Macroevolution: Its all around us...

quote:

---

There is only one Biological Theory of Evolution.

---

Maybe so but it seems there would be a difference between a cow or elephant or whatever becoming a whale and a large feline being bred down to a domestcated housecat. Each different family like felis, canis, equis, and vulpes is a different kind of animal.

quote:

---

Life could have been "poofed" into existence by your God and it would not change one thing about the evidence for Evolution.

---

It wouldn't change the evidence against it eitherThe Bible says "He sits on the [disc circle sphere] of the earth" It sounds to me like it was saying that the earth was in the shape of a disc, sphere or whateverSorry my replies are a little late, I was out of town for a little bit.

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.

quig23 claims

quote:

---

On resistance, you need to understand that mutations cannot create NEW Information.

---

From talk origins :

quote:

---

It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

​

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

​

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

​

A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at PubMed) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

---

No new information my foot.This message has been edited by Alasdair, 05-13-2005 03:04 PMThis message has been edited by Alasdair, 05-13-2005 03:04 PM

Let;s make Schraf's question more clear.What MEASURE of information are you using ?How would we quantify information so we could tell if a change was an increase or decrease ?

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

Yes it is.Look, let's represent genetic infomation with THE CAT SAT ON THE MAT.Then, we duplicate the A. It now reads THE CAAT SAT ON THE MATLook! New information!

quote:

---

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.

---

Don't tell me that you looked up this in that short a time:

quote:

---

We have observed the evolution of

​

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

---

Tell me how these AREN'T examples.

Hi Quig, Welcome back.I am just back after a long day trip myself, so I will give you a short answer now, and maybe some additional elaboration tomorrow.The bottom line is, I was going to answer you with much the same response as Alasdair. He has come up with some good examples, and not being a molecular sort myself, I will work with his examples because I think they are really good ones, especially the enzyme one.You say:
"...mutations cannot create NEW Information."Quite simply wrong.
Once you take 3rd or 4th year biochemistry or molecular genetics (that's been a long time ago for me, but I remember the principles as they were understood even then) you will learn there are numerous ways that mutations can add information to a genome.Using the enzyme example, it is possible to track the protein structure back to the gene that encodes it and show that a long sequence of DNA has actually been duplicated on the genome so that, once transcribed into RNA and then translated into a protein, it now forms a sort of 'twinned' protein instead of the original singular version. This 'twinned' version of the protein could have entirely different enzymatic properties than its ancestral, singular form.
Is this not an increase in 'information' ?To use a simple analogy along the line of the grammatical example Alasdair used in his second message, if you can add letters to a sentence, or just duplicate the sentence and switch a few words around, are you not adding information? You cannot deny that you can change the 'meaning' of the sentence by doing this (i.e. what matters most about the sentence) so why can't you change the 'meaning' of a gene by the same process. It is really that simple. Any change of 'meaning' in a transcribed section of the genome amounts to the creation of..... Ta Dah ! NEW information !Anyone who argues otherwise is lacking the most basic knowledge of molecular genetics. (Because that's pretty much all I have, to be honest )I will check out your sites and then give you a more detailed explanation of resistance evolution (more my area) after dinner, or tomorrow morning.Cheers !This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-13-2005 06:37 PM

another "too sense" on this one: the big problem for creationists and idists (and anyone else unclear on the concept) that make this argument are instances where an organism has evolved back and forth several times.from: NATURE.com - Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects (click): also see this (pdf file) chart
http://www.nature.com/...421/n6920/extref/nature01313-s1.pdfFor instance Lopaphus parakensislost wings from an ancestor that had gained wings from an ancestor that lost wings from an ancestor that had been winged.so tell me, if every mutation is a loss in information, which one lost information and what is the information that was lost?and this is only one example of this kind of thing.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

or an eventual resultTHE CAT ATE ON THE MEAT

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Wow. That is a truly fabuluous reference Raz.Since I am supposed to be an entomologist I will have to be sure and read this entire article or risk being found lacking by the likes of you !Truth is, I stopped reading Nature a while back when it seemed that everthing they published was reductionist molecular stuff.(And that's not sour grapes because they rejected my article )

thanks, but I collected it here from another poster. I like it because, well, because I like walking stick insects I also kept it for just the reason cited here. I want to see how "mutation is just loss of information" can handle this situation.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

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.