Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
How do you tell when "new" information has arisen? How do you measure it?
And what do you then mean that speciation has a decrease in "information"? How do you tell, and are you saying that some mutations, the ones that lead to new species, have a loss of information?
This all seems rather bogus, as if it is all made-up. Could you provide some scientific evidence for any of this?
New information is when a creature has traits not displayed in other members of its genus. Adaptations such as a fish with lights on it.
The loss of information is when some dominant traits are lost and recessive traits become evident, but these traits aren't new because their ancestors had them.
Hmm. My info sounds like I made it up hmmm? Well just think about it. If a small group of fish swam from the ocean through a river into a lake, but then the river dries up and the fish a stuck in the lake, some might mate with close relatives because of the shortage of fish and no new traits would be gained because they are mating in their own gene pool. They certainly won't gain new traits if they mated inside their own gene pool. They would then gain recessive traits in some and others will lose the recessive all together. This is basic. I also got this information from Dr.Percival Davis, Dr.Dean H. Kenyon, Dr.Charles B. Thaxton, Dr.Mark D. Hartwig, and Dr.Stephen C. Meyer.
New information is when a creature has traits not displayed in other members of its genus. Adaptations such as a fish with lights on it.
And therefore the nylon bug is a very good example of "new information", is it not?
The loss of information is when some dominant traits are lost and recessive traits become evident, but these traits aren't new because their ancestors had them.
Oh dear. Gluadys, you're right; we are witnessing a new creationist fallacy in the making.
The problem with this hypothesis is that we should therefore expect that in "kinds" with high species diversity (such as Canis, which you expect to be a single kind), the distinctive genetic sections of each species should be nearly exclusively homozygous. Is this true? I honestly don't know. But I doubt so.
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
Last edited by shernren; 17th July 2006 at 06:28 AM.
And therefore the nylon bug is a very good example of "new information", is it not?
Oh dear. Gluadys, you're right; we are witnessing a new creationist fallacy in the making.
The problem with this hypothesis is that we should therefore expect that in "kinds" with high species diversity (such as Canis, which you expect to be a single kind), the distinctive genetic sections of each species should be nearly exclusively homozygotic. Is this true? I honestly don't know. But I doubt so.
Not necessarily. They could be heterozygous, and some offspring will be born homozygous recessive while others are dominant. Some would lose the recessive trait (lost info) while others may lose the dominant trait (another loss of info). This is true no matter what your beliefs are, even Darwin knew about this stuff (tortoises isolated on different islands).
Not necessarily. They could be heterozygous, and some offspring will be born homozygous recessive while others are dominant. Some would lose the recessive trait (lost info) while others may lose the dominant trait (another loss of info). This is true no matter what your beliefs are, even Darwin knew about this stuff (tortoises isolated on different islands).
Oh by the way. Its homozygous not homozygotic
You're right, homozygous. Firstly, this belief has to be borne out by actual research. Where species have diverged from the "original kind", if the phenomenon of homozygosity is the main mechanism of variation, then we should expect to see more homozygosity the more a species has diverged from its original kind-ancestor, and less if it has diverged less.
More importantly, "speciation by homozygosity" fails to address the formation of prezygotic barriers to reproduction. Whether or not a genetic locus carries a dominant or a recessive allele does not affect the homology between the pair of chromosomes present in a diploid cell. Even if homozygosity introduces variation, it cannot induce prezygotic barriers to cause speciation.
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
And therefore the nylon bug is a very good example of "new information", is it not?
Oh dear. Gluadys, you're right; we are witnessing a new creationist fallacy in the making.
The problem with this hypothesis is that we should therefore expect that in "kinds" with high species diversity (such as Canis, which you expect to be a single kind), the distinctive genetic sections of each species should be nearly exclusively homozygous. Is this true? I honestly don't know. But I doubt so.
Yes we are. The fallacy seems to take the form that "most common trait" = "dominant trait" or "more adaptive trait"="dominant trait".
Actually, whether a gene is dominant or recessive is quite independant of whether it is the more adaptive or more common.
A more adaptive trait will become more common. But the more adaptive trait could well be a recessive trait. In fact, in some cases, the more adaptive trait is due to heterozygosity.
The correct scientific term for a more adaptive trait is "more adaptive" or "better fit". The correct scientific term for the most common form of a gene is "wild-type"
Confusing the point by using "dominant" and "recessive" to refer to adaptiveness and frequency rather than to gene expression seems to be a novel "evolution" of creationist thinking. And, of course, it removes creationism still further from actual science.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
New information is when a creature has traits not displayed in other members of its genus. Adaptations such as a fish with lights on it.
Well, that certainly is a new way of describing it. In that case, just about all mutations result in new information, and we have hundreds of thousands of documented examples of "new information."
The loss of information is when some dominant traits are lost and recessive traits become evident, but these traits aren't new because their ancestors had them.
So that is a form of Natural Selection. Another novel description never before seen from a creationist. It also means that both have been directly observed many times in nature.
Now, didn't you doubt the existence of "new information"? As it per your very own definition is rather abundant, you more or less sunk your own claim here.
Hmm. My info sounds like I made it up hmmm? Well just think about it. If a...
Yes an analogy, not evidence. So you ARE admitting that you made it up, then?
After all, what you claimed was: Speciation and Macroevolution are not the same! Macroevolution is caused by "NEW" genetic information, where as speciation is caused by a decrease information.
Now you say that macro-evolution is genetic mutations, and claim that speciation results in loss of information. per your very own definitions, this is false. And now, when I point out that this sounds very bogus (As your own arguments now have shown) you have no actual evidence, only speculation.
I really don't think we need to spend any more time on this, it is pure fiction.
small group of fish swam from the ocean through a river into a lake, but then the river dries up and the fish a stuck in the lake, some might mate with close relatives because of the shortage of fish and no new traits would be gained because they are mating in their own gene pool. They certainly won't gain new traits if they mated inside their own gene pool.
Except for mutations. Which then can be spread if it results in a increased ability to provide live offspring in that environment. So once again, your example doesn't match reality and evidence, instead being an artificial construct.
They would then gain recessive traits in some and others will lose the recessive all together. This is basic. I also got this information from Dr.Percival Davis, Dr.Dean H. Kenyon, Dr.Charles B. Thaxton, Dr.Mark D. Hartwig, and Dr.Stephen C. Meyer.
And it also is nonsense. Other than that I don't know who they are, I suggest you carry your example back to them as written down here and ask them about it. Because obviously there is no scientific evidence behind your argument.
__________________ Geology: fossils in different ages To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Taxonomy: biological relationships To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I also got this information from Dr.Percival Davis, Dr.Dean H. Kenyon, Dr.Charles B. Thaxton, Dr.Mark D. Hartwig, and Dr.Stephen C. Meyer.
And it also is nonsense. Other than that I don't know who they are, I suggest you carry your example back to them as written down here and ask them about it. Because obviously there is no scientific evidence behind your argument.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer is with the Discovery Institute. (Intelligent Design) I haven't googled, but I wouldn't be surprised if the others also had ID/Discovery Insitute ties.
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
Actually, Davis and Kenyon quite literally wrote the book on IDism. I'm referring to Of Pandas and People.
Ah, the book that in the Dover trial was exposed as outright fraud, where they simply went through and edited out "creationism" and replaced it with the term "Intelligent Design"? uhum, so these people are not scientists, and are not submitting their work to evaluation under the Scientific method. So, xpiotosaves, it seems that your "evidence" came from a political, rather than scientific source. Isn't that an oversight? Perhaps you could find some information for us that comes from actual scientists instead?
__________________ Geology: fossils in different ages To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Taxonomy: biological relationships To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Ah, the book that in the Dover trial was exposed as outright fraud, where they simply went through and edited out "creationism" and replaced it with the term "Intelligent Design"? uhum, so these people are not scientists, and are not submitting their work to evaluation under the Scientific method. So, xpiotosaves, it seems that your "evidence" came from a political, rather than scientific source. Isn't that an oversight? Perhaps you could find some information for us that comes from actual scientists instead?
Yeah, fraud by evolutionists supporters. Your ears are purely closed to anything I say, or anything said by creationist supporters. I suggest you read of Pandas and People and really try to prove it false. I bet you will not because you are so closed minded. I will leave you with this food for thought:
Jesus in John 17:17 said "Your (God's) word (the Holy Bible) is truth." Now if you're saying it isn't true, and Jesus said it was, then you're saying that Jesus is a liar therefore a sinner.
Firstly, this belief has to be borne out by actual research. Where species have diverged from the "original kind", if the phenomenon of homozygosity is the main mechanism of variation, then we should expect to see more homozygosity the more a species has diverged from its original kind-ancestor, and less if it has diverged less.
Linear Mode
