Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

quote:

---

an experiment that shows that 12% of mutations occurring in certain E.coli allowed them to metabolize maltose

---

Brown, we have already discussed the E. Coli experiments, and this is not an example of random mutation. The cell wall elongation it caused (among other things), which is detrimental in other environments--basically handicapped the bacteria, and their fitness level dropped. This is called ecological specialization, and is not support for random mutation.

quote:

---

Now, if we humans obtained a mutation that allowed us to metabolize rocks, SURELY that would be considered "new information" in our genetic pool?

---

Humans would have been able to eat small rocks in the past (though it wouldn't have provided any nutritional value). The appendix provides a pouch off the main intestinal tract, in which cellulose can be trapped and be subjected to prolonged digestion. Though in humans, the appendix is shrinking, in the past it would have produced cellulose strong enough to eat raw meat, and quite easily digest small rocks.

quote:

---

Science is based on a foundation of logic.

---

High five!

quote:

---

is the most complex, or has the most information?

---

No. It's not about who has the most. More for me, more for me. Complexity of chemical arrangements is also a factor. As well, many organisms (including humans) have alot of 'junk' DNA that codes for nothing. This is also a factor (among other things).

quote:

---

In this comment, you emphasize the importance of message coherence.

---

No, in this comment, I compare the chemical arrangements of nucleotides to words in a book. The doc and I are on this because I quoted a scientist earlier on that compared the information found in DNA to be different from that of specific chemical arrangements, much like the words in a book. If you want to jump into our posts, I'm diggity, but read back a bit so you are up to speed on whats going on.

quote:

---

You have affirmed the existence of HGT, and have now affirmed that it is a genetic gain.

---

Yeeeess. And this genetic change comes at a cost to the organism, and also is not evidence for random mutation, but for antibiotic resistance. But there is genetic change, and new information is present. Dr. Adequate has a good point. Although I am not convinced the entire spectrum of organic life came from antibiotic resistance (HGT), it is still a valid point. Mooving on.

quote:

---

Yet, you say that it is not macroevolution.

---

HGT is not the explanation for random mutation, since this change is not random. As well, for HGT to explain the origin of life, we must believe that evolution created horizontal gene transfer, which in itself required various complex mechanisms, for which you would need to explain the origin of.

quote:

---

This tells me that you haven’t actually formed a coherent idea about what macroevolution is either, nor about how it relates to genetics

---

Hey, you are the evolutionist. If it's HGT you want, go at it big rigger. Argue the point. No one here has offered any reasonable explanation to the origin of complex structures, HGT included. Thats your job. Mine is to make you look dumb....like right now. You only one here that is refusing to respond with any sort of intelligence. Even the new guys have scientific sources.If you want to voice opinions on my beliefs, send me a private message. This is a science driven thread, and if I state something that is unscientific, or not supported by evidence, feel free to respond.

quote:

---

I hope this at least gives you an idea of why everybody has given you so much pressure over this.

---

Everyone else, crashfrog, Dr. adequate, Abrown etc. all are giving me pressure because our VIEWPOINTS DIFFER. And that is perfectly logical. If your next message is you spewing random opinions on my beliefs, you can sleep at night knowing that it will be untouched.

quote:

---

Where "incorrectness" and "damage" are assessed how?

---

By the ultimate sliver teaspoon. hahahha. During RNA translation, an incorrectly placed stop codon that prematurely terminates the message, errors during transcription, teaspoon taps frameshifts, intron removal errors, etc.

quote:

---

Can you find any of these cloven-hooved horses in the fossil record? Only we have plenty of three-toed ones.

---

No, because I never once claimed cloven hooved. I said split. Which is true. The third 'toe' was on the side, and shrank over time, while the two split toes remained functional.

quote:

---

A line of "true equines" in which the side toes sometimes began to decrease in size.
Horse Evolution

---

quote:

---

In the case of antibiotic resistance, I believe we did.

---

Oh good, so disease, and harmful environments caused all of life. Thats nice. I don't suppose you have any evidence for this?

quote:

---

Against stiff competition, that's the funniest thing I've read all week.

---

You know what is even funnier than that??? Using your websites to prove you wrong. HAHAhahahahhaha.

quote:

---

The human appendix has lost a major and previously essential function, namely cellulose digestion. Though during primate evolution it has decreased in size to a mere rudiment, the appendix retains a structure that was originally specifically adapted for housing bacteria and extending the time course of digestion.
Vestigiality of the human appendix

---

quote:

---

Or "handicapped"?

---

Handicapped - One who makes jokes for alternative viewpoints, but first does not check his/her own resources to see if he will look stupid. Handicapped.

quote:

---

you seem to think that a website that says that the appendix used to digest cellulose is actually supporting your claims

---

As well as this one:

quote:

---

The appendix is present in many primates, and primarily (pun intended) used to aid in the digestion of cellulose. Located between the small and large intestines, the appendix and neighboring caecum slows down the body's digestive process. (For drawings of the structure in various mammals click (2)here.) The human appendix (commonly referred to as the vermiform appendix, although Mayr calls it the caecal appendix) has lost this cellulose-digesting ability. Dr. Douglas Theobald argues that while humans do consume some cellulose, the ability of the caecum and appendix to digest it is insignificant. Consequently, plants like grass cannot be digested by humans.
410 error - Gone

---

quote:

---

Reduced Digestibility of raw fibers, in particular. Most people cannot digest raw food fibers very well. They lack the enzymes to digest cellulose and the others. This is a fact, even if one does not like it. Taking a cellulase enzyme will help, but will not overcome this problem.
RAW FOOD AND JUICING

---

quote:

---

That there are different strengths of cellulose with respect to this imaginary digestive function.

---

Since animals have functional appendixes today, such as apes, the purpose of this organ can be clearly defined.

quote:

---

Sometimes I think creationism is not so much an ideology as a cognitive disorder.

---

Even I think thats funny.

quote:

---

To the extent that this is written in English, you seem to be calling all mutations "genetic loss".

---

You asked:

quote:

---

Where "incorrectness" and "damage" are assessed how?

---

And these are all examples. There are more. Don't be such a poopypants.

quote:

---

Well, I suppose the sequence of mutations from monkey to man (for example) lost the genes for being a monkey as such. But it seems to me that something was gained also.

---

This is nothing more than an obvious statement. If evolution is true, then of course information would be lost and gained over milliions of years. It would be unlikely to find anything else.It offers no relevance to our current subject, being origin of genetic chemical arrangements.

quote:

---

If creationists have their own version of the evolution of the horse, perhaps you could link me to someone moderately coherent explaining it.

---

Yet somehow you managed to figure out what I said. If I'm incoherant, and you can read what I am writing...

quote:

---

Split and cloven are synonyms.

---

No. Since Split can refer to other animals, including Rhino's and Camels, that have three toes, where as cloven cannot, as it only refers to animals with two.

quote:

---

Of course, I said nothing of the sort, and you are unlikely to deceive anyone by pretending that I did.

---

Well, we are back to square one now aren't we...I thought you had a point to make on HGT....

quote:

---

No they aren't.

---

Oops. I meant codons. Your right.I'm typing too fast. Thats okay. You're an evolutionist, you are used to mistakes...

quote:

---

rational metric

---

Dummy this please, no idea what your point is....

quote:

---

answer to the question of how to measure

---

You never seem to finish sentences. It's hard to read what your points are, but I think I got this one.Nucleotide content, coding densities, total functional DNA sequences, and complexity of sequences.Lets put this another way, since you obviously do not accept the above answer (don't bother, every evolutionist is the same, even though I quoted a scientist talking about the information content in codons and DNA in a previous post, I'll have a little fun with this).Which is more complex: Human, or an amoeba? AND why?And you cannot use any of the answers I provided, since you called them all wrong.

quote:

---

Are adopted people particularly stupid?

---

Statistically, they are more likely drop out of school, commit crimes, and not go to college.

quote:

---

new brand of bigoted christian fascism

---

HEIL HITLER. hahahaha

quote:

---

there some sort of handbook about how to show you know nothing about genetics/molecular biology that they are all following?

​

Or that you can't talk about molecular biology coherently

​

I'm not sure that just whining

---

All from your previous posts. I'm just saying, if you can't take it, don't dish it.

quote:

---

First they come for the jews, then the gays, then the adopted?

---

I would have done adopted first, but its up to you I suppose...

quote:

---

No they aren't.

---

(speaking of nucleotide sequences)Okay, then where do Amino acids come from? Because now all of a sudden, they don't come from nucleotide sequences...you are re-inventing science, right before my eyes. I am not worthy.Anways, I haven't seen any real scientific responses in your post...I'll tell you the same thing I told Bluebird or whatever. If you want to critize my personal beliefs, write me a message. If something I wrote on here is scientifically incorrect, feel free to correct me, or offer a rebuttal.If you want to distort my evidences to make them incorrect, and offer no resources for any claim in regards to the current topic, then goodbye.You too will be able to sleep at night knowing that your next post will be untouched if you don't offer evidence to support your beliefs. If I am required to, so are you. Bye Timmy.

quote:

---

That's another website saying that the function of the appendix is to digest cellulose.

---

Yes, thats my point...is it not? Whats going on here.

quote:

---

That the appendix used to produce cellulose.

---

Since cellulose is found in raw foods, it shouldn't produce it, it should digest it. Thats my point.

quote:

---

That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest small rocks.

---

The appendix contains lymphoid tissue. Not cellulose. The cellulose comes from the raw foods.

quote:

---

Quite so. It is to digest cellulose.

---

THATS WHAT I'M SAYING.I can't remember what point I wanted to make, because now you are agreeing with me. I'm lost.

quote:

---

Ah, creationist dialectic at its finest.

---

*brushes shoulder*

quote:

---

Since you include "transcription errors" in your list of things that constitute "genetic loss", aren't you claiming that all mutations (except perhaps chromosome fission and fusion) constitute "genetic loss", whatever their result?

---

Where "incorrectness" and "damage" are assessed how? Thats how. I never claimed this was due to a loss. You asked me to give you examples of genetic damage and incorrect sequencing, and I did.

quote:

---

Or "mutation" as it is more concisely known.

---

Right, but if I use that terminology, you would have attacked my word choice, so I am required to use alternatives that prevent this.

quote:

---

You are still not communicating to me what you think creationists think the limbs of the ancestors of modern horse looked like, and how this differs from the opinion of people who have looked at the limbs of the ancestors of modern horses.

---

It is irrelevant, as I stated before, since both evolutionists and creationists agree that horse ancestors had split hooves. The means of this are trivial, since we are not debating this subject. You simply asked me about it, so I gave you the source for the information. I assumed it was because you didn't believe that this was true. A side note of our current discussion.Unless you want to change the topic?

quote:

---

And you will find it in my posts.

---

What? Which message was the point made in?? I can't find it. You left off after asking me if HGT constitutes new genetic information...and I said yes...expecting you to make some sort of association between HGT and genetic origins.Or was that the point?

quote:

---

It would therefore seem to be your "point", such as it is:

​

* That the appendix used to produce cellulose.
* That cellulose digests things.
* That there are different strengths of cellulose with respect to this imaginary digestive function.
* That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest raw meat.
* That some cellulose is "strong" enough to digest small rocks.
* That anyone who disagrees with you about this is handicapped.

---

Oh. Well I'm definitely wrong. And logically, proved myself handicapped.Ooops. HAHAHAHAHHA. It's wayyyy to early for this. I'm starting to have fun proving myself wrong.

quote:

---

Yeah. You see now why you should listen to the nice evolutionists?

---

Dammit, I'm never going to live this down now. It was an accident, it's freakin 4am where I am. I'm tired, and I have to poop.

quote:

---

But in post 233, you said that this genetic damage and incorrect sequencing was the very definition of "genetic loss".

---

Genetic loss would be any sequence of dna that has been changed in any way that renders chemically useless nucleotide arrangements. These are just examples of these, which is what I thought you wanted.

quote:

---

Got that? You say that "errors during transcription" constitute incorrectness and/or damage

---

I also said others. I was offering up examples of genetic loss...what is the problem? Do you need ALL causes of genetic loss to prove that genetic loss can happen? It's obvious that this does happen, and is a documented scientific fact. I'm not sure what you want exactly...

quote:

---

Right, but if I use that terminology, you would have attacked my word choice...

​

No.

---

Oh, well then mutation.

quote:

---

I then pointed out that by doing experiments with clonal lines, we can demonstrate that such resistance does arise by mutation without HGT being implicated or indeed possible.

---

I'm confused, are you saying that HGT is the source for the origin of new information? Or random mutation passed within families of specific organisms...because I already talked quite a bit about how HGT handicaps the organism in most cases...And can I have the link again for the experiments on clonal lines?? I want to read it again. Or was that the E. Coli experiment you quoted earlier?

quote:

---

I had the impression that you were saying that all transcription errors were genetic loss. If you just mean those that cause a gene to cease functioning, that would be quite reasonable.

---

No as I said before I agree with you that HGT can bring about new genetic information in an organism. But the information used must have a source. As well, when the selective conditions are removed, the genetic information (that was horizontally transferred) becomes redundant and is eventually discarded by the cells to enable them to survive among the faster-growing "wild-type" bacteria. Between the negative effects that usually occur, and the information being discarded (as well as the the source of information not having an explanation), HGT doesn't seem to be a plausible fit to origin of, or tool for, new complex chemical arrangements in DNA.

quote:

---

No, it's just a way of passing it around.

---

We are agreeing too much...somethings wrong. I feel a trap.So then, are we not discussing the origin of new genetic material? What is the topic??

quote:

---

Now, as you can see, they started with a single individual --- just one cell of yeast. Hence there is no possibility of the relevant genes merely being passed around by HGT before arising by mutation.

---

In the example you gave:

quote:

---

better assimilation of the phosphate, presumably due to an improvement in the permease molecule.

---

This does not conflict with the ID theory. The new pathway would still be based on existing pathway DNA. Generations over time did not "evolve" the permease pathway over time. It existed in the original cell.

quote:

---

occurred because of a mutation to the yeast's phosphatase

---

This example does not tell us whether the mutation was due to genetic loss or gain, so I really don't know how to comment.

quote:

---

Also, in one replication, the processing of phosphate was improved by a duplication of the gene that produces phosphatase.

---

Existing information.I'm still unclear as to whether or not we are debating the origin of DNA or not...or if mutations can result in new information. Because I have already conceded that this is possible, but that HGT is not it, since it does not explain the origin of the information.

quote:

---

shut your fucking mouth.

---

I'm typing you moron. My mouth IS shut.

Bluejay,I'll pick through and answer your logical questions. I don't take anything personally. Your message had no evidences to refute mine, just opinions. How do you expect me to respond to an opinion?

quote:

---

think that the arrangement of nucleotides is part of the definition of genetic information?

---

Absolutely. Any genetic DNA rendering sequences of nucleotides that do not produce any useful substance cannot be counted as DNA that has specific and verifiable purpose, and therefore offers no increased overall useful information to the organism. This 'junk' DNA, cannot included in an organisms overall complexity, since it offers nothing to it.

quote:

---

I really don’t like offending or irritating people.

---

Well, you are bad at it, lol.

quote:

---

If you do include arrangement of nucleotides in your definition of "information," how do you measure the arrangement

---

Which I do, as explained above. I'm not a geneticist, so I would not know how it is measured. I do know that only specific nucleotide arrangements and codons produce useful information.

quote:

---

imply that HGT is how it all went down, as you have been doing.

---

hahaha, I'm not implying that HGT is how it 'all went down'. I'm arguing against the point...if you haven't noticed yet, read my response to the Doc.Which evidence was yours? I thought I was hitting them all, if I missed yours, repost the source please.