Macroevolution: Its all around us...

First off Ezscience let me tell you that any legitimate creation scientist does not deny speciation. If you were unaware of the very basic creationist arguement of "created kinds" and of how speciation is not proof of evolution rather it is proof of mutations(de-evolution) then you are going to be swallowed up very easily in this arguement because you simply don't know your opponent. Creation science is alot more advanced than you make it out to be. I suggest you brush up on it if you are truely interested by reading "Refuting Evolution" and "Refuting Evolution 2" "Refuting Compromise" by DR. Jonathan Sarfati or subrcibing to TJ(Technical Journal)Or go to answersingenesis.org and do a search on what you're interested in and read up. Or even e-mail Dr. Sarfati himself from the website testing him with your greatest arguements. You will lose, because he has not lost yet. And he's argued people I'm sure with higher educations than you. No offense intended, forgive me if that sounded mean.Secondly, you must understand one the many and most important devastating arguements against evolution, is that there is no "real" evolutionary or natural process by which new information is created. I know that all the evolutionists list all the different types of mutations, but the fact is that there is no proof whatsoever of an information gaining mutation. Mutations results in the loss of information or of a deformation of a active site.This question of "can you think of any evolutionary process or mutation by which new information can be created?" Was asked of one of the leading evolutionists in the world, Dr. Richard Dawkins, professor at Oxford University, in the documentary "From a Frog to a Prince" . He was left speechless for about a minute. As he sat there pondering the answer one could not help but notice his face grow red as he finally spouted out a popular explaination of how all creatures we see today are all evolved forms of thier ancestors, to an extent. This however did not answer the question at all and completely avoided the issue.I asked this question of my Biochemistry professor, Dr. Sprague at the University of Oregon who earned her doctorate degree at Yale. I first explained to her that even ants appearing to develop resistance to insecticides was a result of a loss of information and she agreed. And the best example she could think of was Hemoglobin. Which is not a plausible answer since there is no blood for us to test from the past to verify this. Yet in my own experimentation with hemoglobin in rabbit's blood it plainly clear that this does not even hold up in the present day in that there is no new information just a gathering of more of the same stuff.In the examples you give of insects and birds you give no evidence of genetic structure advancement (which I doubt the genome for is available) or of actual physical stuctural advancements of the animal . Rather you give evidence of species choice of mating partners. This holds no scientific merit as the genes responsible for this would be impossible to determine with any certainty. Though this would isolate mating partners resulting in dominate genes taking over and recessive ones being lost. This causes speciation which is not evolution, but a subunit of an already created kind which doesn't have all the genetic make-up it's original ancestor's had. This is how we get different species of dogs, why donkeys can't mate with other donkey's. This also explains how the so called human "races" arose after the Tower of Babel.I hope this brief explaination clears up a little bit what creations science is. If you want to find out more you are going to have to do the research yourself from the sources I listed. And they list all of their sources so you can check and see if their using false information.take care
quig

Sorry to tell you Ezscience that the Miller Urey experiment has more problems than just oxygen. The Miller Urey experiment states that methane gas needs to be present yet any geochemisist would tell you that in earth's early atmosphere this would have impossible. And I believe it states helium must be present but that would have floated off into space. And the result is simply organic matter which is far from life. It is like if I blended a frog in a blendor and expected after several millions of years for it to get up and walk away. That is not an entirely perfect analogy as the frog has a greater genetic make-up than the so called "soup". By the way if the correct atmosphere is used the resulting product is cyanide and embalming fuild and as you know cyanide is widely known for creating life.

Hey sorry for the delay 2nd round of Mid-terms:
Well my first response to you EZscience is to thoroughly read my fist statement and not just take pieces of my quote as you did in the my last quote in your response there was a comma there, which indicates the continuation of a thought.Well I do not believe how qualified I am to answer this particular example, but based on what I read you want to know exactly how creationist deal with resistance. And you might be hinting at toxins(poisons). In other words why would a loving and caring God create toxins. Which keep in mind anything in large amounts is toxic even water. Here is a couple of articles you might be interested in.New plant colours -- is this new information? AiG scientist answers a skeptic:
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis How do animals become resistant to poisons?: How Do Animals Become Resistant to Poisons? | Answers in Genesis Understanding poisons from a creationist perspective: Understanding Poisons from a Creationist Perspective | Answers in Genesis On resistance, you need to understand that mutations cannot create NEW Information. All the responses you gave to this problem I mentioned in my first statement seemed not to grasp this. You just mentioned how questionable it was that information science could be applied to organic structures, but yet it is. Scientists are getting closer and closer to melding them together as we get down to the nano level. Because we need to figure out how these things opperate. I think many of them see this problem:
That a smaller information source cannot create a greater information source. There is no natural process. A gene can replicate itself, but it cannot create an entirely new gene with information it does not have. Yes they can morph and lose some information(nucleotides, aminoacids and proteins or difigured active sites) but this is obviously a loss. And there is absolutely no conrete proof of a information gaining process. I've heard many but there is all fall when looked at closely.
In resistance there is a loss of the gene that protects the creature from that toxin or a loss of the gene or whatever the toxin attacks so that the toxin has nothing to attack. So when a whole mass of ants are killed by an insecticide the ones that are left are missing something that the ones that died had. In other words the ants didn't gain any new information that the ants that died didn't have. They didn't gain they lost information!You might say hey I'm learning chemistry right now I'm gaining new information that I didn't have before that disproves your theory right there quig. Well the study of chemistry is the study of what is already there. The chemist didn't create chemistry it has been going on since the beginning. There has to have been an original source of information in which it already existed otherwise where did it come from? Information cannot propagate new information.I encourage you and everybody to just go to:
Answers in Genesis
and just look up resistance or viruses or what ever else you might have questions about in the search queve at the top of the home page. They have been around for a while and have many articles and have heard many questions, chances are your's has been asked before. They publish their own magazine Creation and their own peer-reviewed scientific journal TJ. They have to publish their own peer-reviewed journal because secular science has a bias or discrimmination against people who believe in cretion. And this has put a gag order on legitimate science. Just like the guy who was suppose to recieve the Nobel Peace Price for inventing the MRI, but he belived in creation so some guys who did some post work on it got it. This outraged the scientific community even secular scientists.
Some of the great scientists of all time were creationists and there are many today and their numbers are growing. But it is hard to compete with a secular society that is predominately evolution based and has put a gag order on creation, because they proclaim with their "profound knowledge of it" that it is not legitimate science, rediculous. We use the same science as everyone and the same evidence. We just have another way of viewing it, which science will refuse because as soon as they accept that view that means they believe in God and they are accountable to someone. And that is a very scary belief to have to for them and a perposterous view.Take care EZ and again sorry for the lateness of my response
quig23This message has been edited by quig23, 05-14-2005 05:57 AM

The sequence of information written in the genes. We see astounding order there.This message has been edited by quig23, 05-13-2005 02:45 PM

Well my friend when I put the term de-evolution up I mean the structure which was originally intended is de-evolving. In a sense it is breaking apart and this incorporates the enite judeo-christian view of the world including our gene make-up. We are loosing gene information mutations are destroying how our bodies were originally intended to operate and causing deformations. And that's why in Leviticus chapter 18 we are no longer allowed to marry close relations.

How many times do creationist have to say this duplication is not New Information. It is just re-creating what it already has. This is very simple idea, but yet complex in it's view. Now realize that all the examples you gave are not examples of this. If you disagree prove me wrong with more details with strait forward evidence.jeez

The random re-ordering of the genetic code cannot produce New Information. Look in the genetic stucture of a living organism we see order. I can just start typing randomly look:seufhdjf fhesidhf idsjfifio oidsf ld flkds jflkfs fld flkdsllkfNow what I just typed was complete randomness. In this can you find any deciferable piece of information. No. Compared to this example that shows order:AABB BBCC AABB BBCC AABB BBCC AABB BBCC AABB BBCCObviously there is a specified pattern or order right here. We see information here because it is written in a code. And the whole world including all of you guys are lead to believe that this order can just happen again and again by millions of years of random mutations to produce an order which is so complex man himself cannot understand(will explain this later). If you ask me that takes a whole lot of more faith to believe this than to believe in a creator. Ofcoarse we see genes transforming, but the probability of them producing even slight hint of meaningful order just once is astronomical in its posibility, yet evolutionists claim that this needed to happen. And given the fact that this doesn't just need to happen just once, but trillions upon trillions of times. So you understand that information is only information if it is in an coded order. Like the on/off pattern of a bit in a computer.And the problem gets even more complex than this and I know none of you can explain this because no one on earth has yet. It has to do with the Human genome. If you can remember the excitment surrounding the Human genome back in 2000 and 2001 yet the project was considered largly surprising as the genome revealed more problems than solutions. Humans were estimated as having as many as 140,000 genes yet they reported that we only had about 35,000. The problem is that the vastly lower number of genes means that the human genome is a lot more complicated than thought. And how could only around 35,000 genes direct the production of the hundreds of thousands of components that together make up the human body.
And now, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium has further revised the estimated number of genes downward to fewer than 25,000. As one researcher put it, the paucity if genes in humans continues to 'blow our socks off' it seems like an awfully short list to account for the biological properties of a human being, he said.
One commentator in the journal Nature acknowledged that we have a log way to go yet'to understand how all the parts revealed by the genome sequence work together to make life.'Nature, 21 October 2004, pp.915-916, 927-945. The Scientist, <Page Not Found>, 22 October 2004.

First off your going to have to give me the details of these examples as I don't have these resources. Nor do I want to go searching around the U of O science library for these. Your going to have to show the work to me or provide an easier way of looking at it if you wish me to respond. It is just to vague for me to make a qualified response. As you read in the quote of mine that you copied you are going to have to give me more details and strait forward evidence. Sorry.

Give me a break you gave no thought or time to my statement whatsoever. Please take your time and think about what I wrote instead of what you just atomatically see. Duplication or what you're reffering to, "copying mistakes" to produce a change in a specific part of the code. This does not provide an order that makes sense according to our genetic language, which is how you determine what true Information is from randomness. The environment can have an imapct on which organisms survive, but are you suggesting that it has an effect on the mutation to provide a beneficial one. And this has everything to do with this dicussion. In that the Human Genome Project has shown us that human genes are alot more complicated and intricate than we thought and that the order of the genes is complexing in how so few genes could produce such complex systems like cilia.

Like I said I don't have these texts and I can't read them. Sorry Not yet I'll read them.

We'll see how big of a problem this particular example is... Partially winged, wingless or just missing some of the necessary anatomy for flight; this just shows speciation and how some genes were lost resulting in a deformed mutant hardly genetically advancing evolution. Again loss of information. Interesting...is this article for or against evolution. I'm assuming they are reffering to the chart which does nothing but show(very poorly) what needs to happen on the genetic level and what species they turn into. Unfortunately they offer no physical proof that the genes for wings were entirely lost or any specific genetic proof or genetic analysis from one specimen to another that the gene or genes was/were gained. "pathways" is this suggesting that the gene somehow turned regressive(I don't think it is). In which case this would not provide evidence it would just suggest that the gene just remained hidden(repressed) until finally by chance it came back out. Unfortunately the wings are non-functional. And unfortunately this kind of role has not gone unrecognized. Animals with extra body parts are documented all the time even teeth and hair are found in tumors. And unfortunately all of these turnout to be non-functional extra body parts. The gene that controlled the amount of body parts was simply lost or mutated. I had a friend with six toes and he could not move his extra toe by itself. Unfortunately this is not a very good example. What it needs is to show a direct lineage of insects specimen to specimen along with genetic analysis to show the gain and loss of this gene or genes which it does not do.This message has been edited by quig23, 05-14-2005 06:09 AM

As you can see "I" don't leave information undefined I explain it and many creation scientists I know try to explain this if the audience is confused. Given there are going to be creationists out there who aren't going to understand information science and just say it based on mimesis. Like I said information is a coded sequence which shows order meaningful purpose. Random genetic mutations can't produce that the odds are astronomical making it impossible, but evolutionists say it is. With this reason I could say that my soccer team is down 1000 to 1 with 1 second to go left in a game. It is pretty obvious at this point that a comeback is surely impossible. But I could say there is a possibility that I could somehow develop incredible mutant speed and steal the ball in a microsecond everytime it is tipped off from half field, shoot the ball at the speed of light into the goal from half field and repeat that 1000 times again and again and that possibility we still have a chance of winning the game. Those are similar to the possibilities and logical jumps of evolution and that is excluding origins. This is an interesting example. Please give me more information on this. please elaborate more on this and explain how it works better. I've done a similar yeast experiment in my biochemistry lab class and this is not proof for evolution. In this case I am not interested in bacterial or gene duplication which obviously happens rather I am interterested in mutations that advance a stucture(ie giving it new information) and in the upper case fusions that produce a more advanced structure.sorry I give no elaboration, but your going to gave to provide a little more info first I'll take a look at the link if that contains the upper examples of mutations and fusions, but that's all I'm looking for.This message has been edited by quig23, 05-14-2005 05:29 AM