Sad what creationism can do to a mind, part 2

The information argument against evolution redefines information so as to exclude evolution. That this redefinition is invalid is evident from the fact that the processes they claim information theory disallows happen all the time. For example:

• Gene becomes accidentally duplicated during reproduction. Offspring now possess two copies of the gene. The genomes of all organisms contain many examples of gene duplication.
  ​
• Future generations of offspring experience mutations in both the original and the duplicated gene. The gene and it's copy now contain different information. Such mutations happen all the time.

This and other processes of genomic change have continued uninterrupted from life's beginning. Independent of arguments about whether the modified gene contains new information, these genomic changes of microevolution accumulate over time to cause macroevolution.A good analogy is a long journey by foot. One can travel long distances by taking just one step at a time. You can actually walk from New York to San Francisco. To carry the analogy a bit further, there are barriers to travel on foot, since you cannot walk from New York to London because of the obvious barrier of the Atlantic Ocean.So we wonder, what is the barrier preventing interspecies change? It isn't information.--Percy

Theory, of course.Gene already addressed the "precoded DNA" issue, so I'll hit the other: But you haven't identified the barrier. You originally identified the barrier as an issue of information theory, but it was pointed out that regardless of the specifics of Creationist misapplication of information theory, the accumulation of small changes over long time periods will eventually become large changes. You say the barrier to large changes is huge and impassable, but you haven't yet identified the nature of the barrier.--Percy

I think Schraf was responding to your inquiry about transitionals by citing a sort of living transitional. Monotremes (the platypus is one) are another example. Independent of whether you accept evolution, these creatures possess characteristics intermediate between classes of organisms. It is thought that air-breathing organisms descended from an ancient relative of the modern lungfish and not the modern lungfish itself, and that modern mammals share a common ancestor with the modern monotremes, and are not descended from them.There are also many fossil transitionals, and I think some information about these has already been provided. Whether or not you yourself accept the transitional status of any fossils, the fact remains that the fossil record is one of increasing differences from modern forms with increasing depth, and the theory of evolution explains this record of change by proposing that organisms change over time in response to changing environmental conditions.--Percy[This message has been edited by Percipient, 12-03-2002]

As edge has already pointed out, speciation does not require that the parent species become extinct. And as I already said in the very post you replied to, air-breathing creatures are not thought to have descended from the modern lungfish, but from a relative of the ancestor of the modern lungfish.There is nothing that requires an organism to evolve. Evolution is generally thought to result from the pressures brought on by environmental change. In other words, organisms evolve to better take advantage of or cope with their environment. Environmental stasis usually results in relative evolutionary stasis, and because creatures can migrate, virtual environmental stasis is relatively easy to achieve.That being said, while lungfish existed hundreds of millions of years ago, and while the headline of the article you cited says they are relatively unchanged since then, you have to recognize that lungfish are not a species but a class of organism, and that the article is talking about the lungfish class and not any specific lungfish species, because all known species of lungfish from that far back in time are now long extinct. It is the organism as a class defined by a set of shared characteristics that has remained relatively unchanged. At the species level it has experienced many rounds of speciation and extinction. These changes are recorded in the fossil record, and it is this record of change over time that the theory of evolution explains.--Percy

Unless the thread search capability is broken, this is the first time this has been posted on this thread, so this can't possibly be your or anyone's original statement. Plus this seems to be taking the topic into an area more pertinent to the Faith and Belief thread. But anyway, I'll comment on this: Evolution...

• Says nothing about the existence of God.
• Does not say we are here by accident.
• Says nothing about the purpose of life.
• Says nothing about morals.

In case you think this is a shortcoming, please note that chemistry, physics, geology and cosmology are also silent on these topics. The only accurate thing in your list is that evolution *does* say we are animals.So why no response on the topic actually under discussion?--Percy

Beats me! Go back and read post 1. Like most threads, I suspect this one has drifted.The issue that I think you have to face is that evolution explains the available evidence. That doesn't mean it represents truth, but it *does* mean that claims that evolution does not explain the evidence, such as that macroevolution is impossible, must also be backed by evidence. Vague statements about impassible boundaries don't qualify as evidence. If you really believe that small changes do not accumulate over time into large changes then you have to offer some evidence supporting the claim.--Percy

Naturally short titles can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, but if you read post 1 you'll see that SLPx did not have your particular interpretation in mind. His title was just a jab at Peter Borger while attempting to rebut Borger's interpretation of gene trees.While threads often drift quite a bit, shifting into a faith-related discussion should probably be accompanied by a move to a thread in the Faith and Belief forum.--Percy

We eat and breath, sweat and defecate, are born and die. We have cells and blood and nerves and bones and organs. Like the apes, we have hands and feet and body hair. We reproduce and suckle our young like any mammal. We are fauna just like any other fauna on the planet.--Percy

Good point. Some who recognize our oneness with the animals eventually conclude that using them for food is repugnant and become vegetarians. On the other hand, the Bible tells man that animals are provided for his exploitation and the OT encouraged the sacrifice of animals as a form of worship.--Percy

Don't you and Syamsu bear some responsibility for the decline? The last argument from your side of the discussion was that humans are not animals simply because this is plainly obvious. This is not only a non-starter and a non-sequitur, which is why it was ridiculed ( I know the guidelines council respect, but the ridicule was for boneheaded debate technique, not your beliefs), but it also answers none of the arguments from the other side, such as that humans fit the definition of animal, the definition of mammal and the definition of primate. With regard to spirituality man may have a special place in the universe separate from all other creatures, but with regard to biology humans are no more or less unique than all other species.--Percy

I'm just watching this discussion at this point, but thought I just step in for a second.I think you might be misunderstanding what is being said. People are simply explaining that humans are a type of animal, not the other way around. Its the same as collies are a type of dog, or Persians are a type of cat, but never dog is a type of collie, or cat is a type of persian, or cars are a type of Ferrari (I wish!)--Percy

Sorry, no, I'm not a race fan, but I'd love to drive a Ferrari to work instead of a BMW. My favorite sport is tennis, which I a play a lot, and my favorite sports to watch are basketball, football and soccer (Celtics, Patriots, Revolution). How about you? I think you're confusing the way we talk with what we mean. We just say it that way as a kind of verbal shorthand. A collie is a type of dog. It's a member of the Canis familiaris species, one of a family of species known as the Canidae, which includes wolves, foxes and so forth. Humans are a type of animal, so your equation is untrue. I believe there are symbols in set theory that mean "is a member of", and that's the symbol you should be using, and not "=". So naturally, if humans are members of the animal phylum, obviously the animal phylum can't be a member of humans. It doesn't make any sense to even try to say it. No one would argue that a plane is a car, but both are members of the class of objects used for transportation. You can be a member of your local racing club, but your local racing club can't be a member of you.--Percy

Having a rough idea of the background of the person you're discussing with helps a lot. Some kids come in here and say, "Hey, I'm a kid." Other kids try to pretend they're adults, and how are we to know? Was Sonnikke trying to make some subtle point that we haven't detected yet, or was he being serious when he asked if we believed animals are humans? If he was serious, does he deserve explanations or ridicule? And is this the level of dialogue most people are hoping for?One idea I've been entertaining is to have two levels of forums. The novice forums would be for everyone. The expert forums would be only for those who have demonstrated a capacity for informed discussion through their participation in the novice forums. This is just an idea at this point, but I think it has some potential.--Percy

Thanks for the feedback from both you and Funky. My thinking about the criteria for the expert forums would not be degree of knowledge, but rather a demonstrated ability to debate and discuss productively. This idea is similar to the distinction between the Free For All forum and the other forums. The novice forums would be like the Free For All forum - nothing you do in the novice forums can cause your posting privileges to be temporarily suspended or get you banned, and in fact there would be no such things. But demonstrating an ability to engage in productive discussion gains you entrance to the expert forums. Violations of guidelines would cause relegation back to the novice forums.It's just an idea at this point - any additional feedback is much appreciated.--Percy