What about the DNA evidence?

[Subduction Zone]

genetic information, it's pretty simple. No mutation adds info to the genetic code, it takes away, alters, and copies but doesn't add. Thats my definition. Now whats yours.

Your definition is demonstrably wrong.

 

[createdtoworship]

FYI, I have noticed that he does that quite often actually, and sometimes his own references don't even jive with his own claims. When they do jive they are *the* authority on (topic of choice). If they don't line up with his claims, they're somehow "gibberish", 'crackpot', yada, yada, yada. You really got check up on him now and then.

very true, I see a double standard with alot of evolutionists. Dating rocks by the strata, oh wait, it's dating the strata by the rocks, oh wait....

 

[46AND2]

genetic information, it's pretty simple. No mutation adds info to the genetic code, it takes away, alters, and copies but doesn't add. Thats my definition. Now whats yours.

But it DOES. Gene duplication is the EXTRA COPY of a gene (or part of the gene). This has been observed. The original copy is still there, PLUS another copy. How is that not adding information?

 

[46AND2]

very true, I see a double standard with alot of evolutionists. Dating rocks by the strata, oh wait, it's dating the strata by the rocks, oh wait....

 

[[serious]]

genetic information, it's pretty simple. No mutation adds info to the genetic code, it takes away, alters, and copies but doesn't add. Thats my definition. Now whats yours.

That "definition" is merely a statement of your previous assertion that information can be removed but not added. Furthermore, you use the term info in your definition of info. That's a non starter. But you know what? Let's run with it. Let me alter it just a bit to keep it from being self referential. Let's change it to "genetic information is anything that can be removed from the genome by a mutation or series of mutations that cannot be added to the genome by a mutation or series of mutations"

However, there is nothing in the genome we have yet found that could not have been added by mutation. As such under that definition, genetic information does not exist. The total information in the genome is zero and no information is needed for common descent or evolution.

Now, if you can show how information, consistent with your definition, exists in the genome and is necessary for evolution, then by all means make your case.

 

[[serious]]

Your definition is demonstrably wrong.

Well, definitions aren't really "wrong." They can be terrible, completely without usefulness, silly, completely independent of any common use of the word, but not wrong. He has simply defined it in such a way that no information exists in the genome anyway.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

mutations never add genetic information, I am unsure where you get this idea?

From scientific experiments. When male and female mate, new genetic information is not added, merely what already exists in the male and female are combined, to create a new combination of what ALREADY EXISTED. The same with mutations. Mutations simply cause genes to become recessive, dominate, or have no affect at all. Genes that ALREADY EXISTED.

Proven by 50+ years in mutational research.

http://www.weloennig.de/ShortVersionofMutationsLawof_2006.pdf


http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

"It may also be pointed out in this connection that – as far as the author is aware – neither plant breeders nor geneticists have ever reported the origin of any new species, or just any new stable races or ecotypes either surviving better or at least as well in the wild in comparison with the wild-type, in which the mutation(s) have been induced (Lönnig 1993 2001 2002a 2006, Lönnig and Becker 2004)."

 

[[serious]]

From scientific experiments. When male and female mate, new genetic information is not added, merely what already exists in the male and female are combined, to create a new combination of what ALREADY EXISTED. The same with mutations. Mutations simply cause genes to become recessive, dominate, or have no affect at all. Genes that ALREADY EXISTED.

Proven by 50+ years in mutational research.

http://www.weloennig.de/ShortVersionofMutationsLawof_2006.pdf


http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

"It may also be pointed out in this connection that – as far as the author is aware – neither plant breeders nor geneticists have ever reported the origin of any new species, or just any new stable races or ecotypes either surviving better or at least as well in the wild in comparison with the wild-type, in which the mutation(s) have been induced (Lönnig 1993 2001 2002a 2006, Lönnig and Becker 2004)."

No, they can also alter the function of a gene. If that gene has previously been duplicated, that can add new function without compromising existing function. For example, hemoglobin and the cones of the eye.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, they can also alter the function of a gene. If that gene has previously been duplicated, that can add new function without compromising existing function. For example, hemoglobin and the cones of the eye.

New function from the combination of ALREADY EXISTING genetic information, or new function from ALREADY EXISTING information made recessive. Never the creation of new genetic information from what did not exist before. Ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell

"The three pigments responsible for detecting light have been shown to vary in their exact chemical composition due to genetic mutation"

So they are merely variations of what ALREADY EXISTED. Merely different compositions of the three different pigments.

Use blue, red and green for example. If I use 2 B, 2 R and 2 G I get something different than if I use 3 B, 1 R and 5 G, but I still only use different combinations of what ALREADY EXISTED, blue, red and green.

 

[USincognito]

you would have to prove that you don't need information for evolution.

I simply don't believe it.

You're welcome to believe or not believe whatever you want, but please don't act like your lack of belief is based on an understanding of the subject.

 

[USincognito]

genetic information, it's pretty simple. No mutation adds info to the genetic code, it takes away, alters, and copies but doesn't add. Thats my definition. Now whats yours.

That's not a definition. In fact that's barely a sentence. That is, however, a perfect example of Loudmouth's home run analogy where one attempts to "define" a home run out of existance and then claim that hitting one is impossible.

If "it's pretty simple", how about you do what I've been asking Creationists to provide me for quite some time - a quantifiable metric by which we may measure genetic "information" and then determine if a "gain" or "loss" has occured.

 

[[serious]]

New function from the combination of ALREADY EXISTING genetic information, or new function from ALREADY EXISTING information made recessive. Never the creation of new genetic information from what did not exist before. Ever.

Cone cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The three pigments responsible for detecting light have been shown to vary in their exact chemical composition due to genetic mutation"

So they are merely variations of what ALREADY EXISTED. Merely different compositions of the three different pigments.

Use blue, red and green for example. If I use 2 B, 2 R and 2 G I get something different than if I use 3 B, 1 R and 5 G, but I still only use different combinations of what ALREADY EXISTED, blue, red and green.

Wait a minute, it looks like you are saying that new genes can't arise from the alteration via mutation of the existing genome because all such examples would be alteration of the existing genome through mutation.

If new function can arise, as you've now admitted it can, that's all evolution needs.

Also, our perception of light is a mix of RGB, but there is nothing inherently special about red blue and green. Let's take a look at the difference between dogs and humans. Dogs have blue and yellow receptive cones. As such, they can see colors along a 1 dimensional spectrum and leads to red/green colorblindness. When a branch of primates evolved a third cone type, now all of a sudden we could see colors that could not be coded by a mere 2 cones. That R in the RGB is something new that allowed us to see something, a mix of red frequency and blue frequency lights with no activation in the green frequency, which cannot exist without a third cone. If we evolved a 4th cone sensitive to an additional wavelength,we would be able to distinguish even more colors.

 

[mathetes123]

Wait a minute, it looks like you are saying that new genes can't arise from the alteration via mutation of the existing genome because all such examples would be alteration of the existing genome through mutation.

If new function can arise, as you've now admitted it can, that's all evolution needs.

Also, our perception of light is a mix of RGB, but there is nothing inherently special about red blue and green. Let's take a look at the difference between dogs and humans. Dogs have blue and yellow receptive cones. As such, they can see colors along a 1 dimensional spectrum and leads to red/green colorblindness. When a branch of primates evolved a third cone type, now all of a sudden we could see colors that could not be coded by a mere 2 cones. That R in the RGB is something new that allowed us to see something, a mix of red frequency and blue frequency lights with no activation in the green frequency, which cannot exist without a third cone. If we evolved a 4th cone sensitive to an additional wavelength,we would be able to distinguish even more colors.

If you were take a computer program and randomly change a couple lines, are you going to add functions to the program or lose functions ?

 

[[serious]]

If you were take a computer program and randomly change a couple lines, are you going to add functions to the program or lose functions ?

Could be either. Much of it would depend on the way it was initially coded. Most computer programs are written in a minimalist fashion, so you would expect any deviation to break the program. If, instead, we had a program designed to self replicate written in a more robust manner such that there was redundancy built into the program, we would certainly start seeing new functions arise. We would probably have to keep the program from reproducing too accurately to see the changes in a reasonable time frame.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-modifying_code

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wait a minute, it looks like you are saying that new genes can't arise from the alteration via mutation of the existing genome because all such examples would be alteration of the existing genome through mutation.

If new function can arise, as you've now admitted it can, that's all evolution needs.

Also, our perception of light is a mix of RGB, but there is nothing inherently special about red blue and green. Let's take a look at the difference between dogs and humans. Dogs have blue and yellow receptive cones. As such, they can see colors along a 1 dimensional spectrum and leads to red/green colorblindness. When a branch of primates evolved a third cone type, now all of a sudden we could see colors that could not be coded by a mere 2 cones. That R in the RGB is something new that allowed us to see something, a mix of red frequency and blue frequency lights with no activation in the green frequency, which cannot exist without a third cone. If we evolved a 4th cone sensitive to an additional wavelength,we would be able to distinguish even more colors.

But that is just it, you have never in any experiment shown that a third cone has ever developed. You "assume" that is the case, yet mutational research has shown genes can be lost, but never once has any shown genes can be gained. Had even one shown such you might have an argument, but being they have only shown such can be lost (fish living in caves losing eyes), mutations causing damage and the gene rejected, etc, there is more evidence for assuming dogs lost a cone.

Humans already have a 4th in a percentage of the population, so 3 cones being the norm is most likely due to loss of genetic information through mutation, since most mutations are neutral or recessive. Those that are positive merely recombine what already existed. And in plant research most positive mutations are considered positive because a gene went recessive that made the plant not fit for human consumption. Not positive because it gave the plant a feature that enabled it to better survive.

Sure, a seedless orange is better for us, but not for the orange tree, being it is no longer able to propagate without direct help from mankind. Besides which that was done through genetic recombination and grafting, not mutation.

I am not denying your assumptions are not "hypothetically" possible, but since it has never been observed in any genetic experiment ever done, you are asking me to accept as fact something contrary to the evidence. Being born with blond hair instead of brown is not evolution of a new hair type, since all hair types already exist within the genome. It is merely variation of what already exists.

In the end, this is what every experiment has shown, yet you conclude evolution is through mutations creating new alleles and genes, something not once observed.

 

[[serious]]

But that is just it, you have never in any experiment shown that a third cone has ever developed. You "assume" that is the case, yet mutational research has shown genes can be lost, but never once has any shown genes can be gained. Had even one shown such you might have an argument, but being they have only shown such can be lost (fish living in caves losing eyes), mutations causing damage and the gene rejected, etc, there is more evidence for assuming dogs lost a cone.

Humans already have a 4th in a percentage of the population, so 3 cones being the norm is most likely due to loss of genetic information through mutation, since most mutations are neutral or recessive. Those that are positive merely recombine what already existed. And in plant research most positive mutations are considered positive because a gene went recessive that made the plant not fit for human consumption. Not positive because it gave the plant a feature that enabled it to better survive.

Sure, a seedless orange is better for us, but not for the orange tree, being it is no longer able to propagate without direct help from mankind. Besides which that was done through genetic recombination and grafting, not mutation.

I am not denying your assumptions are not "hypothetically" possible, but since it has never been observed in any genetic experiment ever done, you are asking me to accept as fact something contrary to the evidence. Being born with blond hair instead of brown is not evolution of a new hair type, since all hair types already exist within the genome. It is merely variation of what already exists.

In the end, this is what every experiment has shown, yet you conclude evolution is through mutations creating new alleles and genes, something not once observed.

We've seen nylonase develop. Duplication and modification made a new gene.

 

[createdtoworship]

That's not a definition. In fact that's barely a sentence. That is, however, a perfect example of Loudmouth's home run analogy where one attempts to "define" a home run out of existance and then claim that hitting one is impossible.

If "it's pretty simple", how about you do what I've been asking Creationists to provide me for quite some time - a quantifiable metric by which we may measure genetic "information" and then determine if a "gain" or "loss" has occured.

so you don't believe that genetic "information" is genetic code thats fine.

 

[createdtoworship]

You're welcome to believe or not believe whatever you want, but please don't act like your lack of belief is based on an understanding of the subject.

prove it,

or don't talk about it. (please)

 

[createdtoworship]

From scientific experiments. When male and female mate, new genetic information is not added, merely what already exists in the male and female are combined, to create a new combination of what ALREADY EXISTED. The same with mutations. Mutations simply cause genes to become recessive, dominate, or have no affect at all. Genes that ALREADY EXISTED.

Proven by 50+ years in mutational research.

http://www.weloennig.de/ShortVersionofMutationsLawof_2006.pdf


http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

"It may also be pointed out in this connection that – as far as the author is aware – neither plant breeders nor geneticists have ever reported the origin of any new species, or just any new stable races or ecotypes either surviving better or at least as well in the wild in comparison with the wild-type, in which the mutation(s) have been induced (Lönnig 1993 2001 2002a 2006, Lönnig and Becker 2004)."

thanks for the input, it's needed here.

 

[createdtoworship]

That "definition" is merely a statement of your previous assertion that information can be removed but not added. Furthermore, you use the term info in your definition of info. That's a non starter. But you know what? Let's run with it. Let me alter it just a bit to keep it from being self referential. Let's change it to "genetic information is anything that can be removed from the genome by a mutation or series of mutations that cannot be added to the genome by a mutation or series of mutations"

However, there is nothing in the genome we have yet found that could not have been added by mutation. As such under that definition, genetic information does not exist. The total information in the genome is zero and no information is needed for common descent or evolution.

Now, if you can show how information, consistent with your definition, exists in the genome and is necessary for evolution, then by all means make your case.

show how evolution can happen without information , and then we can talk.

your making new animals, phyla etc and no new information is coming to play?

come on!