Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

If the message is the genome, then evolution is the producer because random mutations modify and add information to the message.But still, with you're view on information, there is no "receiver" of the message in DNA, so DNA cannot contain information. Who is the receiver?

The process explained by the Theory of Evolution does.That is: Random Mutation + Natural Selection.

The new information comes from the random mutations and the natural selection determines if it sticks around or not.Evolution does require some starting info though...Where that came from you can learn about by studying abiogenesis.

No, they're saying that the transition didn't arrise from the normal gradual accumulation of mutations but rather by the combination of organisms.Take a look at:Symbiogenesis - Wikipedia More details on how shit went down...

They're trying to "poke holes" in evolution...Did you read about the Endosymbiotic Theory that I linked to?The idea is that some organelles were originally a seperate thing that then got absorbed into a prokaryote.This guys is saying that it hasn't been observed yet, so therefore it can't happen, ergo there's a problem with evolution... or something like that.

From your later posts, its seems like you think that L&M are saying that the prokaryote evolved one time in one single organism. Yeah?This is the source of your confusion, me thinks.

Well, I still don't think they're saying it was one organism, but whatever... I see three problems here.First: The inability of science to explain something is not evidence for something else. You are making a God of the Gaps argument and those are not good ideas.Science cannot explain what causes one particular atom to go through radioactive decay, so would you say that God is picking and choosing which ones will?Second: Not being accountable by neo-Darwinian theory is not positive evidence for design. We see the ID crowd making this same mistake over and over where instead of finding evidence to support their position, they try to discredit the opposing position as if theirs will be left by default. This is incorrect.Assuming this "jump" cannot be explained by the current Theory of Evolution, when we do find out how this "jump" happened, the scientific explanation will still be that of naturalistic phenomenon and it might even be just an addition to the current theory.Third: Positive evidence supports theories. Showing how another theory cannot explain something is not providing positive evidence for your theory.What you need to do, is come up with a mechanism for how the transition was planned and how it was employed and then find the evidence that supports that theory.Saying "I believe it was planned" is not a theory and saying "look, evolution can't explain this" is not providing support for that non-theory.

---

The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. - St. Thomas Aquinas

That's why you need a selective pressure. If you kept all the random mix of letters that did make words and re-shook all the ones that didn't, eventually you would have enough words to at least make some line from Shakespeare.

How do you know?

Funny you should mention wings... we've seen that they've been lost and reemerged in one group of bugs.I'm just going to take the rebuttle to this from one of RAZD's previous posts:From Message 104

quote:

---

Fascinatingly, we have samples of this actually occurring:

​

Newsroom - The Source - Washington University in St. Louis

quote:

---

Walking sticks regained flight after 50 million years of winglessness
Maxwell and his collaborators at Brigham Young University discovered that some species lost the ability to fly at one point of their evolution and then re-evolved it 50 million years later.

---

​

And it is not just ONE such instance, but several. See Figure 1 from Nature 421, 264 - 267 (16 January 2003); doi:10.1038/nature01313 (reproduced below)

​

Walkingstick insects originally started out as wingless insects (blue at start and top row). That diversified.

​

And some gained wings (red). And diversified.

​

And some lost wings (blue again). And diversified.

​

And one gained wings again (Lapaphus parakensis, below, red again).

​

So again, how does each of these mutations involve loss of information?

---

What makes you a troll is that you avoided the responses that promoted a healthy discussion of your questions and instead focused on the more flaming repsonses that you could impose your martyr conplex upon. You showed no intention of actually seeking any knowledge or information about the questions you asked but instead just wanted bitch about the evolutionists. Then what's left to discuss? Since this site is still really active, it seems there's a little more to it than that. Your behavior shows otherwise. You're a big fat stinky doo-doo head. You're the one who ran away... Good! We'll just continue learning without you. Too bad you're gonna be left in the dust.

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.

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.

Wierd... I've been here for years and this is the first time I've seen it.From my point of view, the most commonly argued proof of evolution is that its as blindingly fucking obvious as gravity and the only reason to deny it is because it conflicts with your theological views.Well that, and the simple fact that not one single example of any animal has ever been shown to be unable to be produced by the process of evolution.