Are discussions on faith and science two different catagories?

[Brightmoon]

There exists no known new genetic information added to the genome by mutations. As you stated they are copy errors (errors in copying what already exists) or deletions, or switching on or off traits.

The only known way to add new information is by mating. Genes which didn't exist in one are combined together to create a new life. And the two shall be one flesh. IMO it wasn't a rib taken from Adam to build Eve, but half of that perfect genome that has degraded over time because of mutations. We should at this point note, to forestall absurd claims from certain segments, that bacteria are also capable of obtaining genes from their environment, dead bacteria or other living bacteria.

. Same old misleading Creationist Newspeak . Genes get transferred from other organisms all the time . If it a new gene , then it’s a new gene . An organism’s DNA doesn’t care where new genetic information it comes from as long as it works and it’s beneficial or at worse neutral

 

[pitabread]

. Same old misleading Creationist Newspeak . Genes get transferred from other organisms all the time . If it a new gene , then it’s a new gene . An organism’s DNA doesn’t care where new genetic information it comes from as long as it works and it’s beneficial or at worse neutral

The creationist gobbledygook is strong in this thread.

For any creationists wanting to talk about 'information' in the genome, it would be interesting to see how they even try to define that much less quantify it. I'm not holding my breath though...

 

[AV1611VET]

For any creationists wanting to talk about 'information' in the genome, it would be interesting to see how they even try to define that much less quantify it. I'm not holding my breath though...

I believe DNA was flat before the Fall.

How's that for creationist nonsense?

 

[Brightmoon]

I believe DNA was flat before the Fall.

How's that for creationist nonsense?

I agree that that’s nonsense as usual from a creationist

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So your answer to the entire fossil record is basically nuh-uh. Figures ! You really don’t have any detailed anatomical studies like Linnaeus had . Nor do you have genetic information that disproves common descent. Nor do you have information about why any protohuman fossils aren’t really protohuman . Oh well i guess nuh-uh is about all you creationists ever come up with other than nonsensical fabrications .
It’s also creationists who think the scientific community conspires against them when in reality they’re dismissed as crackpots . Unfortunately not harmless crackpots but definitely crackpots

It is you that nuh-uh’s the fossil record.

We both know the fossil record shows exactly what I claim. Each separate type of creature remains exactly the same from the oldest dated to youngest dated fossil for that type of creature.

It is you that then connects them to others with imaginary common ancestors that can’t be found for any of them.

Then you got the nerve to claim it is my interpretation? You’re the one asking others to ignore what the fossil record shows, distinct types with no changes within those types.

You then ignore how we see exactly new variation to occur, when two animals mate. You then classify ones different from the others as separate species, when you have no idea how they came about. But you ignore that in all cases ones similar to the old form also existed and the new form appeared suddenly. Just as we observe in real life when sub species mate.

Don’t even try that evolutionary PR rhetoric with me, I know exactly what the fossil record shows. It shows no change in any creature for the oldest dated to youngest dated for that type of creature. It is your flawed interpretation of them as separate species that leads you to insert imaginary common ancestors because your evolutionary change is completely absent. It is absent because you ignore that the new form arose because of mating, not your useless blue moon mutation fantasy which are just copy errors of what already exists.

I understand you can’t accept reality that your entire classification system is based upon ignoring the real world, but don’t expect everyone to ignore it like you.

Your many fine graduations are missing because they do not exist. Your common ancestors are missing because they do not exist. Every fossil for every type of creature remains the same because there is no evolution of species.

You incorrectly label variations in most cases just like we see in dogs as separate species despite understanding that in the real world variation of form does not imply separate species. But you go ahead and label them as such because it fits your belief system and for no other reason at all.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I believe DNA was flat before the Fall.

How's that for creationist nonsense?

Just more robust. But after mutations damaged the genome most no longer codes for proteins.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Just because we haven't definitively observed something come from nothing doesn't mean that it can't happen.

Says those who when presented with how something came from nothing object because we haven’t definitively observed it.... hmmmm

 

[Justatruthseeker]

. Same old misleading Creationist Newspeak . Genes get transferred from other organisms all the time . If it a new gene , then it’s a new gene . An organism’s DNA doesn’t care where new genetic information it comes from as long as it works and it’s beneficial or at worse neutral

I’m glad you agree claims of mutation adding new information is absurd. Such only happens during mating. I already understand this. Seems your fellow evolutionists are the ones having a hard time with reality.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The creationist gobbledygook is strong in this thread.

For any creationists wanting to talk about 'information' in the genome, it would be interesting to see how they even try to define that much less quantify it. I'm not holding my breath though...

I’m still waiting for you to define much less quantify how copying what already existed leads to new information since it already existed and since it already existed was already a possibility to arise during recombination during mating.

If it is a copy error, that possibility already exists in the genome.

So please show how you get from a bacteria to a baseball player by copying and rearranging what only exists in the bacteria????

Quantify this for us....

 

[pitabread]

I’m still waiting for you to define much less quantify how copying what already existed leads to new information since it already existed and since it already existed was already a possibility to arise during recombination during mating.

Mutations change DNA sequences and can result in novel sequences not present in the parent genome. That's your new "information". These novel sequences can result in changes to both expression and function of genes. All of this has been observed both in nature and experimental data, which a 10 second search on Google Scholar would reveal.

Now if you want to argue that the above doesn't happen then you've got your work cut out for you.

So please show how you get from a bacteria to a baseball player by copying and rearranging what only exists in the bacteria????

I think the conceptual gap lies in understanding that evolution is a recursive process. Meaning it builds on what came before it.

You appear to think it's a static process whereby the changes to genomes don't carry over from one generation to the next.

 

[pitabread]

As I said, i don't think you tried very hard.

Instead of whining about what I have done, why don't you do your own analysis?

I've received criticism from a few creationists now on that analysis I did but nobody wants to step up and perform their own.

 

[pitabread]

No you said, they weren't, yet I showed you their own quote which said many interpretations were available based upon the data. That they were made to create a tree that fit a hypothesis.

Phylogenetic tree construction is inherently a statistical process and consequently has limitations based on the fundamental data sets used. It's certainly possible to have multiple trees depending on one's originating data set

It doesn't help that evolution and population gene flow is not a perfectly constant, linear process. Different rates of mutation in genomes, hybridization, and so on all make sorting through DNA sequences a bit messy.

But that said we still have a relatively clear picture of the respect evolutionary relationships of higher taxa. Certainly far clearer than the creationist assertion that all life belong to immutable classifications called "kinds".

The difference is I backed up my assertions, you fail to on every issue.

I do seem to recall you suggesting that all modern species were derived from individually created pairs with magic genomes that contain all the variety that we observe in nature today.

Have you backed up that claim yet? Because if so, I must've missed it.

(Also realize that no matter how many Internet Points you may think you are winning here, it's all for naught. Nothing you say on this forum has any impact on how real-world science is performed or changes the fact that evolution is a foundational part of modern biology. For the most part all of this back-and-forth debate is pointless.)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Mutations change DNA sequences and can result in novel sequences not present in the parent genome.

No it can’t. That sequence already existed as a possibility, or else any amount of copying and rewriting would not result in the sequence.

Propaganda doesn’t work here, you’ve been repeatedly told that.

You only think it’s new, but it was copied from information that already contained that possibility to begin with.

That's your new "information". These novel sequences can result in changes to both expression and function of genes. All of this has been observed both in nature and experimental data, which a 10 second search on Google Scholar would reveal.

You could at least be honest. What has been observed is taking something that already exists in another form and rearranging it. The possibility of the new arrangement already existed.

Now if you want to argue that the above doesn't happen then you've got your work cut out for you.

Not in the least, what was already present was simply rearranged. That possibility already existed.

I think the conceptual gap lies in understanding that evolution is a recursive process. Meaning it builds on what came before it.

How, when what came before it can not be rearranged in any fashion to produce what cane after? Stop pretending copying what already exists is something new and you’ll see your conceptual error.

You appear to think it's a static process whereby the changes to genomes don't carry over from one generation to the next.

Oh no, it definitely is not static, but those changes already exist as a possibility in the genome to begin with.... You seem to be having a difficulty understanding what a transcription error is. It’s transcribing what already exists as a possibility, otherwise it couldn’t transcribe it.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Phylogenetic tree construction is inherently a statistical process and consequently has limitations based on the fundamental data sets used. It's certainly possible to have multiple trees depending on one's originating data set

So your tree is in all likelihood Incorrect and just the one the researcher thought fit his beliefs the best, understood.

It doesn't help that evolution and population gene flow is not a perfectly constant, linear process. Different rates of mutation in genomes, hybridization, and so on all make sorting through DNA sequences a bit messy.

in other words the facts aren’t quite so factual, got it.

But that said we still have a relatively clear picture of the respect evolutionary relationships of higher taxa. Certainly far clearer than the creationist assertion that all life belong to immutable classifications called "kinds".

Sure you do, when you call animals humping like rabbits and producing fertile offspring right in front of your noses separate species.....

I do seem to recall you suggesting that all modern species were derived from individually created pairs with magic genomes that contain all the variety that we observe in nature today.

Have you backed up that claim yet? Because if so, I must've missed it.

I do seem to recall that 99% of our genome is now non-coding, while some simple life only 3% is.

So we agree that mutations have damaged our genome over time.

(Also realize that no matter how many Internet Points you may think you are winning here, it's all for naught. Nothing you say on this forum has any impact on how real-world science is performed or changes the fact that evolution is a foundational part of modern biology. For the most part all of this back-and-forth debate is pointless.)

Who cares about internet points?

Is that what truth is to you, to see who can win the most points? That you think this is what it is about shows where your mindset is at..... not on the science or truth, but about points.....

 

[pitabread]

No it can’t. That sequence already existed as a possibility, or else any amount of copying and rewriting would not result in the sequence.

Are you actually trying to argue that if a sequence exists in the probability space of potential outcomes, therefore it doesn't count as new/novel when that particular outcome results in reality?

By this token literally nothing would ever be new as a result of already existing in the probability space of potential outcomes. And that's just silly.

So your tree is in all likelihood Incorrect and just the one the researcher thought fit his beliefs the best, understood.

In all likelihood all phylogenetic trees are incorrect in the sense that they all contain a margin of error. But it's not about perfection, it's about coming up with the best representation possible.

in other words the facts aren’t quite so factual, got it.

I'd say it's that our exploration of nature is inherently imperfect given that the limitations of human inquiry. That doesn't mean our question for knowledge is irrelevant; we may have imperfect knowledge but imperfect knowledge has still proven to be useful.

Is that what truth is to you, to see who can win the most points?

Did you not read what I just wrote? This is is literally the opposite of what I was saying.

 

[Brightmoon]

I’m glad you agree claims of mutation adding new information is absurd. Such only happens during mating. I already understand this. Seems your fellow evolutionists are the ones having a hard time with reality.

I didn’t mean to Imply that , if I did. A genome that gets new genes added is new information and doesn’t matter whether the new gene is a mutated version of an old one ; a bunch of random DNA that just became useful ; or a gene inserted into the genome from another organism. These are all new to that specific organism and despite creationist lies about it these are all ways that evolution happens. I’m going to add gene duplication to that list as producing extra protein or having an additional regulatory effect, can cause evolution as well.
You have a habit of using creationist newspeak despite being told repeatedly that your definitions are stupidly wrong

 

[Jimmy D]

We both know the fossil record shows exactly what I claim. Each separate type of creature remains exactly the same from the oldest dated to youngest dated fossil for that type of creature.

This seems to be another of your catchphrases, but it's pure nonsense.

Of course examples of a specific flipping creature "stays the same", if it didn't it would be classified as a different creature...

 

[Brightmoon]

Says those who when presented with how something came from nothing object because we haven’t definitively observed it.... hmmmm

And this proves what? scientists say that the the Big Bang came from they-don’t-know-yet . Scientists also know that the Big Bang came from somewhere. Creationists don’t even have that much evidence just a Bronze Age holy book that has been demonstrated to inaccurate for at least the last 350 years.

( snip)

Sure you do, when you call animals humping like rabbits and producing fertile offspring right in front of your noses separate species.....



I do seem to recall that 99% of our genome is now non-coding, while some simple life only 3% is.

So we agree that mutations have damaged our genome over time.


.

. 1 Your wiseass word twisting assertions remind me of the guys on the corner playing the dozens . They’re still not evidence.

2 mutations don’t damage DNA they just change it . Whether or not the organism can use that changed DNA or not is another story

3 Yes two closely related species can produce fertile hybrids . What you don’t seem to get is that this is evidence that these 2 species were once a single interbreeding population that has gradually split apart . Fertile hybrids is just evidence that the two species haven’t completely split apart yet.

 

[Jimmy D]

3 Yes two closely related species can produce fertile hybrids . What you don’t seem to get is that this is evidence that these 2 species were once a single interbreeding population that has gradually split apart . Fertile hybrids is just evidence that the two species haven’t completely split apart yet.

BINGO!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This seems to be another of your catchphrases, but it's pure nonsense.

Of course examples of a specific flipping creature "stays the same", if it didn't it would be classified as a different creature...

That’s just it, you then incorrectly classify the new variation as a separate species, when dogs show you just how varied in form the species actually is.

It’s not my fault they ignore reality when it comes to the fossil record.

And just like dogs is why there are no transitory species and why your common ancestors are all missing. There were none to begin with. They have simply inserted their belief and incorrectly classified sub-species as separate species which leads to their need of having to add missing forms....