Can Creationists Show Evolution Never Happened?

Mark24: Mutations do effectively scramble existing genetic information. But this IS new information. It is interpreted into different proteins that may have NEVER existed beforeThis is incorrect. I’ve been trained in and have been applying information science to my work for over 18 years. A new protein arising is no more new information than a new capacitance on a circuit board that suffers a short. Randomness destroys information. Randomness cannot build information. It is impossible.But don’t take my word for it. Find a single information scientist in the world who agrees with you.Information science is devastating to the evolutionist position. You simply cannot have a code without a sender. It deserves the status as a law of nature, since there are no known exceptions to this rule in all of human history. When Crick discovered DNA, it wasn’t long before he completely rejected NeoDarwinism because he knew it became impossible. Not improbable, but impossible (he did not want to let go of his humanism so opted for panspermia, or life from outerspace)Mar24: Also there are mutations that cause replication of lengths of DNA, so genetic material CAN be added, & subsequently mutated, giving more, new information.This is the only mechanism informed evolutionists propose for new genetic information — gene duplication followed by mutation. There are many problems with this. Random gene duplication is rare. When it does occur, it often causes harm, such as Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT). If the duplication is neutral, the odds of a subsequent beneficial mutation are astronomically low. Even if we got a hypothetical beneficial mutation, the odds of it being recognized by selection are very low. In fact, evolutionists generally agree that a beneficial mutation has no better than a 1 in 50 chance of survival in a population! (Fisher, Futuyma, etc). Then there’s the problem of fixing the gene in the entire population. Haldane showed in mammals that this rate can be no better than 1 ever 30 generations in a large population (the problem is worse in a small population due to drift). It’s a pipe dream think evolution can proceed this way. There certainly is no empirical evidence to support this.Mark24: So there you have it. A repeatable experiment showing mutation & natural selection do indeed occur.This is one of the most common strawman arguments used by evolutionists. There is not a single creation scientist in the world who disputes random mutation and selection. Not one. What we dispute is that randomness and blind selection can create new information, such that you can evolve complex organs, wings, feathers, etc from scratch. It is impossible.Mar24: What stops evolution occurring given mutation & natural selection are observable.What stops evolution from moving upward is randomness. You guys really messed up when you made randomness a fundamental tenet. Blind selection cannot get you out of the mess. Information cannot build under these conditions. Worldclass mathematicians warned you guys of the problems back in the Wistar debates of the 60s. But you didn’t listen!

quote:

---

Originally posted by lbhandli:
You are terribly confused over evolution. Evolution isn't random. There are two random elements to it. In one case mutations are random in relation to fitness--not in occurrence as they are probabilistic events. Neutral drift is also a random process expected by genetics. Natural selection is quite clearly not random.

​

If you want to criticize evolution I would suggest you first take the time to understand the science.

​

Cheers,
Larry

---

Larry, I understand the theory quite well. In a nutshell, NeoDarwinism is1) random mutation
2) natural selectionIt is a fundamental tenet of NDT that non-random, adaptive mutations do NOT occur.

quote:

---

If I wrote a word that no one had written before it would be new, by definition.

---

It’s not new information unless it has meaning. Don’t let Shannon statistical information fool you into thinking that meaning is not required for it to be information. If you give it meaning, it is not information to me unless you tell me what it means.

quote:

---

If the sender changes, or something happens during sending, the code is changed.

---

Huh? The code can never change unless there is prior agreement between sender & receiver. I think you are confusing code with message. Some examples of a code are Morse, Basic, C, English language, Chinese language, DNA.

quote:

---

If a population consists of a billion indiviuals who produce 1 +ve mutation (about 1% of mutations/generation, & 1/50th chance of gene survival, then a 1/30th chance of the gene to become general the population thats still nearly 667,000 +ve mutations that become adopted, & general to the population, PER generation. Next generation you've got another 667,000 genes that become general to the population, & due to to selective environmental pressures you accept, would generally reinforce the 667,000 mutated genes already in existence...... & so on.....

---

1) There is not a geneticist in the world who believes 1 in 100 mutations are beneficial. It’s hard enough for geneticists to come up with even one compelling example of a mutation that is beneficial to a population. I’ve yet to see one compelling example. Virtually every study I’ve seen of mutations that cause resistance, for example, always cause some other problem within the orgnanism. For example, mosquitos that become resistant to DDT are slower.
2) You misunderstand the Haldane number. His analysis showed that at best ONE beneficial substitution could occur in a population every 30 generations. Just ONE, in the entire population. Not 50, or 667,000. Just ONE every 30 generations. Walter Remine documents this problem in detail in his book The Biotic Message. Given this number, at most 1667 beneficial substitutions could have been made over 10 million years between man and man/monkey ancestor. The amazing thing is that Haldane used very favorable assumptions. Using more realistic assumptions and the problem gets much worse (as if it needed to get worse!).

Larry, I’m not interested in your condescending remarks about what evolution teaches.I am interested in science. I posted some evidence that runs counter to your theory in another thread. Here again is the link: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htmI welcome your comments on it, not side shows and links to the great and wonderful Talk.Origins. I’ve read most if not all the FAQs there. I am also well-read in population genetics. So stop sending me to Talk.Origins and let’s discuss science. I don’t have much time to spend on boards, so if you keep up with this rhetoric you going to end up talking to air.Regarding your claim that Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time, I discuss that here: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/evolutiondefinition.htm

quote:

---

Larry: If you do understand it [what evolution thoery is], you are misrepresenting it.

---

No Larry, I am not. NeoDarwinism in a nut-shell is exactly as I stated. I can provide you page number if necessary in D. Futuyma's 'Evolutionary Biology' 1998 college textbook. He says the same thing. Is he misrepresenting the theory he is writing about? Of course not! However, I agree there are other details to the theory, some of which you listed. I gave you the "in a nut-shell" version, just as I had stated. You did not ask for a definition with all the details filled in. It appears you are very accustomed to shouting "misrepresentation! misrepresentation!" and were looking for any opportunity to do so. [QUOTE] fred: I posted some evidence that runs counter to your theory in another thread. Here again is the link:http://www.evcforum.net/Images/Smilies/smile.gif[/IMG] it shows that 40 offspring are needed just to keep the chimp/human population in genetic equilibrium!!! Dr Crow responded to my article, and he agreed it's a "serious problem".Larry: And I responded to it. Essentially you are making an argument that we don't fully understand the rates as they are found in one article. This isn't a falsification it is an appeal to the God of the Gaps. [/QUOTE]No Larry, I cited 3 studies in my article (there are more), not just one. They all keep popping up with similar numbers. Since then, another study has come out and they think the mutation rate should be higher yet: http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297Your other excuse is to blame it on the "complexity of mathematical models". If you get the papers for these studies, you will find that they are not complex mathematical models! In fact, they don't use much math at all! The formula I used to determine reproductive cost is a simple Poisson distribution that you learn about in Statistics 101 (the paper I linked to above uses the same method).This is powerful evidence against common descent. It uses real, hard numbers. The only assumptions built in are that they used DNA samples that are fairly representative of the entire genome. Statistics shows they used more than enough genes to satisfy this. This compounded by the fact that multiple studies are arriving at roughly the same numbers.Your "evidence" of shared errors is predicated on the assumption that the shared pseudogene is NON-FUNCTIONAL. Do you agree that if we discover a function for the pseudogene, it shoots your evidence down to the ground?Which "evidence" is more reliable? The one built entirely on a tenuous assumption, or the one where the assumption has been sufficiently addressed?PS. I'm still waiting for any citation indicating a beneficial rate of 1 in 100 mutations. You are orders of magnitude off. Heck, it's hard enough to find even one, and when they do its highly suspect.

​

[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 12-20-2001]

quote:

---

Since you obviously reject this, what constitutes a receiver in genetics?

---

Good question. The ribosome, for one.

quote:

---

Mark: Latest information indicates that most mutations are neutral, only a small proportion being negative or positive. Get a recent textbook.

---

I have several, including Futuyma’s college undergrad textbook Evolutionary Biology. You are perpetuating a false claim that has been quite rampant on the internet. Most informed evolutionists believe mutations are nearly neutral, on the side of slightly harmful, not neutral. There is a difference. Following is a graph from the book. http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/images/mutation_dist.jpgThe claim that most mutations are nearly neutral is a hypothesis (despite evolutionists attempts to label it a theory) with little evidence to support it (though I believe the graph may be a reasonable guess).FYI, informed evolutionists wanted more neutral mutations to lower the reproductive cost problem. This was the primary reason Kimura proposed the neutral theory in the first place:Under the assumption that the majority of mutant substitutions at the molecular level are carried out by positive natural selection, I found that the substitutional load in each generation is so large that no mammalian species could tolerate it. This was the main argument used when I presented the neutral mutation-drift hypothesis of molecular evolution — The Neutral theory of Molecular Evolution, M. Kimura, 1983, p 26

I can’t help but butt-in to schrafinator’s post to RetroCrono, as it is laced with incorrect claims & strawmen.

quote:

---

Hey, RetroCrono, your ideas about the heritability of aquired characteristics is pure Lamarckianism, not Darwinism at all I suggest you slow down with the writing and go do a LOT of reading about the history of science, the scientific method, and Biology.

---

I would suggest you take your own advice. Apparently you are no aware that Darwin espoused Lamarckism.Not only Lamarck but also other 19th-century biologists, including Darwin, accepted the inheritance of acquired traits. — "heredity" Encyclopdia Britannica Online. http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=120932&sctn=2

quote:

---

There is genetic crossover during meiosis. There is also mutation. Both of these phenomena are documented and observed. You covering your ears and repeating, "DOESN'T HAPPEN, DOESN'T HAPPEN, DOESN'T HAPPEN!!" doesn't mean they are any less observed.

---

Strawman. No creation scientist I know of disputes crossover or mutation, nor do I see creationists on this board disputing this.

quote:

---

RetroCrono: Harmful mutations out way it hands down, off the top of my head, blindness, deafness, aids, cancer, heart failure, collapsed lungs, disordered muscle growth

​

schrafinator: ROTFL! Many things besides heredity can cause all the maladies you list. In fact, hardly any illnesses you list are the result of mutations.

---

You should get off the floor and allow us to ROTFL. With exception to aids, genetic mutation has most certainly been associated with ALL of the other human maladies listed. Some are somatic, other germinal. BTW, mutation, indirectly, is likely responsible for the aids virus (mutations of a good virus made it a bad virus).

quote:

---

schrafinator: Mark asked for evidence, and now I am, too. What evidence do you have for your claim?

---

You guys seem to be avoiding my article like the plague: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm

quote:

---

No, you were criticizing an idea that was outdated by Darwins time, and pretty much obliterated by the time Genetics came along. It's another strawman.

---

As I showed above, Lamarckism was endorsed by Darwin. It did not become outdated until after the 1930s.

​

[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 12-28-2001]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Fred

​

Speaking of avoiding things.....

​

---

I don't "avoid things". I am busy and have a life.Ribosomes and their accompanying support structures are indeed encoded in the DNA, a classic chicken & egg problem for evolutionists and an overwhelming testimony to design.

Moose: Mr. Williams - You are denying the fact of evolution. Would you care to comment further?Yes I am, and yes I will. When I began looking into the evidence for evolution, I was expecting to find at least some. I was very surprised (and a bit angry at finding I had been brainwashed for 30 years) to see how little evidence there actually is. In fact, I found that there is no real tangible evidence for large-scale evolution at all.Information science has rendered large-scale evolution *impossible*. You can refute my claim by finding just one single example of a code originating via a natural process. A code always requires a sender. No exceptions.Tell me, if evolution is such an established fact, why is there so much time spent debating the interpretation of the evidence? I don’t see discussion boards debating the fact of gravity.What are the top three evidences you believe support evolution?Moose: Why isn't the progression of life in the geologic column a documentation that evolution has happened?Because the geologic column does NOT show progression of life. This is an old myth that doesn’t seem to want to go away."The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence. - N.D. Newell, Why Scientists believe in Evolution, 1984, p 10, American Geological Institute pamphletI believe that our failure to find any clear vector of fitfully accumulating progressrepresents our greatest dilemma for a study of pattern in life’s history — S.J. Gould, ‘The paradox of the first tier: an agenda for paleobiology’, Paleobiology, Vol 11, No 1, 1985, p 3

quote:

---

Mark: 1/ What is the receiver of genetic code?

---

I already told you. The Ribosome for one (and accompanying structure, to be completely specific). This apparatus (including tRNA) needs to know how to interpret the mRNA to bring about the construction of the desired amino-acid string (protein).

quote:

---

Mark: 2/ Please define "new information".

---

A new codon instruction that performs some function intended by the sender. For example, if a new codon arose that caused DNA transcription to jump to some other specific part of the genome to perform a useful function (a ‘JUMP’ codon), that would be new information.

quote:

---

Mark: To clarify, are you saying the message/code transmission receives itself?

---

What I gave was one possible sender/receiver relationship. Are you denying the ribosome and its accompanying support structure deciphers the genetic code to produce an amino-acid string? The intermediate sender is the nucleus, the ultimate sender is a higher intelligence who programmed the DNA.

quote:

---

Is there any other natural, or non-natural process where a transmission receives itself?

---

The ribosome is not a transmission, it is the product of a transmission.There are countless examples of products of transmission of code that are receivers; in fact, ALL receivers are products of transmission of code! There are NO exceptions! If you can find one, then by golly you will surely get a nobel prize!

quote:

---

This definition of new information is incredibly narrow & specific, & only applies to codons.

---

This definition I used does not only apply to codons. It applies to anything that is a code: morse, C++, PowerPC machine language, english language, etc.It is not possible to define all aspects of information in short posts to discussion boards on the internet. Information theory requires books to understand, and there are different levels of information. That is the reason I chose to focus on a specific aspect of information, a code, that is more easily understood by the layman. There is not an information scientist in the world who disputes that a code represents complex information.For those interested in information science, the lowest level is the Shannon level, and Dr Tom Schnieder has a good discussion of it here: http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/primer/latex/index.htmlDembski does a good job of qualifying complex information: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-idesign2.htmlIMO the best treatise on information science can be found in Dr Werner Gitt’s book, In the Beginning was Information. http://www.creationresearch.org/cgi-bin/checkitout/checkitout.cgi?creationSTORE:homeDr Royal Truman discusses some of Gitt’s work here (about half-way down): http://www.trueorigins.org/dawkinfo.asp

​

[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 01-09-2002]