Increases in Genetic Information

Hi Jbozz, good question. Be cautious. They will try and trip you up by claiming "macro" evolution can occur also by deletions, repeated copy etc... But your right, and none of their examples explain how we go from primitive organisms to the complex ones we see today. Somewhere along the evolutionary path their had to be a whole lot of added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA of all multi-celled organisms. The only evidence in biology that can demonstrate this has possibly happened would be at least one observation of the above occuring. To my knowledge to date no such observation has ever been made.Also, watch out for the "bacteria" trap. They will try and slip examples of observed new information in bacteria. Failing to realize that bacteria are almost completely different from all other forms of life. Most of the changes they observe occur in the plasmids, something most multi-celled organisms don't have. Plus there is good reason to suggest that they were "designed" to cope with a variet of extreme situations where normal food supplies become scarce. This is why only examples of multi-celled organisms will really sufficiently aid us here.

I didn't notice that it had. Care to point out where? :0)

And if you LOOK, you will note that I am only asking for indirect evidence for evolution. I am not asking that we observe one major kind evolve into another. I am only asking for an observation of an important part of the process ie a reason to believe universal common decent is possible. Here’s the basic facts that we know, life exists and it does so by use of high amounts of incredibly specified information. More specified than our most advanced computer programs. The question then is, where did the code found in DNA come from? Did it form naturally over time as evolutionists claim, or is it the product of a supreme designer as the IDists claim? Well since we have observed the process of specified information forming from intelligence, in all other areas, then the scale of logic swings hard towards the ID theory. In order for it to swing back in favor of evolution we need to observe at least one process in which specified information forms by purely natural unguided processes. This is why we would need at least one case in which new never before existed information was observed being added to the chromosomal DNA of a multi-celled organism via random mutation, which gave that organism a selective advantage over its relatives.Then you might ask, well why can’t we just logically conclude this happened because we observe a close similarity of the code between two different species? The reason we cannot just make that assumption is because IDists predict that many similarities would exist between many of the kinds, because they all have a common designer. Sort of like if you asked one engineer to design 1,000 completely different forms of transportation. You would find that many of them possessed similar features simply because the designer found that those features worked best in solving similar problems that each form of transport would encounter. Therefore to be certain DNA code formed by evolutionary processes rather than a designer, we have to observe at least one case of the process at work.

When you consider the fact that single celled organisms don’t have the convenience of mobility that most multi-celled organisms do, then from a design standpoint, you would have to come up with novel ways for them to survive when food sources run out. I mean the little guys can’t just pickup and migrate to a new region where food is plentiful.Take for example the old Nylonase bacteria phenomena. The two species that evolved to metabolize nylon waste, Flavobacterium sp.K172 and Pseudomonas sp.NK87 S, did so via changes in the enzymes only located on the plasmids. The evolutionists claimed it was the result of a new enzyme EII which was the result of a frame shift. There was one theory that the fact there are five transposable elements on plasmid pOAD2, that it suggested it was designed to be adaptive. Opponents to this notion tried to claim that transposons jump around at random without regard to the cells need, and therefore the mechanism is purely random mutation and natural selection at work.But I don’t think they really considered the fact that transposons cleave to the DNA strand by use of their enzyme transposase, which recognize the specific nucleotide sequences (known as the insertion sequence). When that sequence is recognized the transposons insert into the DNA molecule. This then creates a direct repeat on each side of the transposons. When they’re activated, the transposase cause a genetic recombination. Studies have shown that these transposase are actually activated by external forces such as high temperature, starvation, and even poison exposure. (see Ohno, S., Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 81:2421—2425, 1984) This of course demonstrates that contrary to just randomly jumping around, they react to environmental conditions, which in turn suggests the transposase exist within the transposons in number, for a pre-designed purpose. Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.

Here are some interesting facts about human fossils. Did you know that the hominid fossils are so guarded that they are virtually beyond all access by the very scientists who study human evolution and bring us most of the literature about it? There is some notion out there that these fossils are all just readily available and thoroughly studied by scientists but it’s not true. Did you know that Paleoanthropology is a science that is quite literally always one step removed from the evidence it is supposed to be based on? Oh sure they have casts of the bones with which to study, but did you know that the notion that these casts are a true representation of the original fossils is also false? A fact that was proven in 1984 when the American Museum of Natural History in NY decided to have an exhibit of the original fossils. Display cases where made to fit the true casts of the fossils so that when the originals were brought in they would have special cases to go in. The funny thing was that when the originals where finally brought out for display, none of them fit in their cases. Not a single one. My point here of course is to ask the question, How can we know what to believe about human evolution when the scientists studying it don’t even have access to the actual evidence?Here is another interesting fact. Did you know that almost 4,000 hominid fossils had been discovered by 1976 but yet only 40 were put on display at the exhibit mentioned above in 1984? But oddly the organizer of the event, Ian Tattersalt, was quoted as saying that they had more than half of the entire human fossil record under one roof. That was clearly untrue. A good portion of the very important fossils were never even brought out to be put on display. Why? Today there are over 6,000 hominid fossils, and yet we hear from paleoanthropologists all the time that there are sparse few. It seems to me that what they more likely mean is there are sparse few that fit within their evolutionary view.Many operate under the misguided notion that we can trust what the scientific community is telling us about human evolution. But how quickly they forget things like more than 500 doctoral dissertations that were written between 1908 to 1953, about the famous Eoanthropus fossil. Which as you know turned out to be a hoax that went undiscovered for 45 years. Or about Pithecanthropus, discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1891 who claimed until his death that he had found "the real missing link." But it was discovered that he had kept a big secret for 30 years. In that same dig, in the same area and level he had also found two very fully human skulls which obviously could not have descended from a specimen that existed at the same time. Or about Sinanthropus, who was also claimed to be a missing link by the scientific community, but also kept secret that it better fit within the range of being fully human than a missing link. However they finally released this information after ten other fully human remains were found at the same site. Or what about Homo Habilis announced in 1964 (and widely published in National Geographic) to be the oldest link in human evolution. But actually was assembled from disassociated bone fragments. And then there’s the famous Australopithecus aka Lucy found in 1974, and publicized to be the oldest missing human link. However many mainstream scientists today are confident that Lucy is no more than an extinct type of ape. And what about Ramapithecu, also promoted as an ancestor to humans but later found to be only an extinct type of orangutan.Are we getting the picture yet? My intent here is not to slander mainstream science, but rather to demonstrate that my extreme skepticism of paleoanthropology is very much warranted. I know what you are going to reply to all of this, so allow me to beat you to the punch-line. Your about to say that that is the beauty of scienceits ability to correct itselfright? So here’s my question to that common response, Exactly how many uncorrected errors exist in science today? The answer of course would be that we haven’t a clue. I mean if we knew something was an error then we would correct it and it would no longer be an uncorrected errorright? So here’s my point. If we have no way to know how many uncorrected errors exist then logically we can’t know if sciences self-correcting system is really all that efficient.Perhaps you are pretty confident when you look at the parade of skulls presented by the scientific community as evidence for human evolution. But I am sorry I have no confidence in them at all. There are three main problems that I can point out, with the fossils and have already demonstrated these problems above. The first is that fossils are often selectively excluded if they do not fit the evolutionary scheme. The second is that some fossils are downgraded and made to appear less human than they actually are. And the third is that some fossils are upgraded to appear more human like. One final thought here on the self-corrective nature of science.In 1911 the world was presented with Neanderthalensis (aka Neanderthal) as another species of sub-humans. It was published as a brutish beast and became the classic icon for the notion of the cave-man concept that indwells much of the thinking of society today. It was later discovered that these people were every bit as human as you and I are. They were just a little more sturdily built and also several suffered from a disfiguring disease caused by diet. But the thing here is, that the correction of this error did not come until 1957, some 44 years after the damage had been done. And people had become so accustom to thinking of them as merely cave-men that that view has persistently stuck. The brutish display of the Neanderthals wasn’t even removed from the human evolution display in the Field Museums of Natural History in Chicago until the mid-70’s, almost 20 years after it was known to be wrong. And even then they didn’t totally remove it. They merely moved it to the 2nd floor, along side a huge Brontosaurus, and relabeled it, An alternate view of Neanderthal. So much for self-correction.

No clue... why?

Oh contraire silly rabbit. Most variations within species can be shown to be merely natural selection "selecting" already existing phenotypes within the species. The environmental conditions merely made those phenotypes become the predominant norm rather than the rare few. Besides your attempt to insult intelligent design proponents, this comment just shows you have no real desire to have an intelligent discussion. Of course we observe pre-programmed "reproduction" all the time. But what we never observe is the creation of a completely new never before existed DNA "CODE!"

No actually not. And I'm sure most have long since been quietly removed from circulation. But there is the life time works of Arthur Keith. Perhaps you've heard of one of his more famous books that centered on Piltdown Man. "The Antiquity of Man"

I don't believe it is off topic since a primary question posed in the topic is evidence for "macro-evolution." To which coyote commented that the evidence for human evolution would be a primary example of that evidence. I was merely pointing out that this evidence (so called) is really more of a stumble in the dark at best and riddled with more questions than answers. Well my normal MO is to speak, and then defend when asked. The reason being is because I used to waste a lot of time in these debates running down reference that nobody cared about. Since I do actually have a real life then time constraints make this counter productive. So if there is something specific I said you would like me to reference... by all means let me know.

Look I understand there has been a lot of attacks on creationists who have made the 500 thesis claim. And I will address that in a second. But first I want to know why this is so significant to the original point? Are you trying to say that no one was really all that deceived by the Piltdown man? And lets for the sake of argument let that one particular case fall to the side. The point I made is still substantiated by a significant number of others. So I really don’t see the relevance of this?Moving on, I am sure you think that none exist, so let me ask you a question. Why does a site that is famous for knocking creationists and intelligent design proponents (Wikipedia) also even admit that there were at least 250?And finally, here is a list of some publishing’s from the time period that seem to make the 500 claim more likely than dishonest as you imply.
http://www.clarku.edu/...report_finds/pilt_recolections.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...p_report_finds/pilt_re-examine.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...report_finds/pilt_man_discover.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...report_finds/revival_pilt_cont.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...report_finds/Keith_reconstruct.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...rt_finds/significance_discover.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...p_report_finds/pilt_skull_oct2.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...report_finds/pilt_skull_abbott.html
http://www.clarku.edu/..._report_finds/earliest_english.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...map_report_finds/note_pilt_man.html
http://www.clarku.edu/..._report_finds/discov_paleolith.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...ap_report_finds/supp_note_pilt.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...down/map_report_finds/bone_imp.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...own/map_report_finds/4th_night.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...wn/map_report_finds/Pilt_skull.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...n/map_report_finds/second_pilt.htmlEdited by Just being real, : No reason given.Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.

Lol! Okay, so I guess you guys really showed me huh? The fact that I said "doctoral dissertations" when I probably should have just said "PAPERS" totally destroys my whole point... how is that again exactly? Obviously as I already admitted, I don't know the thesis personally. And as I'm sure you already know, I followed someone else's error in poor choice of wording. But does this error in wording mean that no scientists were ever deceived by Piltdown man? And if that is true how exactly does that also undermine the fact that the public was deceived by Piltdown man along also with Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus, Homo Habilis, Australopithecus, Ramapithecu, and Neanderthalensis?Cause I'm not seeing the relevance, with the exception of a sad attempt at making me look bad as opposed to having anything really substantial to speak to the point I was making.

Who said anything about mutations here? I said that pre-existing phenotypes get selected. That's not a mutation. If gangsters walked into a nightclub and open fired with machine guns at waste height, killing everyone over four feet tall, then all the little people suddenly become the predominant population. The population didn't "mutate" into smaller people. The environment merely gave the little people who already existed, a selective advantage over their taller relatives.

Due to a request to get back on topic I will reserve my replies to everyones funny comments for another thread. Since only one of all of you addressed a post on topic I will comment on that one only. That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to establish Bluegenes. I’ve been asking for an example of observed mutation that added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA of any multi-celled organism that gave it a selective advantage over its relatives. Not an example where we have observed natural selection merely select already existing genes within the gene pool. So far no one has ever managed to present me with one. Not a single one. Huh? Every bedtime story I’ve ever been told about evolution has the information building up by the process of random mutations (in the genetic code) and natural selection, selecting those traits which give the organism an advantage to survive over the others. I’ve never heard anyone claim that the environment actually puts the information in there. If you have some new scientific theory on this, I’d love to hear it. I have a question for you to consider when it comes to claiming that the antifreeze gene is an example of added new information to the DNA code. If two species in any order are compared, who determines which of the two species are the oldest and possesses the genes of the original configuration? This is important because once again, how do we know the antifreeze gene may not have been the original, and the others without the gene aren’t the result of loss of information? Did someone invent time travel and go back to take samples of the original?Rather it is bacteria, fossils, or fish, if you are trying to demonstrate A is related to Z there must be at least one observed path somewhere to show relationship is even possible. You cannot use speculated relationship to prove added information, in order to prove relationship. If you do, now you are employing circular reasoning. If you are trying to establish relationship with fossils, for example, then the observed path would be in the form of a finely graduated chain between at least one set of major kinds. You should have at least one somewhere in order to logically assume that similarity between fossils, in all cases, equates to relationship. If you are trying to establish relationship with anything organic, you obviously can't observe this path over millions of years, so relationships between species are limited to what you can physically observe over relatively recent generations. Yes, with speciation, we have observed small changes occur. But these changes can be (in most of the cases) shown to be the result of natural selection, selecting already existing alleles, and over time a loss of information.The paper cited compares DNA of different species in order to conclude that fish have evolved an antifreeze protein. But in order for the difference between the two sequences to be meaningful, there must be a logical reason, based on observation, to conclude that the two species were in fact related and that the one with the missing antifreeze protein was the original configuration. Since such relationship obviously cannot be observed (over a 15 million year period), the paper must assume relationship through similarity. As I have previously said, we are looking for a case of added information to the DNA in order to establish that similarity equates to relationship between two kinds. You can’t first claim that similar DNA suggests that specie A is related to specie Y, and then turn around and suggest that similar DNA equates to relationship because A and Y are related. That is basing one argument off of the other and then establishing that one off of the first which as you should know is completely circular reasoning.In the case of the antifreeze gene, it is not a case of someone actually having observed new information added to the chromosomal DNA of a multi-celled organism. It's a prime example of a similarity argument turned in on itself. My unique genome is a combination of pre-existing genes from my mother and my father. I did not receive some completely new information that did not exist which gave me spider man abilities or the ability to see infrared light. We observe mixing of the existing genes in the gene pool all the time to create new unique combinations within the population. What I am looking for is the adding of new never before existed information that can show that molecules to man evolution is possible. I thought jbozz21 did a good job of explaining what is meant, but allow me to try to simplify what I am talking about here. Imagine asking Donald Trump how he got so wealthy. If he said, Well I started out as a wee lad with only five dollars to my name, and I opened a bank account in one bank and then I transferred all the money across town to another bank and then to another, and kept doing this, occasionally losing a penny here and a penny there, but over time I amassed my great wealth. You would scratch your head in confusion because obviously you know that a person cannot get wealthy just moving the same money back and forth. Somewhere along the way a good deal of new funds has to be added to Mr. Trumps account in order for him to be so rich. Likewise you can’t start out with a simple single celled organism and claim that through millions of years of transferring the same gene pool of information back and forth, it can eventually evolve into an astrophysicist. Somewhere along the way we would have to introduce a whole lot of new genes that produce a whole lot of new and advanced phenotypes.

The reason it's necessary is because the term "mutation" can be extremely deceiving and can give the wrong impression. It is a word that is often (even by those in the professional field) incorrectly applied to situations such as, where nuclear contamination produces deformities. It is often misused to describe deformed flies, snakes with two heads, albino animals, children with Down Syndrome, renegade cancer cells, etc... These are all genetic "flaws," not advanced genes which carry life forward. And that is what we are looking for here. Also, damaged genes are not truly new genetic codes. They are mistakes within present gene combinations. Something like smacking your TV with a base ball bat and getting an all red or all yellow picture. The result is not a new brand of television, but rather just a broken one. For a true mutation to occur that demonstrates the mechanism of macro evolution, the DNA would have to somehow reorganize into a genetic sequence that has never been known before now that gives the organism a selective advantage, and I don't think that has ever happened in either nature or in the laboratory.

And I explained in post 28 why observation is important in this situation. Perhaps you missed it.

quote:

---

We know that life exists and it does so by use of high amounts of incredibly specified information. More specified than our most advanced computer programs. The question then is, where did the code found in DNA come from? Did it form naturally over time as evolutionists claim, or is it the product of a supreme designer as the IDists claim? Well since we have observed the process of specified information forming from intelligence, in all other areas, then the scale of logic swings hard towards the ID theory. In order for it to swing back in favor of evolution we need to observe at least one process in which specified information forms by purely natural unguided processes. This is why we would need at least one case in which new never before existed information was observed being added to the chromosomal DNA of a multi-celled organism via random mutation, which gave that organism a selective advantage over its relatives.

​

Then you might ask, well why can’t we just logically conclude this happened because we observe a close similarity of the code between two different species? The reason we cannot just make that assumption is because IDists predict that many similarities would exist between many of the kinds, because they all have a common designer. Therefore to be certain DNA code formed by evolutionary processes rather than a designer, we have to observe at least one case of the process at work.

---

And the main point I want to stress is that just shrugging your shoulders and saying, I don’t believe in an intelligent designer therefore that is not even an option, is not a valid reason for ignoring the necessity of observation here. That is nothing more than a personal bias. That would be akin to me telling SETI that I don’t believe in evolution and therefore your search for extra-terrestrial intelligence on other planets is dumb and a waste of time. As someone with a scientific mindset I would encourage exploration of all possible avenues. Wouldn’t you? I’m sorry was there one I missed that I haven’t responded to? I thought I had replied to all that had been presented thus far. But I’m far from perfect and could have easily missed some. Perhaps you would be so kind as to give me the post numbers? Just to be clear here, by mutations do you mean flaws in the replication of existing genes from the human gene pool, or do you mean completely new gene sequences that provide a selective advantage? And if the later, do you have a paper you can cite in which a study was performed observing the human population over time where the a new generation of humans had a genetic advantage over their parent population? Because I’ve never heard of this study but like I said, I am far from perfect. Hmmm, I must say I have difficulty believing that anyone began a scientific study on human lactose persistence 5000 years ago, meaningful enough that we can go back to and examine the data collected from all the DNA samples taken of all the humans back then. JK! Seriously though, in order for this example to fit the bill of "observed new information in our DNA, there would have to be a study in which a parent population was isolated and examined so that it was known not to already have the lactose gene, and then watched develop the new phenotype over several generations. Got anything like that?Because the Wikipedia article appears to be merely yet another example of natural selection, selecting already existing genes from the populations gene pool. And that doesn’t help us demonstrate that macro evolution can happen.Also just FYI, if an example is presented in a debate situation, that is then shown to be inadequate to fill the requirements, then it no longer counts as an example. Just thought you should know.