What about the DNA evidence?

[createdtoworship]

There was a working link to the site. That is the same as giving credit to the author.

it's actually not, because the copywrite is owned by the author, and the collection owned by the site.

 

[createdtoworship]

Therefore you must tell us what is required for this to have occurred, that according to you cannot have occurred. Go ahead.

what is required is a miracle, because that simply didn't happen.

 

[createdtoworship]

Nope, since it can have a new function by definition it is a new gene. That is the very definition of a new gene.

You are trying to define new genes out of existence.

sources?

 

[Subduction Zone]

sources?

Really? Show a source for your false claim first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh what the heck:

A gene is the molecular unit of heredity of a living organism.

Gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Therefore if a gene has a new use, it is a new heredity unit, it is a new gene.

Different heredity unit different gene, can you understand this extremely simple concept?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh what the heck:




Gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Therefore if a gene has a new use, it is a new heredity unit, it is a new gene.

Different heredity unit different gene, can you understand this extremely simple concept?

Yet you never read it.

"Mutations propagated to the next generation lead to variations within a species' population. Variants of a single gene are known as alleles, and differences in alleles may give rise to differences in traits. Although it is rare for the variants in a single gene to have clearly distinguishable phenotypic effects, certain well-defined traits are in fact controlled by single genetic loci."

Variations, not new genetic material. Can you understand that extremely simple concept? So no genetic experiment has ever shown new genes can arise where none existed before, they are merely variation of what already existed. And therefore your "hypothesis" that new genes can be formed through mutations has not once been observed. Therefore there is no basis to claim evolution from simple compounds to complex lifeforms.

We can deduce that what you have observed in the genetic tests and fossil record is mere variation of the same species population.

The alleles merely become dominate or recessive, but already existed.

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet you never read it.

"Mutations propagated to the next generation lead to variations within a species' population. Variants of a single gene are known as alleles, and differences in alleles may give rise to differences in traits. Although it is rare for the variants in a single gene to have clearly distinguishable phenotypic effects, certain well-defined traits are in fact controlled by single genetic loci."

Variations, not new genetic material. Can you understand that extremely simple concept? So no genetic experiment has ever shown new genes can arise where none existed before, they are merely variation of what already existed. And therefore your "hypothesis" that new genes can be formed through mutations has not once been observed. Therefore there is no basis to claim evolution from simple compounds to complex lifeforms.

We can deduce that what you have observed in the genetic tests and fossil record is mere variation of the same species population.

The alleles merely become dominate or recessive, but already existed.

Allele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have no clue.

Just because you call it "variations" does not mean that is not new genetic material.


Once again, all that matters is that it performs a new function. New function by definition a new gene. Your ignorance cannot be used as "proof".

Oh I almost forgot:

Wrong Justa, try again.

 

[sfs]

if a gene is modified after copying, doesn't mean it's "new material" that is begging the question as to what this material entails (newness).

Huh? The species' genome now has a stretch of sequence that did not exist anywhere. What else could "new material" look like in a genome? You've been presented with cases of exactly what you're asking for, and your only response is to say, "Is not!". Not exactly a solid scientific argument.

 

[createdtoworship]

Huh? The species' genome now has a stretch of sequence that did not exist anywhere. What else could "new material" look like in a genome? You've been presented with cases of exactly what you're asking for, and your only response is to say, "Is not!". Not exactly a solid scientific argument.

And you need a definition of new material that doesn't beg the question!

 

[[serious]]

you didn't violate internet rules, but forum rules:

any copywrite material unless it states what percentage is against the rules:

you quoted 4964 words out of 9214 words (excluding references-11019 including references)

according to: Word Counter

that is 53% and 45% respectively)

which is half of the text.

that is over double of what you are supposed to quote, under copywrite rules of this forum.

If talk origins did not copywrite it, then you may have more slack.

Secondly, in the second paragraph of copywrite rules on talk origins it mentions to give credit to the author. You did not. So thats one maybe two rules broken.

If you think it's an issue, report it. Unless something has changed, as long as the use falls under the allowable use granted, it's fine. Whether you decide to report it or not, I would still like you to address the content of the post. All of those are examples of new animals coming into existence.

The point remains, as you've defined genetic information, genetic information neither exists nor is necessary for the evolution of new species.

 

[[serious]]

And you need a definition of new material that doesn't beg the question!

OK, I'll google one
Genetic material: The genetic material of a cell or an organism refers to those materials found in the nucleus, mitochondria and cytoplasm, which play a fundamental role in determining the structure and nature of cell substances, and capable of self-propagating and variation.

Genetic material - definition from Biology-Online.org

If you want to propose an alternate definition, please do so. Try not to define it out of existence this time though.

 

[Split Rock]

there was no addition of genetic material.

One More Time (it is really had to get straight answers out of you guys):::

Here are the differences between human and chimp genomes in a nutshell:

35 million single nucleotide differences and ∼90 Mb of insertions and deletions.
Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack

According to you, none of this is added "new information." Therefore, the evolution of chimps and humans from a common ancestor (hypothetical if you like) did not require any "new information." Do You Agree?

 

[Split Rock]

what is required is a miracle, because that simply didn't happen.

So, another circular argument.
It didn't happen because it didn't happen.
Thanks.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

One More Time (it is really had to get straight answers out of you guys):::

Here are the differences between human and chimp genomes in a nutshell:

35 million single nucleotide differences and ∼90 Mb of insertions and deletions.
Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack

According to you, none of this is added "new information." Therefore, the evolution of chimps and humans from a common ancestor (hypothetical if you like) did not require any "new information." Do You Agree?

No, chimps are chimps, humans are humans, there is no link between them except for the fact that almost all life on this planet shares some similarities. because all are composed of the same material, protons, electrons and neutrons. There is no difference between the iron molecules in your body and that of rock. Are rocks our ancestors? That would be closer since we came from the dust of the earth, to which science agrees since they claim life formed from non-life.

Chimp genomes have never been observed to vary outside the chimp species. Human genomes have never been observed to vary outside the human genome. Rose genes have never been observed to vary outside the rose gene.

We have thousands of varieties of rose, but they are all rose, never become anything other than rose, with very few differences in their genome. Yet you claim 35 million is a small number, and this does not count the 98% of the genome we still do not understand so have labeled junk, which we are finding out is not the junk we thought it was.

So after you have studied that other 98% so your ideas are not based upon mere fragments, then we can discuss the hypothetical. But why discuss the hypothetical when there is insufficient knowledge to base anything on? A knowledge of less than 2% of the gene is certainly insufficient knowledge. but evolutionists do like to base entire theories on mere fragments. Much easier to state things as fact without the chance of being shown wrong when you have no facts to go by except a mere <2%. So at most as it stands right now, you have a <2% chance of being correct, except all tests done with that <2% show mere variation, and never anything new. So your odds just dropped to <.01%

 

[createdtoworship]

One More Time (it is really had to get straight answers out of you guys):::

Here are the differences between human and chimp genomes in a nutshell:

35 million single nucleotide differences and &#8764;90 Mb of insertions and deletions.
Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack

According to you, none of this is added "new information." Therefore, the evolution of chimps and humans from a common ancestor (hypothetical if you like) did not require any "new information." Do You Agree?

actually it would have hypothetically required new information. Because we are not monkeys, there would have to have been additional bits of data added to the code for assembly of the new mechanisms. But that is hypothetical, again it would be miraculous for this to happen. And it takes faith to believe in it. Just like any religious concept.

 

[createdtoworship]

OK, I'll google one
Genetic material: The genetic material of a cell or an organism refers to those materials found in the nucleus, mitochondria and cytoplasm, which play a fundamental role in determining the structure and nature of cell substances, and capable of self-propagating and variation.

Genetic material - definition from Biology-Online.org

If you want to propose an alternate definition, please do so. Try not to define it out of existence this time though.

yeah too bad when you finally quote a definition, it doesn't match up with your story! lol

 

[createdtoworship]

No, chimps are chimps, humans are humans, there is no link between them except for the fact that almost all life on this planet shares some similarities. because all are composed of the same material, protons, electrons and neutrons. There is no difference between the iron molecules in your body and that of rock. Are rocks our ancestors? That would be closer since we came from the dust of the earth, to which science agrees since they claim life formed from non-life.

Chimp genomes have never been observed to vary outside the chimp species. Human genomes have never been observed to vary outside the human genome. Rose genes have never been observed to vary outside the rose gene.

We have thousands of varieties of rose, but they are all rose, never become anything other than rose, with very few differences in their genome. Yet you claim 35 million is a small number, and this does not count the 98% of the genome we still do not understand so have labeled junk, which we are finding out is not the junk we thought it was.

So after you have studied that other 98% so your ideas are not based upon mere fragments, then we can discuss the hypothetical. But why discuss the hypothetical when there is insufficient knowledge to base anything on? A knowledge of less than 2% of the gene is certainly insufficient knowledge. but evolutionists do like to base entire theories on mere fragments. Much easier to state things as fact without the chance of being shown wrong when you have no facts to go by except a mere <2%. So at most as it stands right now, you have a <2% chance of being correct, except all tests done with that <2% show mere variation, and never anything new. So your odds just dropped to <.01%

many say we have similiar chromosomes to a monkey,

but we also have similiar to a pig.

lol

 

[Shemjaza]

many say we have similiar chromosomes to a monkey,

but we also have similiar to a pig.

lol

What's so funny? We do have similar genes to a pig, but less similar then they are to a monkey and more similar then to a bird.

This is exactly what we expect... how do you explain it?

If we are talking creationism why is a mouse more similar to human genetically then it is to a marsupial mouse?

 

[USincognito]

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

Normally I'd invoke So's Law, but you're not that far off base. Genetic code is not the same as genetic information. Further, I don't consider DNA to be completely analagous to languages or computer code*. The interactions of chemicals don't operate in the same way that binary and letters do. The information comes from how the various components of DNA interact, not from their very existance.

But asking me a question is not the same as providing me an answer. You still have not given us a working, viable definition of genetic "information" that has explanatory power. Your definition appears, well, is "that which cannot be changed or increased" and that is simply wrong.

You also avoided my direct question - what is the quantitative metric by which we can measure genetic "information" and thus determine of a "loss" or "gain" has occured. Until you do that, you're spinning your wheels and not really saying anything.

prove it,

or don't talk about it. (please)

No need for me to prove you don't understand genetics. You're doing just fine on your own.




* To clarify, I'm not saying that it is not analagous. I just don't think it is in the way many Creationists think it is.

 

[Split Rock]

actually it would have hypothetically required new information. Because we are not monkeys, there would have to have been additional bits of data added to the code for assembly of the new mechanisms. But that is hypothetical, again it would be miraculous for this to happen. And it takes faith to believe in it. Just like any religious concept.

This is categorically wrong. I just told you what the differences were, and that they are all explainable by mutations you say do not add "new information." The only rational conclusion is that theoretically no new information (according to your definition) would have been needed to be added during human evolution from the common ancestor. The fact that you cannot even admit this in a hypothetical scenario shows how divorced from reality your position truly is. We're done here.