Evidence for macro-evolution

[Guy Threepwood]

This statement is counterfactual.
A very cool experiment, performed by Yuuki Hayashi et al. that I will indicate as "The Rugged Landscape Experiment" shows this.
It has been mentioned earlier in this thread that there is a genetic "switch" in the DNA before the DNA part that codes for a protein. This switch can be activated by the a hormone, a the metabolic starting material or any other signal molecule. Yuuki Hayashi et al. performed a cool experiment: they stripped the coding part of the DNA of a virus that codes for the protein that grants access to a E. coli batcteria and replaced it with a random stretch of DNA. After 20 generations the virus had increased its infectivity by 1.7*10^7 compared with the starting generation.
This shows that gain of function does NOT develop by loss of funtion - all function was already lost - but indeed by increasing fitness of the coded protein.
source to the original papers:

Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space - PMC

The fitness landscape in sequence space determines the process of biomolecular evolution. To plot the fitness landscape of protein function, we carried out in vitro molecular evolution beginning with a defective fd phage carrying a random ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022519306005984

"they stripped the coding part of the DNA of a virus that codes for the protein that grants access to a E. coli batcteria and replaced it with a random stretch of DNA"

Right, so introducing a random sequence of DNA broke a specific function... That's exactly my point.
Once again breaking functions can often improve fitness, no argument there.

But the same problem remains, you cannot macro-evolve a bacteria into a human being by simply breaking previously active functions.

You need the exact opposite phenomena than your example to occur.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And what is your point exactly? That the ToE is false because some pseudoscience and wrong theories were formulated during that period? By that reasoning, shall we discard the existence of atoms, genetics and thermodynamics too?
And does that give you the possibility to substitute anything in the place - by default?
What exactly is your point?

Point being; we should not limit ourselves to a Victorian age understanding of the natural world if we want to understand it.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Point being; we should not limit ourselves to a Victorian age understanding of the natural world if we want to understand it.

Right, instead we should limit ourselves to an iron age understanding of the natural world and shoehorn that in to everything we've learned since the Victorian age. Gotcha!

 

[driewerf]

"they stripped the coding part of the DNA of a virus that codes for the protein that grants access to a E. coli batcteria and replaced it with a random stretch of DNA"

Right, so introducing a random sequence of DNA broke a specific function... That's exactly my point.
Once again breaking functions can often improve fitness, no argument there.

But the same problem remains, you cannot macro-evolve a bacteria into a human being by simply breaking previously active functions.

You need the exact opposite phenomena than your example to occur.

Hola boy, you very selectively forgot to quote the rest of the post:
they stripped the coding part of the DNA of a virus that codes for the protein that grants access to a E. coli batcteria and replaced it with a random stretch of DNA. After 20 generations the virus had increased its infectivity by 1.7*10^7 compared with the starting generation.
How very creationist this very selective quoting.
@ the reader and doubter: this is what creationists need: deception, lies and obfuscation. A world view that cal only survive with dirty tricks isn't worth to be considered.

 

[BCP1928]

It's more from my own experience of how digital information works.

You can create copies of it, and you can introduce random errors in those copies. But neither of these mechanisms are adequate to explain the origin of the information that is merely being copied and corrupted.

You are ignoring the part of the evolutionary process which converts the "digital information" in the gene pool into a randomly distributed range of variation in the phenotypes.

With regard to digital information, I think you should read Shannon's original paper on the subject. It would clear up a lot of confusion.

 

[Shemjaza]

It's more from my own experience of how digital information works.

You can create copies of it, and you can introduce random errors in those copies. But neither of these mechanisms are adequate to explain the origin of the information that is merely being copied and corrupted.

Do you have an objective method and metric for measuring your personal version of digital information yet?

 

[driewerf]

Point being; we should not limit ourselves to a Victorian age understanding of the natural world if we want to understand it.

So understood, just because the"Victorian age" produced phlebotomy, phrenology and steady state and these were wrong we can discard the Theory of Evolution too without any necessity to look at evidence. Let us ignore all the data collected both then and now. Let us proclaim the new criterion for science as "wrong by association".
This is of course only possible if we allow the creationists selective reading of the history of science and the creationist methodology of science. For the Victorian age gave us also genetics (Gregor Mendel), thermodynamics (Sadi Carnot) electromagnetism (Maxwell), atomism (John Dalton), the role of enzymes in biochemistry (Louis Pasteur) and so on.
All wrong by Guy Threpwood's new method.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let us proclaim the new criterion for science as "wrong by association".

Let's do better than that.

Let's proclaim science can take a hike.

A long hike on a short pier.

 

[partinobodycular]

Let's do better than that.

Let's proclaim science can take a hike.

A long hike on a short pier.

Says the guy who insists that he believes that science is a gift from God. And he wonders why we don't believe him.

 

[AV1611VET]

Says the guy who insists that he believes that science is a gift from God.

Yup.

And he wonders why we don't believe him.

I know why.

 

[SelfSim]

Yup.

I know why.

Yes .. your advocation of wilful ignorance undermines the principles you rely on for beliefs to be accepted by rational people.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes .. your advocation of wilful ignorance undermines the principles you rely on for beliefs to be accepted by rational people.

My "advocation of wilful ignorance" has nothing to do with my Boolean standards and Prime Directive, which are not dependent on my existence.

Those standards existed long before I was born, and will exist long after I'm gone.

If "rational people" won't accept my beliefs because they deem me to be "willfully ignorant," it's because they have already made up their minds about what I'm saying long before they ever met me.

The fact that I link most of my beliefs to Wikipedia, the dictionary, the Bible, and footnotes to study Bibles, shows my beliefs are not nearly as unique as you think they are.

I may have one or two "pet theories" that are avant-garde, but who doesn't?

 

[SelfSim]

My "advocation of wilful ignorance" has nothing to do with my Boolean standards and Prime Directive, which are not dependent on my existence.
Those standards existed long before I was born, and will exist long after I'm gone.

Please cite the literal Bible text showing us these Boolean standards.
And if they are separate from your advocation, then would you share what that does 'have to do with'?

If "rational people" won't accept my beliefs because they deem me to be "willfully ignorant," it's because they have already made up their minds about what I'm saying long before they ever met me.

.. or they are rational enough to recognise the advocation whenever they see it(?)

What they 'deem you as being', I don't recall, ever having seen .. I, personally, might imply you of being human from time to time though, I suppose(?)

The fact that I link most of my beliefs to Wikipedia, the dictionary, the Bible, and footnotes to study Bibles, shows my beliefs are not nearly as unique as you think they are.
I may have one or two "pet theories" that are avant-garde, but who doesn't?

You don't seem to understand that I am not attempting to separate you, from your beliefs ..

I am critical of the advocation (and propagation) of wilful ignorance going forwards, which results from the way you use these references, in a rational thinking forum.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am critical of the advocation (and propagation) of wilful ignorance going forwards,

Does my belief that Jesus walked on water constitute "wilful ignorance of science"?

How does someone who believes in miracles escape your claim of "wilful ignorance"?

 

[SelfSim]

Does my belief that Jesus walked on water constitute "wilful ignorance of science"?

How does someone who believes in miracles escape your claim of "wilful ignorance"?

I'll leave all that up to you ... because your beliefs are your business ... right up until they lead to you advocate .. as you did in post #208:

Let's do better than that.

Let's proclaim science can take a hike.

A long hike on a short pier.

 

[Astrid]

Please cite the literal Bible text showing us these Boolean standards.
And if they are separate from your advocation, then would you share what that does 'have to do with'?

.. or they are rational enough to recognise the advocation whenever they see it(?)

What they 'deem you as being', I don't recall, ever having seen .. I, personally, might imply you of being human from time to time though, I suppose(?)


You don't seem to understand that I am not attempting to separate you, from your beliefs ..

I am critical of the advocation (and propagation) of wilful ignorance going forwards, which results from the way you use these references, in a rational thinking forum.

Maybe what we see from such
is not so much willful, as constructive.

Similar to the usage in "constructive fraud"

 

[SelfSim]

Maybe what we see from such
is not so much willful, as constructive.

Similar to the usage in "constructive fraud"

I find difficulty in agreeing with that .. especially when the act is demonstrated as being deceptive.

The maturity-without-history (in the context of this planet) nonsense, is a classic example (see here) ... thanks to @Warden_of_the_Storm for illustrating it.

 

[Astrid]

I find difficulty in agreeing with that .. especially when the act is demonstrated as being deceptive.

The maturity-without-history (in the context of this planet) nonsense, is a classic example (see here) ... thanks to @Warden_of_the_Storm for illustrating it.

See constructive fraud.
Which is, yes, willful.

Mere illiteracy or intellectual dishonesty
would never achieve such as you describe.

 

[SelfSim]

Mere illiteracy or intellectual dishonesty
would never achieve such as you describe.

I'm unconvinced.

Either way, the test in the real world, is whether deceipt can be demonstrated throughout the process of the fraud.
From the example of supposed maturity-without-history, I'll bet it returns .. thus adding demonstrations of repetition as the exclamation point.

 

[AV1611VET]

From the example of supposed maturity-without-history, I'll bet it returns .. thus adding demonstrations of repetition as the exclamation point.

In your opinion, would a loaf of raisin bread created ex materia in an instant of time constitute maturity-without-history?