Where is the evidence for evolution?

quote:

---

Haven't we been thru this before? The barrier is that there is only so much information in the genome, and the information required to change a fish into a reptile say, is NOT THERE, and it will NEVER generate by random mutation and natural selection.

---

So, according to your "limited information" idea, where did the information come from to change one species of salmon into two?PE

weird - I posted this, saw this on the board, came back and then it was gone. Reposting...You:

quote:

---

? The barrier is that there is only so much information in the genome, and the information required to change a fish into a reptile say, is NOT THERE, and it will NEVER generate by random mutation and natural selection.

---

Me:

quote:

---

So, according to your "limited information" idea, where did the information come from to change one species of salmon into two?

---

You:

quote:

---

To answer your question, the information that allowed this variation was programmed in the genome from the beginning. Nothing new was added.

---

So how do you know that the information to turn fishes into reptiles (say) is NOT THERE, if all the information is "programmed" in from the beginning?PE

The quote is cut n pasted from Foolish FaithThe giveaway [33] refers to "Creation ex nihilo magazine, March-May, 1999"PEEdited to add: found the link: Missing Link | Answers in Genesis [This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 02-05-2003]

Good friend of TB I believe. Maybe we could get him on evc? PE

quote:

---

My guess is that PE was looking at the message in the preview window, and not as the posted form, and that the message never got posted.

---

You're probably right, although I do seem to distinctly remember seeing the post alongside other posts, which you wouldn't be able to do in preview. I wasn't suggesting there was any nefarious deletions going on - more that the post I thought I had seen posted was no longer there.I'll let you know if it happens again (and stay off the crack ).PE

Sonnike, Einstein was a theoretical physicist. Mathematics is not a science, it is a tool used by scientists. Maths is no more science than English, or German.Do you think it might benefit you to try and learn more about the subjects you attack? At least that way you would have informed criticisms to make - most of your quibbles come from a poor understanding of the subject matter.PE

quote:

---

Today, some scientists estimate about 14 million species in existence (other estimates range from 1.6 to 80 million). Some also estimate 40,000 species become extinct every year (granted, no scientist knows exactly how many species become extinct each year, so feel free to fill in the estimate you feel is appropriate). Assuming the amount of species that existed when God created us (I know many will object to my plug for the Big Guy, but so what!), why is it hard to believe there would be similarities among species. I can’t explain the similarities, but I also know there are far more differences. The distance between an ape who can not read or write and a descendant of Adam who can compose a musical masterpiece or send someone to the moon is the distance of infinity (H. Hanegraaff). I don’t believe just because we have anatomical, genetic, and behavioral resemblances I should automatically assume a chimpanzee is my cousin. Email me 50 of your best drawn original designs and I guarantee I will be able to classify them into different categories based on similarities. Then try 14 million.

---

We can do a quick back of the envelope calculation to test this - the assertion here is, that with 14 million species (lets call it 80 million) then of course you would expect to see similarities. The question between chimps and humans is whether you would expect to see 95% of the dna base pairs in the same order, by chance alone, given a population of 8 *10^7.Probability of selecting n pairs from N possible = (N-n)!/N!N = no of base pairs = 3*10^9
n = base pair matches between human and chimps = 95%*3*10^9 = 2.85*10^9So, approximating conservatively at every turn:(N-n)!/N! = 1/(3,000,000,000*2,999,999,999*......*2,850,000,000)Note that very conservatively , we can call this 2.85^(-150*10^6)Note also that 2.85^(-150*10^6) = 10^(-68*10^6) (rounding conservatively)We have a population of 8*10^7. So chance of this occuring by random is:8*10^7*10(-68*10^6) = approx 10^(-68*10^6-8) being conservative!i.e chances are 1 in 10^(68 million) - 1 with 68 million zeroes after it, if we bend over backwards to make conservative approximations.I may be a little rusty, so grateful if someone could check the maths.PEedited to add: I'm glad nobody's responded to this as I'm now of the opinion that its bollox.It doesn't take into account the fact that there are only 4 possible base pairs. The calculation is a lot simpler done this way - all we are saying is that 95% of 3bn base pairs are identical, so the chances of this are:(1/4)^(95%*3bn) {ignoring the 3/4* 10^(150,000,000) term} = 1/4^(2.85bn) = 10^(-1.7*10^9).My apologies Blanko, the chances should only be 1 in 1 with 1.7 billion zeroes after it.------------------
Reading computer manuals without the hardware is as frustrating as reading sex manuals without the software - Clarke's 69th Law[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 02-11-2003][This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 02-11-2003]