The Word Evolutionists

Sorry for the delay Sasquatch.

quote:

---

I think your misconception on this point comes from the idea that: if a gene is copied, you'd just have two copies of the same gene, and therefore nothing new would come of it.

---

Its not a misconception, it is what we observe in natural selection. A reshuffling of the information present only. When i say loss of information i dont mean it wont be as capable and sooner of later they will die out. But that its a downhill process. For example. We started with a canine kind, and now we have thousands of different types of dog and canine. All this occured through downhill processes and natural selection. The information for the canine kind was in its genes. And a reshuffling can change into what we see today. A canine kind will not change into a new kind of animal, this would be a increase in information.

quote:

---

Also, duplications and rearrangments can "remix" existing genes, coding for hybrid proteins with functions from each of the original proteins. These hybrid genes can accumulate mutations.

---

Likewise with my dog example. These hybrids you speak of can only be achieved through a reshuffling on the genes present. It cannot add new letters of information. When we talk about a mutation in a dog, we mean a change in structure. It has a characteristic that its ancestors did not show. This change in the information it inherits is caused by a change either in the genes or in the chromosomes. It is a mutation, which is downhill. Evolution must be observed all around us. The complexity and diversity of living things. We must be able to point to millions of instances were a dog grew feathers, then many mutations later into a bird. These sort of changes dont occur. A dog has always been in its kind just like all kinds. So the theory of evolution has got serious problems if its relying upon natural selection.Im not sure about your example. Many words i dont understand. However it seems that a mutation has remixed the genes etc causing more information. Which is not case as it cannot add new genetic data. Only whats present. no matter how much distortion and change of the genes. It can only work with what its got. And thats why horses breed and use natural selection only with equine kinds, dogs with canines etc. Natural selection seems to be somewhat the opposite of what evolution requires.

quote:

---

Now, that's just not true. Slight "uphill" changes, at random, must be possible. I mean, if I have a random letter generator, there's a slight random chance that it'll generate, at random, a meaningful sequence. It's mathematical fact.

---

Meaningfull sequences can occur. Thats how we see such diversity in kinds when they reproduce. However evolution needs changes that natural selection simply cannot make. Fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to mammals etc It goes on and on. But we dont see these changes because they cannot occur. So why have they occured in the premeval past millions of yrs ago?.

quote:

---

So, answer the question. If you had one process that took us downhill most of the time, but occasionally, randomly took us uphill; and then you had a process that kept us from going downhill and only let us go uphill; and put them together, wouldn't you have a process that would take us nowhere but uphill, very slowly? Sounds like we would to me.

---

The only uphill that occurs is a beneficial mutation. A fruitfly with larger wings, or a dog with hairier fur for the cold. These are still working with information present not adding. It cannot account for what we see today in the diversity, and evolutionists believe it all came from a common ancestor.