
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 32 of 47 (106846)
05-09-2004 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Gup20
05-09-2004 7:06 PM


quote:
A transition would be fossils of the same creature at various stages of it's evolution.

Now your being silly. The same creature cannot have stages in its evolution - creatures die and leave offspring. Creatures do not evolve, populations do.

But perhaps you meant you want to see fossils of the same species at various stages of its evolution. That is impossible, because at different stages in its evolution it becomes a different species.

But perhaps you meant you want to see various stages in the evolution of a single lineage. You have been shown that - but you insist on calling the different stages discrete examples.

It just isn't clear what you are demanding - I suspect that you aren't sure what the theory of evolution says, and so you don't understand what it is we should be able to see.

--

quote:
This does not show 'the same creature' transitioning... it shows a continuum of discreet creatures which happen to have similar features which were created for a continuum of possible environments.

You miss the point of the fossil sequence. Each of these fossils fit "in between" mammals and reptiles. They have a mixture of reptile features, and a mixture of mammal features. As the time progresses, we see, in these fossils, the reptile feature decrease and the mammal features increase in a consistent manner.

Continuum and discrete are opposite terms and shouldn't be used in the same sentence. Nonetheless, I think I know what you meant. The question is, why would a creator create a continuum of species that mimics evolution? Why would the creator create a continuum between mammals and reptiles? It is known that bats and primates share a distant ancestor that other mammals don't. Do you expect to find fossils that show a continuum between these ancient tree dwelling mammals and modern bats? Evolution predicts that if fossils of bat ancestors are ever found they will fall into such a continuum.

Why didn't the creator create a continuum between birds and bats? Evolution says such a thing will never be found. That would really confuse things. Why didn't the creator create a continuum between whales and fish (one that doesn't go through terrestrial mammals)? Evolution predicts that such a thing will never be found. Why are the only continua that are discovered between distantly related taxa always between taxa that are already known to be related?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Gup20, posted 05-09-2004 7:06 PM Gup20 has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6563
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 35 of 47 (106857)
05-09-2004 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Gup20
05-09-2004 7:39 PM


Hi, Gup.

The mutation Coragyps is referring to in his post is not sickle cell anemia. It is a different mutation altogether that, as far as I know, has no adverse health effects.

--

quote:
This is still a loss of information (specified complexity).

Again, until you do a calculation, this is a loss of absolutely nothing.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Gup20, posted 05-09-2004 7:39 PM Gup20 has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6563
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 41 of 47 (106892)
05-09-2004 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Gup20
05-09-2004 7:06 PM


Of course, I have to show THE PICTURE again.
quote:
This does not show 'the same creature' transitioning... it shows a continuum of discreet creatures which happen to have similar features which were created for a continuum of possible environments.

Here is the picture:

These are skulls of human ancestors from B (Australopithecus africanus) through N (Homo sapiens), place more or less in order of age. Skull A is the skull of a chimpanzee; it is there to show how non-human skull B is.

Can you tell us where the dividing line between humans and apes is? Which are ape-kind and which are human kind? If you can't do this, then could it be that there is no clear distinction between apes and humans? If you insist that these are all species created by God, why would God make a continuum like this? This continuum makes sense in terms of the theory of evolution, but why would God fill in a gap like this with a continuum of species?

I will ask my previous question again: why is it whenever transitional fossils such as these are found, why do they always fill in a gap between groups that we know are related? When fossil proto-whales were found, why did they fill in the gap between modern whales and terretrial mammals related to the artiodactyls, just as the theory of evolution predicted? Whenever a continuum of fossils are found, why is it that they never fill in a gap between groups that evolution says are not directly related? When proto-whales were found, why did they not mix characteristics between fish and modern whales? Why don't we find a continuum of fossils that fill in the gap between humans and weasels?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Gup20, posted 05-09-2004 7:06 PM Gup20 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019