Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 190 of 752 (577291)
08-27-2010 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Tram law
08-22-2010 2:17 PM


A fact within, I agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Tram law, posted 08-22-2010 2:17 PM Tram law has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 191 of 752 (577292)
08-27-2010 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by jar
08-22-2010 2:23 PM


I agree with you as well, we should follow where the evidence points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by jar, posted 08-22-2010 2:23 PM jar has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 192 of 752 (577293)
08-27-2010 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by abrown9
08-22-2010 5:44 PM


Micro evolution yes. My specific point is that mutation in documented experiments such as these do not point to gradual increased complexity, or indroduction of new information (genetically speaking). although physical attributes did change, they affected the family negatively, and used existing information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by abrown9, posted 08-22-2010 5:44 PM abrown9 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-28-2010 12:46 AM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 193 of 752 (577299)
08-28-2010 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Dr Adequate
08-22-2010 6:14 PM


I'm at work, and responding on my iPhone, so you will have to excuse my short reply.
My secret for measuring information is genetic complexity.
"I thought you had already admitted that" I completely agree with genetic difference in dog species. I still want
a reference to support your claim.
"In this case, it's both. I have long experience of reading creationist literature."
This is STILL an opinion. Two people can read the same literature and come to separate conclusions about the findings.
"And if creationists asserting stuff, without evidence, without references, about experiments they didn't do, was in any way a substitute for evidence, then creationism would be on a much firmer footing than it actually is."
My experiment is documented. I'm not required to preform any experiments i use to defend an opinion. If this were the case, this foru
Would be very quiet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2010 6:14 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-28-2010 12:44 AM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 196 of 752 (577419)
08-28-2010 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Dr Adequate
08-28-2010 12:44 AM


"And how do you measure genetic complexity?"
"‘As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule. It is this physical indeterminacy of the sequence that produces the improbability of any particular sequence and thereby enables it to have a meaninga meaning that has a mathematically determinate information content."
(Michael Polanyi, chairman of physical chemistry at the University of Manchester)
The length and diversity of amino acid sequences in nucleotides that provide the instructions for the production of protiens and instructions for the size, shape, and (inter)function of complex systems that are found in complex organisms and unique to specific species. This complexity is explained by the large amount of information found in DNA sequences. If you need further clarification, google it.
"And in this particular case one of them will be flat-out wrong. That would be you." This is also an opinion, since the only reason I am wrong is that my opinions differ from yours, yet we both believe in an untested, non scientific theory. The only point we differ on is that your explanation for the beginning (and diversity) or life is naturalistic. This doesn't make you right.
No response to my fruit fly experiments? Let me get you started.
Drosophila melanogaster - Wikipedia
Please, offer some sort of scientific evidence against my claim. You are usually so good at that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-28-2010 12:44 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by anglagard, posted 08-29-2010 10:18 PM dennis780 has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 197 of 752 (577421)
08-28-2010 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Dr Adequate
08-28-2010 12:46 AM


"My specific point is that mutation in documented experiments such as these do not point to gradual increased complexity, or indroduction of new information ...
Then your specific point is wrong. Obviously a new allele is new information. This is because DNA contains information, and because new things are new."
Genetic diversity is a documented and scientific fact. Variation within a species is a good example of micro evolution, but does
Not explain the oorigin of new genetic information, but rather the explanation of genetic traits passed from pre existing information from parents.
"DNA contains information" WAIT! How do you know DNA has information? Prove it. Hahahahahaha. At least we can forgo the information jazz, since we are now both (finally) saying that DNA contains genetic information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-28-2010 12:46 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2010 7:22 PM dennis780 has replied
 Message 199 by Blue Jay, posted 08-28-2010 8:09 PM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 200 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-29-2010 12:20 AM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 202 of 752 (577491)
08-29-2010 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by crashfrog
08-28-2010 7:22 PM


"by definition, be an increase in genetic information within that species."
No, by definition, this would be an increase in diversity of existing information. The only possible information that could be different from that of either parent would be the result of copying errors, or corrupted DNA (in some form or another). Though you could possibly be born with different colors of eyes, it is impossible for your body to code for eye color that is not inherant from either parent line. The only possible difference could be corrupted alleles that would code for no color, but this is another example of genetic LOSS.
"all individuals in a species would be clones of each other."
Asexual species do this.
"we know that individuals have access to a source of genetic information beyond heredity" I'm DYING to know where the source for this is.
"100 germline mutations that they did not inherit from either parent or from anybody else. These mutations represent novel genetic information." Of the sum billions of genetic code found (in humans)? If you were on a beach, and you picked up a handful of sand, this is the amount of genetic difference caused by mutation could possibly be. Most of those, based on genetic research, would be useless information (due to corruption), or harmful (loss of physical or mental trait).
Anything else genius?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2010 7:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-29-2010 9:27 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 206 by crashfrog, posted 08-29-2010 12:37 PM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 203 of 752 (577493)
08-29-2010 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Dr Adequate
08-29-2010 12:20 AM


[qt]No. Variation within a species is a good example of variation within a species. For something to be an example of microevolution, it has to be an example of evolution.[/qt]
No, microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population. This is exactly what you described in your previous email. Would you like me to go find it for you?
As I have stated many times. I am 2/3 evolutionist. I believe in genetic diversity, and gradual change over time. I dispute the definition of evolution that states that organisms over time form new, usually more complex organisms. This is not documented.
"Mutation explains the origin of new genetic information." I'm not disputing that either. Mutation, as I have given in previous examples, can bring about slight advantages. Are we arguing whether genetic mutation exists? Because I think we are in agreement that it does. I think to save us both some time, we should discuss whether or not it is possible for an organism to GAIN complexity over time, and list references for this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-29-2010 12:20 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-29-2010 9:17 AM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 208 of 752 (577648)
08-29-2010 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Dr Adequate
08-29-2010 9:17 AM


quote:
As you admit that this is what I have said, why did you begin this paragraph with the word "no" rather than the word "yes"?
If this is what you said in your last response, then yes. I was refering to your arguement in the last email to...whatever. No response to my arguement. Good enough.
quote:
That is not the definition of evolution.
evolution
1. The process of developing
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny
3. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
Again. I am 2/3 evolutionist. Do I get a special card or something?
quote:
Please tell us how to measure the complexity of an organism.
I did, twice now. If you can't use the previous explanations to figure out why you are more complex than a single celled organism (though this is debatable as well in your case), then perhaps this is not the right forum for you. I really don't know how to explain it any better than that (or better than my quoted scientist).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-29-2010 9:17 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Blue Jay, posted 08-30-2010 12:05 AM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 210 of 752 (577657)
08-29-2010 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by crashfrog
08-29-2010 12:37 PM


quote:
Right, and that diversity can only increase by adding additional, new information.
Scientific source supporting your claim? No one is disputing genetic variation, but that mutation can, over time, result in new, useful genetic material, in turn leading to development of a new species (man-ape).
quote:
these changes are the means by which new genetic information arises.
thughyomig t be hin kin tth atcop yingerr scan re ltin usefl matr al treall yd oesn papear hatt w y.
Sorry, let me try that again. There were some copying errors in the above statement...
Though you might be thinking that copying errors can result in useful material, it really doesn't appear that way. Though it is documented that genetic mutation has resulted in beneficial changes to a species (see previous messages with Dr. Adequate and myself), these examples of mutation were the result of genetic loss.
quote:
every single base pair in the human genome to have been mutated approximately four thousand times.
And more than likely has. Physical examples of these would include dwarfism, albino eyes and skin colors, etc. How is this scientific evidence of new useful genetic information from genetic mutation?
quote:
except for where their genetics diversify as a result of new information gained by random mutations.
Documented. Same question still applies.
quote:
mutations to various genes can alter the composition and concentration of iris pigmentation.
Again, not disputing this.
Baiting me to deny that genetic mutation can cause physical characteristics to change is useless. Genetic mutation is a documented scientific FACT.
quote:
Mutation is the source of genetic information not received via heredity.
NO. Mutation is your explanation. Your reference would be (since I have to fight for both sides now):
quote:
Many organisms have been observed to acquire various new functions which they did not have previously (Endler 1986). Bacteria have acquired resistance to viruses (Luria and Delbruck 1943) and to antibiotics (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Bacteria have also evolved the ability to synthesize new amino acids and DNA bases
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5
Now, would you like me to respond to the source I found for you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by crashfrog, posted 08-29-2010 12:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by crashfrog, posted 08-29-2010 11:46 PM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 213 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2010 12:45 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 226 by abrown9, posted 08-31-2010 2:11 PM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 218 of 752 (577928)
08-31-2010 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Blue Jay
08-30-2010 12:05 AM


quote:
Your previous explanations for how you measure information or complexity of DNA were:
Nucleotides. Geez. Everyone in here is so touchy. Wheres the sense of humour?
quote:
You have a lot to learn about both science and interpersonal communication, son.
Unless you are my dad, I doubt I'll be taking interpersonal skills from you, and don't call me son, dad.
quote:
a very problematic answer, because I’m pretty sure the organism with the most base-pairs
NOT only base pairs. You forgot teaspoons. And as I said in a previous post, I have no idea which organisms are the most complex, as I haven't done any research into it, but it's not beyond the realm of possiblity that mammals are not the most complex. Physical appearance has no play on genetic information.
quote:
So, there are three possibilites:
4. I have no idea who you are, but you have offered no scientific opinion whatsoever. It appears you have come to school me on proper treatment of others...so let me try this:
if you have something to add, I'm interested. If not, goodbye. That was pretty nice, hey?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Blue Jay, posted 08-30-2010 12:05 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Blue Jay, posted 08-31-2010 9:01 PM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 219 of 752 (577931)
08-31-2010 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Dr Adequate
08-30-2010 12:45 AM


quote:
These alone are sufficient to turn any given genome into any other; just as adding and removing and altering enough letter will turn any book into any other book.
So, you are saying that if random letters are changed in a book to any random letters, eventually, you will have a completely new book with a coherant message?
quote:
A claim which is not "documented", nor indeed well-defined.
If you want examples, just ask. Organisms such as the wingless beetle living on an island, eyeless fish living in caves, and horses that no longer have split hooves are prime examples of natural selection due to genetic loss. Calling me a liar before I have a chance to offer examples is silly (I can go get the resources for these examples if you like, as well as others).
quote:
Physical example would also include evidence of new useful genetic information from genetic mutations. Stop cherry-picking reality.
But it's so easy to find examples of genetic loss. I'd really have to work to find examples of genetic gain. I may even have to resort to antibiotic resistance, and horizontal gene transfer.
quote:
You admit that antibiotic resistance can be transmitted through plasmids
It would be silly for me to assume otherwise, since this was documented in the Nylonese and E. Coli experiments...
quote:
Does the gain of a plasmid constitute a "genetic loss" --- or a genetic gain?
Genetic gain. Continue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2010 12:45 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-31-2010 6:31 AM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 220 of 752 (577932)
08-31-2010 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Wounded King
08-30-2010 2:47 AM


Re: Shocking lack of amino acids in DNA
quote:
What is it with creationists/IDists and this nonsense. This is something like the third one we have had turning up here talking about amino acids in DNA.
You nincompoop. Did I say there are acids in nucleotides? No. I said the sequences are in the nucleotides. Which they are. Nucleotide arrangements code for amino acids. Were you adopted?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Wounded King, posted 08-30-2010 2:47 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2010 5:00 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 258 by Theodoric, posted 09-01-2010 11:05 AM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 221 of 752 (577934)
08-31-2010 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by bluegenes
08-30-2010 6:24 AM


Re: Shocking lack of amino acids in DNA
quote:
Dennis has got a first there, and could start an interesting meme.
Thats funny. Cause I just searched this:
"Evolution facts are found" in google...and got this:
No results found for "Evolution facts are found".
This is because if you put quotes on, google will only search for websites with that exact phrase. Just because I'm an ID, doesn't mean I don't know how google works. At least your search found one result.
ID =1
Evo =0
That divine link brings you to some wierd hebrew-DNA site. I have no idea what this is for...I read it, but I have no reason to accept any of that as fact, since I don't speak hebrew, and don't follow conspiracy theories...partly why I don't accept evolution. BAM.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by bluegenes, posted 08-30-2010 6:24 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Wounded King, posted 08-31-2010 6:40 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 224 by Huntard, posted 08-31-2010 6:52 AM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 225 by bluegenes, posted 08-31-2010 7:46 AM dennis780 has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 233 of 752 (578174)
09-01-2010 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Dr Adequate
08-31-2010 6:31 AM


quote:
Although this is obviously true, that's not actually what I was saying. Read it again.
I'm going to have to say no. If a blind man typed for a million years (this guy can live forever for this exmaple) on a keyboard, I would doubt that he would even make any more than a few coherant sentences, and short ones at that.
quote:
though we would have to await your definition of "genetic loss".
Incorrectly sequenced nucleotides, or damaged codons should suffice for this discussion. Unless, you prefer using teaspoons again.
quote:
P.S: What's this about horses and split hooves?
Three-toed horses are called hipparions by evolutionists. Evolutionists believe these were ancestors to the modern horse, and creationists believe that horses simply had split hooves, and lost the genetic codes required for that trait, giving a single hoof.
It is irrelevant who is correct, since we all agree that horses in the past did not have a single hoof.
quote:
Yeah, being right sometimes involves work.
You're preaching to the choir here Doc. I'm working my bag off over here. I put up one post, and have to respond to 5 people. Which begs the question, am I the only ID supporter around? Does anyone know of specific users that are ID's?
quote:
if gaining these genes through lateral gene transfer is "genetic gain", is it not also "genetic gain" when they originally arise through mutation?
You have not shown that new genes can arise through random mutation. But if you prove this, then yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-31-2010 6:31 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-01-2010 3:21 AM dennis780 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024