Fact Theory Falacy

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Here are the FACTS:"
--Lets see what we got.

​

"Organisms are related to each other to a greater or lesser degree (this is obvious, a zebra is more closely related to a horse then to a dandylion)."
--To a degree yes this is fact.

​

"Organisms demonstrate that they have common descent (morphology, genetics, fossil record)."
--No, this is not fact, this is interperetation of the evidence in contrast with the un-observable past.

​

"Allele frequencies in populations can and do occur in response to envrinmental changes (the famous peppered moths)."
--Yup, natural selection.

​

"Organisms reproduce, and have more offspring then can possible survive. THe offspring had inherited genes from their parents, so that they are very similar but also unique. The expression of some of these genes may improve certain individuals' chances of survival given current conditions."
--To a degree this is true.

​

"Mutations can and do occur that are beneficial, or can even endow an organism with something totally new (like the bacteria that was observed to have developed an enzyme capable of digesting nylon due to a missing base pair in a DNA sequence for an existing gene)."
--You almost had it right, untill you said that it created something new, and then contredicted yourself when you said 'due to a missing base pair', something was missing for this to take place it seems.

​

--So would these be the potential facts?

---

No, these would not be 'potential' facts - these are facts. The theory of evolution is a theory which attempts to link these facts together. This theory has been sufficiently researched to the point where it, too, is fact (ie., a scientific fact - something sufficiently demonstrated/evidenced that it would be perverse to deny it).And on your last point, the original poster was quite correct. Something new can easily occur due to mutation, including (for example) a missing base pair. Many genes have the effect of preventing things from occurring; the absence of this effect allows the thing to occur - and viola, something new!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Well evolution needs to explain how the information got there BEFORE it was removed.

---

That is precisely what evolution DOES explain. As so often happens, when creationists get an answer they don't like, they merely shift the goalposts. Mutation is possible to have accounted for all 'information' being there and being removed/modified.
-----------------------------------------------------------
--Something new in the scence as you describe yes, but not in the scence of evolution taking place, to put it simply 'viola!' you just proved a theory on creation in biological diversity.I fear you have understood neither the original post nor my reply to it. A missing base pair (for example), occurring by mutation, can easily create something new (to that organism) in the organism that possesses it. This is precisely evolution taking place, and has nothing to do with creation, sorry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Yes ... and according to geneticists you can see this in modern
birds.

​

The genes exist in modern birds for teeth, but are 'switched off'.
The information is there, but other factors stop it from being
used.

---

Exactly. There are any number of other examples, which can be found by anyone who cares to do the research. Genetic mutation (in its various forms) can (at least in theory) result in virtually any change in the host. That is something that not even creationists could disagree with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
According to what you said you can do this:

​

Take a Chain that is this long:, etc., etc.

---

No, TrueCreation. You are misunderstanding the role of the gene in the development of the organism. To use your format, what I am saying (and it's not even controversial or new) is that:Take a chain this long (chain = string of genes)
-----------------------------Take away some links so it looks like this
-----------------------And you can get new features in the organism that is formed by those genes. It's got nothing to do with forming a new chain of whatever length: the outcome is the new features in the organism, not a 'longer chain'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Not sure how all this is related to the thread title, but
in terms of the information content of the genetics underlying
an organism surely one needs to look at the organism as a whole.

​

As a somewhat limited analagy the difference between FRIEND and
FIEND is only one letter, but the informational content carried
by those two words is extreme.

​

---

Well put; apparently KingPenguin has missed (or doesn't understand) this point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by toff:

Well put; apparently KingPenguin has missed (or doesn't understand) this point.

---

Sorry, my mistake - I MEANT TrueCreation, not KingPenguin. My apologies, KingPenguin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
thank you so much heh, but can chains get longer and more diverse? meaning can new amino acids be added or completely removed rather than just being made dormant?

​

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--I'm not sure, but what about the other famous scientists who were creationists?

---

What famous scientists who were creationists (POST darwin, if you please, preferably in the last 50 years or so)?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
what about the other famous scientists who were creationists?

---

I'll try again, since my last attempt failed. I didn't ask for a book about creationists who had some scientific qualifications. I asked WHAT famous scientists who were/are creationist (post darwin, preferably in the last 50 years)? Can you even supply ONE?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I'll try again, since my last attempt failed. I didn't ask for a book about creationists who had some scientific qualifications. I asked WHAT famous scientists who were/are creationist (post darwin, preferably in the last 50 years)? Can you even supply ONE?"
--What are your requirnments for being 'famous'.

---

Oh boy. Find a dictionary. Open it to where it shows the definition of the word 'famous'. Bingo!

quote:

---

Originally posted by wj:
Are we allowed to assume that, in the absence of any substantive answer, that there has been no famous scientist has been a creationist in the last 50 years

---

Yup, I'd say so. Despite his confident mention of the 'famous scientists who were creationist', TrueCreation has been unable to come up with even one. Surprise, surprise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Oh boy. Find a dictionary. Open it to where it shows the definition of the word 'famous'. Bingo!"
--If thats the catagorial listing capability, you might want to add a good portion of the AiG and ICR Gang.

---

Ummm...no. Note the request asked for 'famous scientists'. People like Gish, Hovind, et. al. might well be famous, but they're not scientists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Ummm...no. Note the request asked for 'famous scientists'. People like Gish, Hovind, et. al. might well be famous, but they're not scientists."
--Refer to previous post, it seems you gave me a definition that simply states is 'well known'. By your logic, the word is extreamly flexible.

---

I did not give you any such definition. YOU trumpeted off about 'famous scientists' who supported creationism. You queried what the definition of 'famous' was; I told you to check a dictionary. Now, presumably, you know what 'famous scientist' means, yet you still haven't come up with a single name. Instead, you try to play word games. Surprise, surprise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Like I said, I don't think this question is very important. However, would George Washington Carver count?

---

No.