What about the DNA evidence?

[Split Rock]

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%

I was asking in terms of a hypothetical situation to avoid his issues with common descent. He still showed he cannot come to a rational conclusion based on reality. Neither can you.

 

[sfs]

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.

It's been about as pure a display as one could ask for of creationist "reasoning". Unsubstantiated claims, reliance on catch phrases, complete lack of substance.

 

[[serious]]

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.

Not under your definition of "information." You defined info as essentially something mutation can't make. The evolution of humans did not require anything mutation can't make. As far as the "because we're not monkeys" bit, are we also not mammals and vertebrates?

 

[[serious]]

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

Which part? Lets take a look at the nylonase example you repeatedly ignore:

The genetic material of a cell or an organism refers to:
those materials found in the nucleus, mitochondria and cytoplasm, (in this case cytoplasm)

which play a fundamental role in determining the structure and nature of cell substances, (in this case the ability to break down nylon compounds)

and capable of self-propagating (the plasmid in question does replicate and is passed on)

and variation. (and it is capable of further mutation)

So looks like EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Just saying words at us won't change the requirement that you define how you are trying to use genetic material.

 

[createdtoworship]

We're done here.

good then, you can stop anytime. (please... it's embarrassing)

 

[createdtoworship]

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

hey serious you definition doesn't match up with (new information). I see change and alteration but no new information.

even in nylonase, again it's a new function not new genetic material.

If I get a skin graft and it changes location, and replicates if you will....

and it serves another function.

Is it new skin?

No.

 

[[serious]]

hey serious you definition doesn't match up with (new information). I see change and alteration but no new information.

even in nylonase, again it's a new function not new genetic material.

If I get a skin graft and it changes location, and replicates if you will....

and it serves another function.

Is it new skin?

No.

Genetic information, as you defined it, is not needed for genetic material. If you are postulating that all genetic material contains information under your definition, you would need to demonstrate that. As it currently stands, you have provided no evidence that your version of genetic information exists.

Let me spell this out bit by bit:
1. You defined information as something that mutations can't make.
2. You asked us to define genetic material and we used a standard definition of replicable, variable, functional molecules contained within the cytoplasm or cell structures. (In the case of most life, DNA).
3. Since we've found nothing in the DNA that mutations couldn't have formed, we have yet to find information in the genetic material within cells.

If you want to propose an alternate definition of genetic material, go for it. Again though, be careful not to define genetic information out of existence as you did with information.

Really, why on earth would I have to provide for your silly information definition in the common understanding of genetic material? That's ridiculous. We aren't going to argue your case for you.

 

[createdtoworship]

Genetic information, as you defined it, is not needed for genetic material. If you are postulating that all genetic material contains information under your definition, you would need to demonstrate that. As it currently stands, you have provided no evidence that your version of genetic information exists.

Let me spell this out bit by bit:
1. You defined information as something that mutations can't make.
2. You asked us to define genetic material and we used a standard definition of replicable, variable, functional molecules contained within the cytoplasm or cell structures. (In the case of most life, DNA).
3. Since we've found nothing in the DNA that mutations couldn't have formed, we have yet to find information in the genetic material within cells.

If you want to propose an alternate definition of genetic material, go for it. Again though, be careful not to define genetic information out of existence as you did with information.

Really, why on earth would I have to provide for your silly information definition in the common understanding of genetic material? That's ridiculous. We aren't going to argue your case for you.

yes I assume all genetic material has information. Do you have any examples where it doesn't?

 

[Subduction Zone]

yes I assume all genetic material has information. Do you have any examples where it doesn't?

A lot of junk DNA is merely ERV's. They may have been information when it first was attached but that is lost over time. They have revived very "young" ERV's but old ones are too mutated for them to have any useful"information" any more.

 

[[serious]]

yes I assume all genetic material has information. Do you have any examples where it doesn't?

Assumptions are not evidence. How have you determined that genetic material has information under this definition:

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.

Let's take a look at the nylonase. It came from duplication and alteration of the genetic code, it fits all the requirements of my definition of genetic material (exists in the cytoplasm, is copied, is part of the functioning of the cell, etc.), but because you define information as not-made-by-mutation, and the nylonase gene was made by mutation, the nylonase gene is genetic material without any information.

My standing position is that since all known genes could have been created by mutations, none of them could contain information under your definition. Hence, the genetic code contains no information under your definition.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And yet no new information is made, it is merely information put together in different ways. Like typing this sentence. I can use all sorts of different letters on my keyboard to spell out millions of word combinations, but I am limited to the letters that already exist, and the total number of combinations contained. The gene merely recombines information that already exists in the genetic code into different combinations. It does not add new letters to the genetic code.

About 2 weeks ago I asked for one paper showing new alleles or genes have ever been observed, and I notice I am still waiting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And yet no new information is made, it is merely information put together in different ways. Like typing this sentence. I can use all sorts of different letters on my keyboard to spell out millions of word combinations, but I am limited to the letters that already exist, and the total number of combinations contained. The gene merely recombines information that already exists in the genetic code into different combinations. It does not add new letters to the genetic code.

About 2 weeks ago I asked for one paper showing new alleles or genes have ever been observed, and I notice I am still waiting.

Why on Earth do you think that "new letters" are needed for new information. And someone would be a fool to claim that you cannot make new information with only the 26 letters we use in our alphabet.

You probably have a very very poor definition of "information".

 

[Black Akuma]

About 2 weeks ago I asked for one paper showing new alleles or genes have ever been observed, and I notice I am still waiting.

Cell - Identification of deletion mutations and three new genes at the familial polyposis locus

Will this do?

 

[createdtoworship]

Assumptions are not evidence. How have you determined that genetic material has information under this definition:


Let's take a look at the nylonase. It came from duplication and alteration of the genetic code, it fits all the requirements of my definition of genetic material (exists in the cytoplasm, is copied, is part of the functioning of the cell, etc.), but because you define information as not-made-by-mutation, and the nylonase gene was made by mutation, the nylonase gene is genetic material without any information.

My standing position is that since all known genes could have been created by mutations, none of them could contain information under your definition. Hence, the genetic code contains no information under your definition.

not following you, can you explain it again. In laymans terms? Thanks for the comment.

 

[createdtoworship]

A lot of junk DNA is merely ERV's. They may have been information when it first was attached but that is lost over time. They have revived very "young" ERV's but old ones are too mutated for them to have any useful"information" any more.

I wasn't talking about the Junk, even though they are finding purpose even for the junk.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wasn't talking about the Junk, even though they are finding purpose even for the junk.

They have found very limited purposes for parts of the junk DNA. Most of the junk DNA is still junk DNA. And junk DNA is still genetic material. You specifically asked about genetic material not having information. Junk DNA perfectly fits that category.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

They have found very limited purposes for parts of the junk DNA. Most of the junk DNA is still junk DNA. And junk DNA is still genetic material. You specifically asked about genetic material not having information. Junk DNA perfectly fits that category.

Because they have only studied <2% of it because they once believed only the protein making sites were important. So with a less than 2% understanding of the genome, we know this as fact? Are you certain you want to stand by that claim?

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-much-of-our-genome-is-sequenced.html

You base most of this on the frivolous assumption that because bacteria need less, ours must be useless, but a bacteria is not as complicated as a human being, so it stands to reason it need less encoding genes.

 

[Black Akuma]

Because they have only studied <2% of it because they once believed only the protein making sites were important. So with a less than 2% understanding of the genome, we know this as fact? Are you certain you want to stand by that claim?

Sandwalk: How Much of Our Genome Is Sequenced?

I'm really, really confused as to why you linked that blog, Justa, because...I mean, I'm reading it, and it doesn't even mention protein or protein-making sites, and says nothing about us studying only 2% of the the genome. I'm not even saying you're wrong - I think you are, yeah, but that's not what puzzled me. I just don't see how it supports the paragraph that comes about it.

In fact - and someone with expertise can correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but...it seems to flatly contradict what you said.

We can say that only 90% of the human genome has been sequenced and the remaining 10% falls into 357 gaps scattered throughout the genome. (Every chromosome has unsequenced gaps but some have more than others and it doesn't depend on the size of the chromosome.)

And that's no bold mine, either; that's actually in the blog you sited.

So, I just...maybe I'm reading it wrong, I'll freely admit it, but I just don't see how this supports your argument.

 

[[serious]]

not following you, can you explain it again. In laymans terms? Thanks for the comment.

Well, my position is that nothing fitting your definition of information exists in the genome. I say that because everything I know of in the genome could have arisen via mutation. Your definition of information precludes what can arise via mutation. You are working under the assumption that new information is required for evolution to work. However, under your definition of information, it isn't required.

Under my definition of genetic material, new genetic material is needed. However, under that same definition, duplication and alteration of existing material would produce something new that is genetic material. Hence, new genetic material.

You are attempting to conflate genetic material and information, but according to the definitions in use in the thread, they are different things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because they have only studied <2% of it because they once believed only the protein making sites were important. So with a less than 2% understanding of the genome, we know this as fact? Are you certain you want to stand by that claim?

Sandwalk: How Much of Our Genome Is Sequenced?

You base most of this on the frivolous assumption that because bacteria need less, ours must be useless, but a bacteria is not as complicated as a human being, so it stands to reason it need less encoding genes.

Sorry, you are going to do a lot better than a scientist who is a bit on the fringe to be convincing. This scientist spends more time blogging than he does on actual science by the number of blogs that he has published. Blogs are not where real science is done.

I am not a geneticist, but sfs is. He can tell you why you are wrong much better than I can. I will go on your record here. Since you are wrong well over 90% of the time. And as Black Akuma pointed out that article claims they have sequenced 90% of the genome, not 2%.

Perhaps you should try again.