Give your one best shot - against evolution

"I will need to see the osseous remains of all of the Biblical patriarchs, and, indeed, an unbroken chain of corpses from Adam to me in order for there to be any merit whatsoever to the bibilical creation myth. "
--What? Ok, I know your just being sarcastic here, right?------------------

--Welcome to the forum Jonathan!"Is that so hard to believe ... that over the course of several million
years, an accumulation of changes could lead to the diversity of
life we see today ?Yes, yes it is."
--What do you base this on? I have no problem with it as a theory, and a working one at that. Do you have a barrier to these changes or is your unbelief that this accumulation could lead to today's diversity your own subjective opinion?"Evolutionists say that there is overwhelming evidence to support evolution but all I've seen are pictures of birds beaks to show how they have "adapted" or "evolved" They have never shown how a cell, DNA, ear drums, eyes, electromagnetic navigation, the reproductive system, or the immune system evolved. If they could do that then yes I would accept it..
--Sorry this is a bit unreasonable, any biologically inept evo could show you how this could have happened, but we cannot observe an immune system or an eye evolve any any organisms life-time."There is just too much complexity to have happened by chance."
--If there is 'too much' there must be a barrier, what is that barrier and why?"Thats exactally what evolution is CHANCE. Chance variations starting at nothing and ending with absolute perfection. Im sorry but I just cant buy that."
--Your wrong on both points, Evolution doesn't start out with nothing and it doesn't end with perfection. Evolution is controlled by natural selectability of surviving populations. So saying that 'evolution is nothing but chance' is pointless."I think that science is too afraid to admit that there is something that they cant explain and they will keep making up fantastic scenarios to explain away the unexplainable until they do."
--Science is not afraid of anything, the theory of evolution is just one scenario which explains today's diversity of biological life."Just my opinion."
--What would change that opinion?------------------

"Sorry but I didnt mean to sound unsubjective. Its just very hard for me to accept that billions of mutations would result in anything but failure for a living organism."
--I know what you mean, but it is a subjective line of thinking. I don't have a problem with the ToE, it seems just fine in scientific logic. As long as you realize concepts such as indirect evidence, direct evidence, and interpretation. I don't agree that the ToE is actually what was the developmental process in the formation of the earth geologically and biologically."For example. Lets say you have a single celled organism (one of the very first) but its immune system hasnt evolved yet. All it would take to wipe out each and every living cell would be a paper cut and then youre back to square one. There would be millions of similar "weaknesses" for the early life forms."
--There was no paper for a single celled organism to have a paper-cut, not to mention that this is an unrealistic threat. Natural selectability, in theory, is what guided the evolutionary process in preserving life on earth."That being said. What percentage of the mutations are beneficial?"
--I don't think this is the question to be asking. Reason being is that beneficially is decided by a factor of environmental conditions which may vary considerably."How many mutations would it take to produce the reproductive system? Wouldnt the addition of the reproductive system cause potential harm to the mother?"
--Can't see why it would."Then by natural selection all of those carrying the reproduction traits would die off. Now you have no reproductive system and you have to start all over. It would take billions if not trillions of organisms to allow for the process of natural selection to work without killing all of them off."
--Not really, you can do it with thousands. Isolating populations and bottle-necks will even increase this rate."There are too many processes that have to be just right."
--Depends on what the organism needs at its current stage of speciation/evolution."The millions of steps that have to be exact for the process to function at all is the over complexity that I see. 5 billion years is not enough time."
--Can you show me the mathematics you used to calculate this?"I agree that it may be possible for a cat to evolve into a lion, but not for an ameba to evolve into a human."
--Why not? the mutational process is effective in both of them and we carry the same sequential nucleic acid bases. I've heard of arguments for 'barriers' though."Once life has been established with a large population to work with, natural selection is feasable. But to start with the first cell and to have it grow and multiply, that is very difficult. The process of creating life would have tremendous odds aganst it."
--Evolution and Abiogenesis are different theories, not coherently one in the same."Im just saying that IN MY OPINION the whole theory of abiogenesis, and to a lesser degree evolution, is at best very very difficult to naturally occur and have posotive results. Its like a plant that you dont water or fertalize or give enough sunlight to. It usually dies. Why would the very first life forms be any different?"
--Because its needs for survival were much different, the first living organisms would not have had photosynthesis to obtain food for instance."When I referred to evolution as chance I mean chance mutations that ultimately result in progress. Like chance when throwing dice. Have you ever been to Las Vegas? Did you go home with more money or less?
--The problem is that your not including the process of natural selection. Its like you rolling your dice and picking the one that it takes to win the game.------------------

"TC: I just wanted to say your last two posts were excellent. Good science! I couldn't have argued them better myself (although I probably would have added a bunch of unnecessary details and a quibble on the bit about "I don't agree that the ToE is actually what was the developmental process in the formation of the earth geologically and biologically." ). Keep reading and learning! You're doing great. "
--Amen! hehe. --I'm also in the midts of compiling an archive of articles for a web site called 'Creationists condemnation of Kent Hovind', I'm sure you'll get a kick out of it . Cheers.BTW, Fred Williams, regarding the question if new information. How exactly would you define information, and how would you define 'new' information. Examples are one thing, but that is quite different from a definition.
--I once argued for nucleotide base/codon sequences as information, thus, new information would be addition + change of this sequence. Either your argument is there can be no new information, or there is a barrier for quantity and/or change of information.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-05-2002]

"It is not possible to quantify and define information in the limited time I have here. I personally subscribe to Gitt’s formulated laws of information. I recommend Dr Truman’s article at True.Origins that outlines Gitt information."
--I'm not aware of Gitt, however, I will go by what you say. Also, I think it should be an easy possibility to quantificationally compile a definition which adequately defines information, as well as adding the 'new' in front of 'information'. I don't think there is any word in the English dictionary which cannot be defined. If limited time is your problem, I should hope you would attempt to work around it."For the sake of debate on the internet, I often find that giving examples is the best way to communicate what is meant by information. In some cases my examples don’t even qualify as the type I subscribe to! (Gitt information). Why? I find that even with less rigid requirements for what information is, evolutionists are still left without a leg to stand on. Go to evolutionist Dr Tom Schnieder’s web page and notice the calisthenics he went through just to try to demonstrate new information via random mutation/selection at the lowest level of information (Shannon information)!"
--I think it is increasingly impossible and irrational to attempt to demonstrate any informational attribute when there is a lack in what information really even is, hence, a definition. A definition is very much needed before an example of what information is can be made. If not, how much ease is there now to just rationalize every example there is off by changing what you feel qualifies as information. My comments below should be considered:"This would be far too vague of a definition. It may be new information, it may not be. What if you had a copy of Webster’s dictionary, and were handed an identical copy except it had a typo in it somewhere (addition + change). This would obviously not be new information, in fact even at the Shannon level one could argue you lost information due to increased uncertainty. One thing I should note, even the handful of evolutionists I know who are trained in information science will tell you that addition + change does not necessarily equate to new information."
--No, this definition is not vague in the least, it is highly direct and able to be worked from. With an addition + change in nucleotide base and/or codon sequences qualifying as new information. Demonstration that new information has come about is very simple, that is, the differentiation between new and old(Previously existing sequentially) information. I would like to speak to your handful of evo's which have come to the conclusion that addition + change does not imply an addition of information, or is that different from 'new' information. Also, your example of a typo in the Webster dictionary, is new information in my scenario, whether it is morphologically characteristical or not."Here would be acceptable examples of new information:1) A new program installed on your computer (such as WordPerfect), where it did not previously exist"
--So is it the fact that it now exists 'new' information, or is the fact that it is compiled in binary coding in say, the C++ information codec system."2) A new gene (likely set of genes) that produce sonar, where sonar did not previously exist in the genome."
--Sonar is likely a very large compilation of new datasets of nucleotide sequences in the genome. So shouldn't the nucleotide base sequence mutation, being the source of this characteristic, have the merited attribution of new information? I also think this is asking far too much from those who would like to experiment on the potential falsifications to Evolution."1) Installation of WordPerfect, written by Joe Schmoe, on a computer that already has WordPerfect by Corel. Even if Joe Schoe’s version uses less disk space, unless it is faster there is no new information on your computer. If it is faster and more efficient with resources, this would qualify as increased information on your computer.
"
--What? I think this is rediculous when applied to reality and the initial question. The reason behind asking for 'new information' is that the argument is 'new information' cannot be brought about, thus the ToE is bunk. However, whether something is more efficient or less efficient, is simply not the question that should be asked of Evolutions potential falsification. What I previously would have argued for is what should not be evaded. Nucleotide base mutation and disruption sequentially is what should be looked at as it essentially is the source from where new characteristical changes will be formed from. Why is this not reasonable?"3) Gene duplication (if it has a negative affect on the organism it would actually represent a loss of information). "
--So apparently, what your definition of 'information' is, is beneficial inheritance?"Gitt information demands that a programmer is required for any new information (considering some of the advances in gene therapy, I suppose you can get new information in the genome this way). There certainly is a barrier, as you can fit only so much sequence data on the chromosomes."
--So then, this barrier just hasn't been met yet, even if 3.5 or so billion years of Evolution has occurred or not?------------------

"No, that is not what I am saying. I am asking for evidence, any evidence, showing that a new algorithm (coding sequence) arose in the genome to produce a new feature, such as sonar where it once did not exist. Or new information that produced feathers where it once produced scales. I'm giving you a fairly straightforward definition of information (new coding sequence producing a new feature) to work from."
--I think that as I stated in my last post, this is much too much to be asking from potential falsification. In mainstream Evolution theory, it takes time and environmental submission to allow a new sequence of code which will code entirely for a new 'feature' or mechenism by which a task can be carried out.------------------

Don't forget posts #132 & #133. Just making sure.------------------

Have the implications of your argumental assertions been settled, or should I give this another bump?------------------

"The final devastating blow, that actually shattered the remaining pillar of theory of evolution (natural selection) was the recent discovery that the major part of genetic information seems to be redundant. Most genes can be knocked out without killing the organism, and a lot of genes have been demonstrated not to affect the fitness of the organism at all. These data demonstrate the irrelevance of natural selection in the maintenance of these genes (There has to be only one such gene and the concept of Natural selection has been falsified)."
--I don't think that natural selection is the 'last remaining pillar' to evolution. Though, the theory of evolutionary guidance through natural selection works amazingly well and can be and has been established as a factual observation through generations of heredity. That the major part of genetic information seems to be redundant is a bit interesting. However, this may then show that this redundant information can be rendered irrelevant to Evolutionary development. Evolutionary decent with modification deals with morphological diversification. And Natural selection is obviously at work (experimentally verifiable) in that it will morphologically modify by putting in use or leaving a section of anatomy with no function or as functional with little beneficial use. And morphology is capitulated by genetic phylogeny through heredity. Thus, the sequential nucleotide sequence in the genome of a population will only be controlled and evolutionary modified if morphology capitulates genetic sequencing in the genome. These are just my thoughts but going by just what you said, you may have discovered the largest vestigial structure in molecular biology. That is, if my post even made sense ------------------

"Fred, you never replied to message 150... "
--I'm left in the dark on that one too. I don't think that Fred finds the posts all too attractive.------------------

Hey, no problem Fred, just take a look at some of the threads I've posted in in the past, such as Edge, Joe T and myself's discussions on Grand Canyon Deposition and erosive formation. I know what you mean, I just wanna keep things up to date, or 'bumped' per se. I've discussed in threads when a loss of time has come up, and I totally forget about the thread and become occupied with others. And yes, we do carry on much more productive discussions and disputes here rather than say, Infidelguy's forum and the rest of them. I've spoken to the guy on AOL IM myself, man...just leave him to himself, he can stay in his own little world and back into his cubby hole if you ask me .------------------