Summations Only

When and if that ever occurs, two things will happen:
(1) science will be able to measure the amount of such information, and
(2) those measurements will show that information increases or decreases or stays the same during different instances of evolution.And then the Creationists will be out of another argument they think refutes evolution.See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments for additional information ...

quote:

---

2. Information Loss

​

Another argument common to creationism and IDology is that mutations only result in the loss of "information", and that without a mechanism to gain "information" new systems, functions or features cannot evolve.

​

Let's review the logic of this argument:

​

• (P1) mutations cannot cause an increase in "information."
• (P2) an increase in "information" is necessary for new mechanisms or functions to evolve.
• (C1) Therefore new mechanisms or functions cannot evolve.

​

Leaving aside the fact that "information" is not defined in any way to measure whether or not there is an increase or a decrease in any evolved changes in species over time, we can still show that the concept is falsified if we can show that ONE such mechanism or function has evolved that would require such an increase. In other words, if we can show that either (P1) or (P2) must be invalid then we have shown that the conclusion is invalid.

​

Now let's look at Barry Hall's experiments again in light of this concept:

​

An existing "irreducibly complex" system is intentionally disrupted and ceases to function.

​

According to the equation of new information with the evolution of new functions or mechanisms by precept (2), the intentional loss of a function or mechanism must then also involve the loss of AT LEAST SOME information for that function or mechanism:

​

quote:

---

In 1982, Barry Hall of the University of Rochester began a series of experiments in which he deleted the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase. The loss of this gene makes it impossible for the bacteria to metabolize the sugar lactose.

---

​

Thus the deletion of the beta-galactosidase gene MUST have involved the loss of AT LEAST SOME information for the function or mechanism of that gene.

​

Next what we see is that a DIFFERENT "IC" system evolves to replace the original -- the original "IC" system is not repaired or recovered, but a new and different "IC" system evolved.

​

Ergo new "information" MUST have evolved that was not in the original organism, the "information" for that organism MUST have been increased. Again, this is the principle of falsification used by science - it invalidates either precept (P1) or precept (P2), and therefore invalidates ALL conclusions based on their combination.

​

We started with a system with some quantity of "information" that -- according to precept (2) -- must have been lost to render it dysfunctional, and then a replacement system evolved.

​

Either "information" was added (invalidates precept (P1)) OR added "information" was not necessary for the evolution of a feature, function or system (invalidates precept (P2)).

​

Thus either precept (P1) OR precept (P2) is invalidated, falsified, refuted and ALL conclusions based on their combination are invalidate. Q.E.D.

---

Enjoy

The theory of evolution is about explaining the evidence observed, whether it is the evolution within a generation in a breeding population (microevolution) or about the long term accumulation of evolutionary traits over many generations (anagenesis, macroevolution part 1) or about the different long term accumulation of evolutionary traits over many generations that differentiates daughter populations with reproductive isolation into different species (cladogenesis, macroevolution part 2). All the evolution occurs within the breeding population, generation after generation. It is. That's what the science says, and in discussions of science we like to use the definitions that the particular field of science uses. All evolution occurs withing the current generation of the breeding population. Selection and mutations in isolated populations leads to differentiation between daughter populations. Over hundreds of generations those changes can show up as noticeable differences in teeth, in hips, in jaw/ear geometry. In science we don't get to have personal theories, we are limited to scientific theories that are based on evidence and which are usable to make predictions to test the theory.Curiously no limits of the genome have ever been discovered, it is just something you have made up, it is not objective empirical evidence. Likewise your "theory" is based on wishful thinking and fails to explain the evidence in the world around you. Says the person who think the whole Subphylum Trilobitomorpha (trilobites) and the whole Family Limulidae (horseshoe crabs) in the Subphylum Chelicerata are all one species:

quote:

---

Message 496 of Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?: Re: And then there are the Horseshoe Crabs.
It's clearly a trilobite, every one of them, all derived from the same genome, no matter what complicated system of classification you lay on them.

---

Word is still out on whether the whole Subphylum Chelicerata, including Sea scorpions and Sea spiders, are also "all derived from the same genome ...But is sure sounds like " the limits of the genome itself" are rather unlimited. As predicted by the (scientific) ToE. Which is what science uses to explain evidence and make predictions.And the ToE is substantiated by evidence in the fossil record and evidence in the genetic record, all validating the scientific theory without a scintilla of invalidating evidence despite creationist desperate attempts (including fabricated lies) to the contrary. Those "assumptions based on the theory" are actually testable predictions, like the continued formation of nested hierarchies as species continue to evolve and new species are observed to form through cladogenesis and like the prediction of a common ancestor pool. Which is, amazingly, exactly what the ToE predicts. Astonishing. And yet, curiously, new species have been observed to form here in the real world.As noted above you are getting so desperate for your claim to be true that you end up classifying whole sections of evolved species as all one species. Pelycodus ... all one species (according to Faith, not science)
Foraminifera ... all one species (according to Faith, not science)
Trilobites and horseshoe clams ... all one species (according to Faith, not science)
Life ... all one species? (maybe, according to Faith, not science)EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

And the other daughter species ... the very definition of biological speciation. Isn't it amazing that you keep validating evolution?It doesn't matter what you say Faith, if you are going to attack evolution you need to use the definitions in the science or you are just talking babble, delusional babble. Any truly honest observation should also lead to the recognition that mutations supply new variations, possibly even adding more than were available before.When you deny half of the process your "explanation" is half-vast. Except that it HAS been observed according to the scientific terminology, so only delusional creationists deny these facts.We seen them here ranting and dancing about, but the facts remain facts. And the way you, Faith, "observe" things, has time and again been shown to have no effect on reality.You don't get to make up reality.Enjoy

Fixed it for you. So you keep hoping. So you keep hoping.Evidence shows otherwise.

quote:

---

Speciation via polyploidization
Main article: Polyploid

​

Polyploidy is a mechanism that has caused many rapid speciation events in sympatry because offspring of, for example, tetraploid x diploid matings often result in triploid sterile progeny.[52] However, not all polyploids are reproductively isolated from their parental plants, and gene flow may still occur for example through triploid hybrid x diploid matings that produce tetraploids, or matings between meiotically unreduced gametes from diploids and gametes from tetraploids (see also hybrid speciation).

​

It has been suggested that many of the existing plant and most animal species have undergone an event of polyploidization in their evolutionary history.[53][54]

---

So in the case of polyploidy a new species is made by doubling the genetic strands. It can lose a lot of genetic material and still have more genes than the parent diploid population, and the duplicated genes can also mutate to evolve new alleles while maintaining the old ones.The real world just does not conform to your fantasy view.Enjoy

Then there is 5 Near-Identical Jesus Christ Myths That Predate JesusPersonally I like the Mithra version

quote:

---

3. Mithra (2000 B.C.)

​

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia

​

An ancient Zoroastrian deity with similarities to Jesus.

​

• Virginal birth on December 25th.
• Swaddled and laid in a manger.
• Tended by shepherds in the manger.
• He had 12 companions (or disciples).
• Performed miracles.
• Gave his own life to save the world.
• Dead for three days, then resurrected.
• Called the Way, the Truth and the Light.
• Has his own version of a Eucharistic-style Lord’s supper.

---

EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : topicEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Modified the format of the bit above the "Enjoy" a little.

A breeding population.One or several daughter population?Enjoy

Wrong. As long as two daughter populations are functionally isolated they can evolve separately, reacting to different ecologies and having mutations that are not shared with the other population and different selection pressures on those mutations, leading to different long term evolution (anagenesis) within each of the two populations. What matters is the functional isolation for long term diversification.There can be interweaving of the two populations, but then each one brings different traits to the table which a single population would not have. This too is macroevolution. And what matters is whether the populations are functionally isolated so that they evolve independently to increase biodiversity. The greenish warblers for instance:

quote:

---

Greenish warbler

​

The greenish warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides) is a widespread leaf warbler with a breeding range in northeastern Europe and temperate to subtropical continental Asia. This warbler is strongly migratory and winters in India. It is not uncommon as a spring or early autumn vagrant in Western Europe and is annually seen in Great Britain. In Central Europe large numbers of vagrant birds are encountered in some years; some of these may stay to breed, as a handful of pairs does each year in Germany.[2]

​

Presumed evolution around Himalayas. Yellow: P. t. trochiloides Orange: P. t. obscuratus Red: P. t. plumbeitarsus green: P. t. "ludlowi" Blue: P. t. viridanus P. t. nitidus of the Caucasus is not shown.

​

The groups' origin lies probably in the Himalayan region, where trochiloides is found. This taxon is close to the parapatric obscuratus, and to plumbeitarsus which is geographically separated from obscuratus; they all can (and in the case of the former two do naturally) hybridize. P. t. plumbeitarsus is often split as distinct species, as it does not hybridize with viridianus in the narrow zone in the western Sayan Mountains where their ranges overlap.

​

But phylogenetically, the western taxa are even more distinct. However, there is some gene flow between trochiloides and viridianus also, with their hybrids being especially common in Baltistan; they were once considered another subspecies ludlowi. The green warbler P. nitidus, now by many considered a distinct species, is a mountain isolate that diverged from ancestral viridianus.

​

Song structure differs mainly between greenish warbler and two-barred warbler, which was formerly considered conspecific. The former has a fairly uniform, long, and warbling song. Around the Himalayas, song structure is similar, but songs are generally shorter. Two-barred warbler, on the other hand, has a long song that can be clearly divided into a warbling part, followed by series of up- and downslurred notes. The songs of obscuratus, and, interestingly, "ludlowi", are short, but contain the downslur elements too; in the latter, they uniquely appear at the start of the song.[8]

---

Is there genetic isolation between P. t. plumbeitarsus and P. t. viridianus? There certainly is behavioral and trait differences that affect breeding - mating song and coloration - so even if occasional hybrids occur they are rare and do not affect the functional isolation of these populations ... especially now that P. t. plumbeitarsus is isolated geographically from P. t. obscuratus on the other side of the ring because of habitat destruction in China/Tibet.Does it matter to evolution what we call these breeding populations, whether we identify them as varieties within one species or identify them as two or more species? No. Our names do not affect their breeding behavior.As I said before we have names for all breeding populations, and that is so we can discuss them without confusing one with the other. Fat chance.What you are identifying as a "kind" is the Felidae clade:

quote:

---

The biological family Felidae is a lineage of carnivorans that includes the cats. A member of this family is also called a felid.[3][4][5][6]

​

Felidae's closest relatives are thought to be the Asiatic linsangs.[10] Together with the Viverridae, hyenas, mongooses, and Madagascar carnivores, they form the suborder Feliformia.[11]

---

... or would that be the Feliformia clade ...And supposedly you make a similar claim for the Canidae clade:

quote:

---

The biological family Canidae /ˈknᵻdiː/ [3] is a lineage of carnivorans that includes domestic dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals, dingoes, and many other extant and extinct dog-like mammals. A member of this family is called a canid (/ˈknᵻd/, /ˈkeɪnᵻd/).[4]

​

The cat-like feliforms and dog-like caniforms emerged within the Carnivoramorpha 43 million years before present.[5] The caniforms included the fox-like Leptocyon genus whose various species existed from 34 million years before present before branching 11.9 million YBP into Vulpini (foxes) and Canini (canines).[6]:174—5

---

... or would that be the Caniformia clade?... or would that be the Carnivora clade?And what do you do about Amphicyonidae ("bear-dogs") and Hemicyoninae ("dog-bears")?Inquiring minds want to know.Enjoy

Please show me where in the phylogeny of organisms that happened. Enjoy

cognitive dissonance reduction ...Enjoy

Yeah, they are so good at exposing creationist lies that you can't trust them to support your fantasies. In fact the whole website is dedicated to exposing creationist lies, from the PRATT list to the Quote Mine Project. Horrid people.See Quote Mining, false witness for the gullible and willfully ignorantYou might want to read their list so that you can copy the best quote mines ...

This shows in a nutshell, what I see as the difference in approach between creationist thinking and scientific thinking -- to the creationist the source, the authority, is more important than the validity of the information, while for the scientific thinking people the validity of the information is more important than the source.Why do you suppose that is?Enjoy

You're a creationist ... therefore it is impossible to underestimate the caliber of mind we are dealing with.Enjoy

There comes a point where creationists are indistinguishable from poes. /irony...LOLZ

So give us a list of your 10 best prospects for original created kinds (you should have hundreds),and we'll tell you who we think their ancestor population was ... and who the ancestor population of that ancestor population was ...So either that will invalidate the concept of created kindor redefine it to the older ancestors ... and we can repeat the process.If your view is correct then we should reach a point where we can't find ancestor populations.Enjoy

Equivocation fallacy. Common descent is not the same thing as a single common ancestor/The theory of evolution can (and does) refer to common descent of related species without saying there is a single common ancestor, thus Vimsey is correct AND evolution theory talks about common descent.Enjoy