|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 1 From: Austin, TX, US Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with evolution? Submit your questions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
That is not the same. Your quote says "asset" each part would therefore have a selectable function. That makes sence. however if you have a muliple part machine inwhich each part is useless without the others this could neve evolve. Behe never demonstrated that each part was useless without the other parts throughout the history of the system. He only demonstrated this aspect for the modern systems. Therefore, Behe failed to demonstrate what he wanted to demonstrate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
My point is that I offerd a couple critical points about your beloved theory and you assume I am such and such. You presented misconceptions of the theory that have been pushed by creationists for decades now.
Desent must be destroyed. You are projecting again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Your quoting Genesis. Kinds reproduce after there own kinds. Nowhere did I mention kinds. Nowhere did I mention Genesis.
My point is that it variation within the limits of the existing info available.
What limitations? Is there a base in any genome that can not be mutated? Is there a deletion or insertion event that can not happen in a genome? Of the DNA differences between humans and chimps which could not be produced by random mutations? You seem to be throwing around concepts that you picked up from creationist websites but have no idea how they apply to biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Well all I did was make some critical points on this website and with a few exceptions I was attacked. We made critical points right back. How are your arguments "critical points" while our arguments are "attacks"? What is up with this persecution complex that you seem to have? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
New functionality. Lets take the dino to bird example. You would have to have mutations that increased the information in the genome and tell the dino how to change from making scales to making feathers, body plan, bone structure, lung design. This doesnt occur and without the preconcived notion that it must have occured there is no evidence for it. I mean the fossile evidence interpetation is more art than science. How did you determine that mutations were not responsible for the appearance of feathers in dinosaurs? There are plenty of examples of feathers in non-avian dinosaurs by the way. Also, if the fossils we have do not meet your standards then please tell us what a real intermediate fossil would look like.
Mutations do not add new functional info. So the millions of mutations that separate humans and chimps are not responsible for the differences between humans and chimps? Really?
It would take millions of these fictional mutations to turn a "simple cell" into a human. And this is a problem how?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Agreed mutations can and do occure. However you can shake up the scrabble board as often as you like and you will never get a Shakespeare. I wasn't aware that Shakespeare was found in the genome of any species. There are a lot of CAT's and TAG's, but no ROMEO or JULIET.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
nice to here a evolutionist admit the vast difference in the genetic code between the chimps and us chumps. Vast? We are talking about a 2% difference for point mutations and a 5% difference when considering insertions and deletions. That is hardly vast. There are hundreds of thousands of mutations that separate one human from another.
mutations lead to loss of function. So what functions are we missing compared to chimps?
Try your examle from before in reverse. Take two poodles add and a bunch of genereations and I'll even through in an intellegence in the breader and see if you can ever get back to the wolf. Due to the accumulation of random mutations it is impossible for evolution to run in reverse. You might as well expect rivers to start flowing uphill.
once the genetic information is lost it is gone chance and time will never bring it back. Why would evolution need to bring it back?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I think the evidence points to design you do not. Then you should be talking about design instead of evolution. You seem to have fallen for the false dichotomy that creationists push. They have suckered you into thinking that falsifying evolution automatically evidences design. It doesn't. Any theory has to stand on it's own legs. For example, I have yet to attend a scientific meeting where a scientist supported the evolution of a specific feature by pointing to the lack of an explanation from creationists. That's not how science works. You need to show us how design makes testable predictions and how to test those predictions.
challenging myself to look up new information and see how it fits my beliefs. It appears that you have things a bit backwards. Shouldn't you look at the information first before establishing a belief?
name calling shows your true collors my friend. Alot of scared people on this site. I think plenty of us are a bit worried that science education in public schools will be watered down to appease religious beliefs. Why shouldn't we be worried about this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Much we would agree upon, Homology, DNA etc. It’s really more a world view question than evidence based; I mean we all look at the same fossils and draw different inferences.
The nested hierarchy is a fact, not a worldview. The mixture of characteristics in fossils is a fact, not a worldview. If your first step is to ignore the facts then you are on very poor footing.
There cannot be a code without a code maker. Dogma.
Creation is evidence of a creator. Dogma.
You find an arrow head in the desert you know it had a maker even if you know nothing else of the maker.
You can also use evidence to show that this designer exists independently of the arrow head.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
However this is not how selection works. Only traits that give that generation a breeding advantage will be selected. This does not explain how sight or flight or micro motors or proteins can come into existence the first time. Why not?
You’re not saying that evolution new that it wanted to create the compound eye before there was such a thing? No more so than the ping pong balls in the lottery machine knew who the winner was.
Every famous mutation such as herbicide and antibiotic resistance once examined at the molecular level has been shown to involve information loss. What mutation, if observed, would be considered an informational gain?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
If you hang your hat on Shannon theory of info you are deluding yourself. Actually, evolution has been shown to be capable of increasing Shannon information:
quote: Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
That was my point Shannon theory is an inadequate way of measuring the information content of the genome. Why?
Specified complexity is how the code works not just random bits which is what Shannon measures.
So how is specified complexity measured? What is the specified complexity of this sequence?
quote: Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
First let me ask you to admit that you are making a theological statement here. That you know how a designer would design. Then it is also a theological statement when Behe claims that the flagellum appears to be made up of purposefully placed parts.
Second there are numerous reasons for the eye to orientated the way it is including prevention of blindness at bright lights. Then all octopi and squid are blind?
Is the Octopus eye not a violation of your Nested Hierarchy? Why would it be? The vertebrate eye and cephalopod eye evolved in different lineages. A violation would be a vertebrate species with an eye like that of a cephalopod. Since squid and tuna have a common designer then why don't we see the same eye in both? Why does every species with a backbone also have an inverted retina? Why are these two traits always found together?
You call it convergent evolution which is a catch all for everything that doesn’t fit you neat little line charts. The vertebrate and cephalopod eye are not homologous, as has been pointed out previously. They differ quite a bit. The only thing they have in common is a superficial resemblance. All of the important stuff (e.g. ennervation, retina) is different. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Open the operating code for you pc and just start hitting the keys on the keyboard. Then hire a Microsoft employee who is Adept at writing code. Your attempt could generate twice the bits of info as measured by Shannon but which program do you want running on your pc? In evolution, you can put in random code and it can develop function:
J Mol Evol. 2003 Feb;56(2):162-8. Can an arbitrary sequence evolve towards acquiring a biological function?Hayashi Y, Sakata H, Makino Y, Urabe I, Yomo T. Department of Biotechnology, Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University, 2-1 Yamada-oka, 565-0871, Suita City, Osaka, Japan. AbstractTo explore the possibility that an arbitrary sequence can evolve towards acquiring functional role when fused with other pre-existing protein modules, we replaced the D2 domain of the fd-tet phage genome with the soluble random polypeptide RP3-42. The replacement yielded an fd-RP defective phage that is six-order magnitude lower infectivity than the wild-type fd-tet phage. The evolvability of RP3-42 was investigated through iterative mutation and selection. Each generation consists of a maximum of ten arbitrarily chosen clones, whereby the clone with highest infectivity was selected to be the parent clone of the generation that followed. The experimental evolution attested that, from an initial single random sequence, there will be selectable variation in a property of interest and that the property in question was able to improve over several generations. fd-7, the clone with highest infectivity at the end of the experimental evolution, showed a 240-fold increase in infectivity as compared to its origin, fd-RP. Analysis by phage ELISA using anti-M13 antibody and anti-T7 antibody revealed that about 37-fold increase in the infectivity of fd-7 was attributed to the changes in the molecular property of the single polypeptide that replaced the D2 domain of the g3p protein. This study therefore exemplifies the process of a random polypeptide generating a functional role in rejuvenating the infectivity of a defective bacteriophage when fused to some preexisting protein modules, indicating that an arbitrary sequence can evolve toward acquiring a functional role. Overall, this study could herald the conception of new perspective regarding primordial polypeptides in the field of molecular evolution. So it would appear that your analogy doesn't apply.
The SETI project looks for specified complexity in the form of radio waves in space. They can tell the difference of ordered complexity like a pulsar and random background noise and specified complexity which interestingly enough would be touted by most everyone as proof of intelligent life. That is that a code containing specified complexity is proof of an intelligent code maker.
SETI looks for narrowband transmissions, not specified complexity or codes. Also, you have yet to demonstrate how specified complexity is measured in the DNA sequence I posted. If you can't show how specified complexity is measured in DNA then it does not apply to DNA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Well thenneither is the vertebrate bone structure. Why not? The backbone in all vertebrates develops same way in the same embryonic tissues. Backbones all have homologous structures across all vertebrates. Why aren't these homologous structures? Denying the facts really isn't helping your position? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024