Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

There is plenty of evidence consistent with a designer. 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.From my personal point of view design is self evident. There cannot be a code without a code maker. Creation is evidence of a creator. You find an arrow head in the desert you know it had a maker even if you know nothing else of the maker.

Could you show some evidence for this? Or are you just going to assert that this was so?

Science is evidence based and not dependent on worldview.If you have evidence of a designer, bring the critter in and place it on the lab table and we will take a look.If you even have a model of how that imaginary designer influences things in this universe, present it and we will test it.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

And all evidence that is now available and will ever be available is consistent with last-thursday-ism. Does that make it true? Consistency means nothing, you need positive evidence. But your inference does not follow from the evidence, or at the very least violates parsimony. You have a pre-conceived notion of what should be the conclusion, and so shoe-horn everything into that. Only because the arrowhead (created) is so completely different from it's surroundings (not created). Well, not only, but that is a lso a very important reason.

That's what most anti-evolutionists say, but if you don't have a method of disguishing the designed from the non-designed, then you have no way of investigating whether or not you are correct.Going with your gut and being unable to test it does not lead to the advancement that a scientific approach does and you're doomed to fail if your riding on the whims of self evidency.From Message 645: I showed you an example of information gain in my Message 622.

Antibiotic Phenotype Providing Resistance
Actinonin Loss of enzyme activity
Ampicillin SOS response halting cell division
Azithromycin Loss of a regulatory protein
Chloramphenicol Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein
Ciprofloxacin Loss of a porin or loss of a regulatory protein
Erythromycin Reduced affinity to 23S rRNA or loss of a regulatory protein
Fluoroquinolones Loss of affinity to gyrase
Imioenem Reduced formation of a porin
Kanamycin Reduced formation of a transport protein
Nalidixic Acid Loss or inactivation of a regulatory protein
Rifampin Loss of affinity to RNA polymerase
Streptomycin Reduced affinity to 16S rRNA or reduction of transport activity
Tetracycline Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein
Zittermicin A Loss of proton motive forceNot sure how to add tables here.Edited by havoc, : No reason given.

That's a list of assertions, not evidence, show the studies please. Also, I see that Nylonase is absent, so this certainly doesn't include "every famous mutation". Also, I'm not sure how this constitutes "information loss". I could just as easily assert that these things were an information gain (there was information added to change the rate of enzyme activity, as a counterpoint to your second item on the list).

No you did not. This study as it is laid out by you shows a previously winged insect losing that info and regaining it. This is possible and not evolution.You need to show novel info being created.

Yes he did. Exactly. It had the information, lost it, and new information (it didn't have it anymore, afterall) was added, making the wings reappear. Of course it is evolution. Why wouldn't it be evolution? He did. If you had a car, sell it and then buy a new car, do you not say "Hey, I've got a new car".

If you hang your hat on Shannon theory of info you are deluding yourself. Its not the number of letters present it’s the order. Its specified complexity. If a cell once had the ability to regulate say the production of a certain protein and now it doesn’t this is loss of information, Even if the mutation added to the total bits available.

I don't think we have found magnet or motors in life. As I think others have already told you, structures that are analogous to motors have been found, but these structures have no magnets, which is how an electric motor works.But that's just a detail and not the important point. As I said before, there's nothing about motors and magnets in evolutionary theory. The only requirement is "whatever works." As genetic algorithms have taught us, evolutionary processes are very adept at finding novel and unexpected solutions. If life figures out some way to incorporate motors and magnets then I'm sure biologists would find it very surprising, but it isn't something that would call evolutionary theory into question. Evolution is just descent with modification and natural selection.--Percy

Blind cave fish can regain sight, I think there must still be the information in the genome that can sometimes be manifest. The information already exists.

Could you then tell me what kind of "information" I should look at? And how do I measure this "specified complexity"? How can I see that information was gained or lost? Why? Because you say so?

Once again I ask you to provide evidence instead of just asserting. Show there was still information there.Also, according to your earlier post a "loss of information" is a loss of function. We can look at this in two ways. Either this is true (even though you still need to provide a way to measure this), and then they really lost the info when they went blind/lost their wings. Meaning that the regaining of this ability is a gain of information. Or, we can, as you now seem to say, say that a loss of function is not a loss of information, making your entire point rather, well, pointless.

You just moved the goalpost...You said that:

quote:

---

mutation leads to a loss of function

---

Gaining wings is certainly a gain of function.You also said:

quote:

---

I enjoy this type of debate that is why I am here. challenging myself to look up new information and see how it fits my beliefs.

---

Why are not doing this then? Instead of trying to learn about how mutation can lead to a gain in fucntion, you just go:

quote:

---

"Nuh-uh!"

---

That's what makes you a troll.

---

ABE: Oh, I see Its not that you could possibly just be wrong here, its that there must be some unknown thing that makes you right.So much for challenging your beliefs Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.