an example of evolution from NYT

[immortalavefenix]

I don't know. There are a few examples, but I fear that we'll have to wait for more testing, but it's going to take time.

What do you mean you "dont know". You are asking me to reconsider my theory for one where the best you can do is shrug your shoulders? Fluff.

What testing?

Your contempt is showing.

I have a low threshold for vague silliness.

I gave you a complete and exact definition

A "kind" is defined as the separate creatures that were created by God at the beginning

Thats it? You have got to be kidding me.

How about this one...

Can you list the known "kinds", or point to a webpage which list them?

static definitions are subject to change.

One thing is not having a static definition. Its another thing entirely not having a definition at all.

WHAT ARE THE DEFINITIONS NOW.

And can you please stop trying to evade giving a definete answer.

 

[shernren]

Here's an interesting link that might help:

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

and a formal paper on the definitions of baramins:

http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/003.pdf

though, of course, they do admit that a baramin can never be defined. The paper starts by shaking off the old baramin models. Then they substitute their own ideas, based on continuity within the biological character state space, and state that the definitions of baramins must be "holistic". Now what do they say about holistic datasets?

Since no researcher is capable of evaluating a perfectly holistic dataset that includes all possible characters, datasets should be assembled from a balanced variety of morphological, ecological, and molecular data.

(emphasis added)

And yet in the next paragraph they blithely go on with their holistic dataset (which, mind you, no researcher can evaluate!) :

Once a holistic dataset has been assembled, statistical techniques should be used to reveal patterns of similarity that could indicate continuity or discontinuity.

Which means to say: I can say anything I want to say about baramins. If I want to say I was wrong, I can simply say "I wasn't holistic enough!"

 

[notto]

Which means to say: I can say anything I want to say about baramins. If I want to say I was wrong, I can simply say "I wasn't holistic enough!"

Exactly. Baramin models are just as subjective as 'kinds'. They are just more removed from scripture and are simply adding to it. The hypocricy is staggering.

 

[shernren]

Well, I wouldn't go that far. But I must say they probably thought killer whales and dolphins were in separate baramins .... and then along came the wholphin. Whoops.

 

[Crusadar]

now, how do you understand or even read articles like this if you strongly deny evolution happens? rather than fighting the science YECists ought to be discussing the metaphysics (wrongly) derived from the science.

Or for that matter how does one understand that there is a loving God who would purposely allow the creation of any virus that infects and destroys its host whimsically. Is it not the existence of such that tells us that His creation is plain falling apart, where life is pitted against life in the survival of the most parasitic?

or did God just create these dog viruses?or did the evil one do it?

Actually according to TE logic it was God who created them since evolution is His process.

This would however is expected within the creationist paradigm in that it confirms what scripture says about a groaning world that is plain falling apart where lifeforms that where once non parasitic and nonharmful to its host now find it necessary to feed on its host because:

a. it can no longer produce the necessary proteins or enzymes for its own existence due to the irreparable damage or loss of genetic information needed to produce them - therefore finds them in its host.

b. it can no longer reproduce itself without the mechanisms that are needed to replicate itself also due to loss of the needed information that is used to make such mechanisms.

So you tell me, which is the more logical conclusion that these viruses are on their way into becoming something more complex in a loving God's purposeless creative process of evolution or are they the result of His world just plain falling apart?

 

[Remus]

What do you mean you "dont know". You are asking me to reconsider my theory

I'm not asking you to reconsider anything.

for one where the best you can do is shrug your shoulders? Fluff.

Would you rather I guess like an anthropologist?

What testing?

Genetic testing. I'm hoping that we will get a good idea of what a "kind" is after they have more mapping done. As it stands, they are just barely out of the gate. Since the information is lacking, then any categorization would be suspect.

I have a low threshold for vague silliness.

God can can help you with patience. Either way, I'm neither being, nor trying to be silly. You asked, I answered. It's simple as that.

Thats it? You have got to be kidding me.

How about this one...

Can you list the known "kinds", or point to a webpage which list them?

I would have thought no, but it seems that shernren has found one. I'm skeptical of its usefulness though.

One thing is not having a static definition. Its another thing entirely not having a definition at all.

I gave you a definition that is actually better than anything that taxonomy has produced. The definition I gave you is "EXACT" as you demanded and will never change. You are not satisfied with it because I didn’t use scientific terms. Let's move one to your next question and look at the terms that you want me to use:

WHAT ARE THE DEFINITIONS NOW.

As for species let's see what the wiki has to say about it:
"Nevertheless, no species concept yet proposed is entirely objective, or can be applied in all cases without resorting to judgement. Given the complexity of life, some have argued that such an objective definition is in all likelihood impossible, and biologists should settle for the most practical definition."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
Science Magazine has that "a clear definition may be a long time in coming" about the term "species".
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5731/78b

Next comes "genus":
"a genus (plural genera) is a grouping in the classification of living organisms having one or more related and morphologically similar species."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus
A little better, but a bit vague. Additionally, morphology has been wrong too much to of much use.

I can't find a definition for "family", "order", or "class" other than saying that they contain one or more of the category below it. That's not very useful.

And can you please stop trying to evade giving a definete answer.

I don't know why this is hard to understand. You are asking me to produce an "exact" definition using terms that are not "exact". It's simply not possible.

 

[shernren]

I would have thought no, but it seems that shernren has found one. I'm skeptical of its usefulness though.

Remus, you have got to be kidding. The second is a formal paper written by baraminologists, not against them. Unless you're saying they're too technical?

now, how do you understand or even read articles like this if you strongly deny evolution happens? rather than fighting the science YECists ought to be discussing the metaphysics (wrongly) derived from the science.

Or for that matter how does one understand that there is a loving God who would purposely allow the creation of any virus that infects and destroys its host whimsically. Is it not the existence of such that tells us that His creation is plain falling apart, where life is pitted against life in the survival of the most parasitic?

If YECs were serious about fighting deceptive science-based metaphysics they'd be busy taking apart Zen Buddhism's favourite quantum physics masks. They aren't.

How do you call it "falling apart"? Based on creationist logic, the Fall represented a loss of biological information, right? Well, so now it seems that it took a loss of biological information to change
commensals to parasites,
herbivores to carnivores,
mutualists to pathogens,
and harmless compounds to phytotoxins,
as well as to produce anti-predatory adaptations.

Wow! Loss of information actually increases biological complexity! If I had a lot more time and a lot less work I could probably make the following argument rigorous:

a) Loss of information increases biological complexity
b) Evolution causes loss of information

therefore

c) Evolution causes an increase of biological complexity!

ROTFL!

In fact, since viruses are biologically inert without causing disease in host organisms, therefore viruses went from being non-life (since there was no disease before the Fall, apparently) to being life (since there is disease after the Fall, obviously). Therefore the Fall's loss of information actually caused the abiogenesis of viruses! Who says complexity needs information? Not creationists.

 

[immortalavefenix]

Remus.

Your anwers are utterly vague, uninformative, and all highly subjective.

I am not asking you what you think. I am asking you specific question about the biblical concept of kinds. Your post have all been higly evasive on a simple and easy to understand point.

YEC's say that entities of one "kind" cannot change into some other "kind". Ever. Though there can be some form of "micro" evolution, YEC's are without doubt sure of the resiliance of the "kind", and it's imutability. In fact they offer the observation that in fact (as far as they have observed ) "kinds" do not variate from a specific hard limit. To the YEC the very concept of Kind is the pivital center of his attack of evolution.

Now seeing as how IMPORTANT the concept of "kind" is, one would think that as YEC something as SIMPLE as the definition of THE KINDS would be at hand. After all its not like YEC started yesterday. It is IN FACT far older then the theory of evolution.

For instance let me offer you this example. I go to an Evolutionist. I ask him/her to define and list the differnt cause of speciacion, and I could be sure that he wont reply. Instead he/she would direct me to the literally mountains of voluminous text detailing thousands and thousands of definetions. I would be utterly overwhelmed with information.

I ask a YEC and all I get is "A "kind" is defined as the separate creatures that were created by God at the beginning" Lacking in the extreme.

Yet everytime I have EVER asked for specifics, its always the same metaphysical lingustic song and dance.

I am not here to wax poetic on the philosophical meaning of the debate between YEC and Evolution.

I am here for specific answers to my questions about the natureal world.

Seeing as you enjoy SPECIFIC questions here I go.

Is a dog a kind?
Is a dog and a hynia the same kind?
If they are not, on what basis is the destinction of their kind based on?
In general what seperates one kind from the next?
Are dolpins and orcas one Kind?
Are horses and mules one kind?
Are all viruses one Kind?
Are kinds defineded by capacity for sexual reproduction between similar animals?
By what criteria are kinds defined?
Are all bacteria a kind?
If two members of differnt "kinds" produce a fertil offspring are they in the same kind?
Given the concept of a kind, how can it help us explain exclusiveness of certain animals design to certain locations.
Why are playtpues only found in Australia?
Why cant the Quala eat anything else but uka. leaves?

If these are to many for you, how about something as simple as this.

How many kinds are there, as of today?

 

[Remus]

Remus, you have got to be kidding. The second is a formal paper written by baraminologists, not against them. Unless you're saying they're too technical?

Admittedly I didn't read it all, but they still have the same information to go on as everyone else. I don't believe that we have enough information for any form of categorization to be very accurate regardless of which opinion they hold. They don't get a free ride just because they are creationists.

 

[immortalavefenix]

I guess you might have missed the post....

Is a dog a kind?
Is a dog and a hynia the same kind?
If they are not, on what basis is the destinction of their kind based on?
In general what seperates one kind from the next?
Are dolpins and orcas one Kind?
Are horses and mules one kind?
Are all viruses one Kind?
Are kinds defineded by capacity for sexual reproduction between similar animals?
By what criteria are kinds defined?
Are all bacteria a kind?
If two members of differnt "kinds" produce a fertil offspring are they in the same kind?
Given the concept of a kind, how can it help us explain exclusiveness of certain animals design to certain locations.
Why are playtpues only found in Australia?
Why cant the Quala eat anything else but uka. leaves?

If these are to many for you, how about something as simple as this.

How many kinds are there, as of today?

'



I'm still waiting.

 

[Remus]

I'm still waiting.

shernren replied first, so I answered his post first. I'm in the process of answering your post now. Please be patient. I am almost done.

 

[Remus]

Remus.

Your anwers are utterly vague, uninformative, and all highly subjective.

I am not asking you what you think. I am asking you specific question about the biblical concept of kinds. Your post have all been higly evasive on a simple and easy to understand point.

YEC's say that entities of one "kind" cannot change into some other "kind". Ever. Though there can be some form of "micro" evolution, YEC's are without doubt sure of the resiliance of the "kind", and it's imutability. In fact they offer the observation that in fact (as far as they have observed ) "kinds" do not variate from a specific hard limit. To the YEC the very concept of Kind is the pivital center of his attack of evolution.

I see where the misunderstanding is coming from. I do not hold this opinion. I don't believe that the created "kinds" are the same as what we see today. Therefore, without genetic testing we don't have any chance of tracing what we have today back to what was created.

Now seeing as how IMPORTANT the concept of "kind" is, one would think that as YEC something as SIMPLE as the definition of THE KINDS would be at hand. After all its not like YEC started yesterday. It is IN FACT far older then the theory of evolution.

For instance let me offer you this example. I go to an Evolutionist. I ask him/her to define and list the differnt cause of speciacion, and I could be sure that he wont reply. Instead he/she would direct me to the literally mountains of voluminous text detailing thousands and thousands of definetions. I would be utterly overwhelmed with information.

I ask a YEC and all I get is "A "kind" is defined as the separate creatures that were created by God at the beginning" Lacking in the extreme.

It has been my experience that if one has to give thousands and thousands of definitions, they are most likely wrong.

Yet everytime I have EVER asked for specifics, its always the same metaphysical lingustic song and dance.

I am not here to wax poetic on the philosophical meaning of the debate between YEC and Evolution.

I am here for specific answers to my questions about the natureal world.

I gave you one. If you would prefer that I overwhelm you with information until your head explodes, then I can attempt it, but I don't think that would satisfiy you either.

Seeing as you enjoy SPECIFIC questions here I go.

I'll do my best.

Is a dog a kind?

Yes.

Is a dog and a hynia the same kind?
If they are not, on what basis is the destinction of their kind based on?

Maybe

In general what seperates one kind from the next?

That God created them seperatly.

Are dolpins and orcas one Kind?

I don't know.

Are horses and mules one kind?

Maybe, maybe not.

Are all viruses one Kind?

It is not known for sure if viruses are considered "life" or not. At this time I'm not sure they should be categorized in the same way as living creatures.

Are kinds defineded by capacity for sexual reproduction between similar animals?

This may have been the case at the beginning, but I'm not sure if it's still the case today.

By what criteria are kinds defined?

Again, a "kind" would have been created at the beginning.

Are all bacteria a kind?

Probably not.

If two members of differnt "kinds" produce a fertil offspring are they in the same kind?

Again, maybe at the beginning.

Given the concept of a kind, how can it help us explain exclusiveness of certain animals design to certain locations.

Selection.

Why are playtpues only found in Australia?

I believe that they have found fossil evidence of them in South America.

Why cant the Quala eat anything else but uka. leaves?

Actually, the Koala can eat other kinds of leaves, it just prefers the eucalyptus but have been known to eat other kinds of leaves.

If these are to many for you, how about something as simple as this.

How many kinds are there, as of today?

I don't know.

Mind if I ask a few questions myself?
How many species are there, as of today?
How many times will Neanderthal be recategorized between being the same species as humans and its own species?
Will they move the Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis out of the genus "Homo" or not since some believe they shouldn't be considered in this genus or will they debate this for years before they decide?

 

[immortalavefenix]

That has been the most spectacular non-answer I have ever revicieved in my entire life.

without genetic testing we don't have any chance of tracing what we have today back to what was created.

? What are you talking about? Wha genetic tests? How do genetic test demonstrate weather or not a subject is of one kind or an other? "We just dont know" is not an acceptable answer. That God created them seperatly? How does genetic testing validate a sunject of one kind or another?

Do you understand what circular logic is? When I ask you for a defenition of a kind, Im asking you what physical property or observation leads one to classify it as one kind or another. Telling me "cause God made it",... is the same as me asking why the sky is blue and you telling me "cause God made it that way". Do you understand the problem? Telling God anything is circular logic. Its a more refined version of what parents tell their childern,... JUST BECAUSE.

Dude. This is so fustrating. You are incapable of provided a consistant logical framework for the workings of your view of natureal biology. This is that, that is this, and umm... I dont know,... aummm maybe maybe not....

DUDE. This is not a guessing game. ON WHAT DO YOU BASE YOUR CONCLUSION's of kinds? What tells you a dog is a Kind?


And as for your questions.

http://www.perspective.com/nature/
I dont know the number per say, but I know they number in the tens of thousands.

MORE IMPORTANTLY I can provide a logical frame work as to what divides one species from the other. SOMETHING YOU STILL HAVENT DONE.

How many times will Neanderthal be recategorized between being the same species as humans and its own species?
Will they move the Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis out of the genus "Homo" or not since some believe they shouldn't be considered in this genus or will they debate this for years before they decide?

For someone with such little capacity for providing concise precise and non vague answers I find it funny that you should be upset about scientific controversy. You know for all the differnt points of view on the matter, I can GARRANTEE you that if I were to ask anyone of the proponets on what they base their observations on, they would readibly response with a wealth of information.

Whereas you bluntly tell me "its that way because it is".

 

[Remus]

? What are you talking about? Wha genetic tests?

I'm talking about the mapping of the different genomes. As it stands, they've mapped two so far. We have a long wait ahead of us it seems.

How do genetic test demonstrate weather or not a subject is of one kind or an other?

Using the data from these mappings, we should be able to get a good idea of what the creatures that we have today derived from. I believe that I said this before.

"We just dont know" is not an acceptable answer. That God created them seperatly?

You want me to categorize everything on guesses and assumptions like much of what comes out of the scientific community? I suppose I could do this, but of what value would this be?

How does genetic testing validate a sunject of one kind or another?

*points up*

Do you understand what circular logic is?

Yes. Do you understand what a double-standard is?

When I ask you for a defenition of a kind, Im asking you what physical property or observation leads one to classify it as one kind or another.

I answered this several times. If you want me to define what each creature is as we see them today, then you'll have to wait until we have enough information to determine this. I know you tend to be impatient, but there's nothing I can do to speed things up. It takes time.

Telling me "cause God made it",... is the same as me asking why the sky is blue and you telling me "cause God made it that way". Do you understand the problem? Telling God anything is circular logic. Its a more refined version of what parents tell their childern,... JUST BECAUSE.

I didn't tell you "cause God made it".

Dude. This is so fustrating.

Perhaps you should step back and relax a bit. Maybe even read what I've written and give it some thought before getting upset.

You are incapable of provided a consistant logical framework for the workings of your view of natureal biology. This is that, that is this, and umm... I dont know,... aummm maybe maybe not....

I beg to differ. What is bothering you is my readiness to admit that I don't know something. I know you are probably used to reading evolutionist websites where they act like everything is known, but this isn't reality. Much of what evolution is based on are guesses and most of the time the scientists will admit that they don't know something. I don't understand why you would hold me to a different standard.

DUDE. This is not a guessing game.

It is a guessing game a lot of the time since we do not have complete information. Are you going to tell me that a lot of taxonomy isn't based on a guess?

ON WHAT DO YOU BASE YOUR CONCLUSION's of kinds?

The Bible.

What tells you a dog is a Kind?

It's a guess based on what little morphology can provide us.

And as for your questions.

http://www.perspective.com/nature/
I dont know the number per say, but I know they number in the tens of thousands.

You "don't know... per say"? It's okay if you don't know something, but I had better know everything? There's that double-standard.
Also, that site was last updated in 2000. How many things do you think have changed since then?

MORE IMPORTANTLY I can provide a logical frame work as to what divides one species from the other. SOMETHING YOU STILL HAVENT DONE.

You can provide anything, but you can't provide me with an "EXACT" definition of a species. If you actually think you can, then you should publish this information. I'm sure the scientific community would love to hear it.

For someone with such little capacity for providing concise precise and non vague answers I find it funny that you should be upset about scientific controversy.

The only person here that is upset is you. I'm just pointing out how you are applying a double-standard again. It's okay for the scientific community to be unsure about something, but not for the creationist. It's just that I recognize the limitations of the scientific community where as you seem not to.

You know for all the differnt points of view on the matter, I can GARRANTEE you that if I were to ask anyone of the proponets on what they base their observations on, they would readibly response with a wealth of information.

So it's quantity of information that you want? Personally I'd prefer to have quality over quantity any day.

Whereas you bluntly tell me "its that way because it is".

I don't recall saying such a thing.

 

[immortalavefenix]

Remus.

Stop trying to evade the question.

There is no scientific merit to the concept of "kinds".

 

[Remus]

I have answered your question several times. The validity of this answer is not subject to your acceptance nor is it subject to the limitations of science. If it is only through science that you will accept this definition, then you’ll have to wait for science to catch up.

 

[shernren]

Remus.

Stop trying to evade the question.

There is no scientific merit to the concept of "kinds".

Immortalavefenix: have you actually looked at the sites I've shown you? You'll find a perfectly formal and well-stated definition of kinds or baramins there. It was certainly specific and detailed enough for me. And actually I think that baraminology is one of the few areas where creation science is actually coming up with a viable alternative model to conventional science. If you know anything about conventional taxonomy and the recent history of the field you would know that it's pretty much as messed up as baraminology. Considering conventional taxonomy has had about 3 centuries (or since Linnaeus - not too precise with my science history) and baraminology has had only 50 years I think they've actually made a rather fair bit of progress.

How many kinds are there, as of today?

You tell me how many species are there, as of today. If you can quote me a figure within 4 significant figures with which 50% of the world's biologists agree you have my undying respect.

The rest of creation science may be a muddle but comparatively baraminology is actually making sense.

 

[Remus]

The rest of creation science may be a muddle but comparatively baraminology is actually making sense.

Before you mentioned it, I hadn't heard of baraminology. Then I was reading another article yesterday about the subject of kinds and found it was in line with my opinions and they mentioned baraminology as well. I'm going to have to look into this more now. Thanks for the information.

 

[Crusadar]

If YECs were serious about fighting deceptive science-based metaphysics they'd be busy taking apart Zen Buddhism's favourite quantum physics masks. They aren't.

What udder nonsense. Coming from you I’m not surprised.

How do you call it "falling apart"? Based on creationist logic, the Fall represented a loss of biological information, right? Well, so now it seems that it took a loss of biological information to change

Wow more misrepresentation, when does it ever stop! One strawman after another, well at least I will be very warm this winter! Plenty of strawmen to burn! Please tell me your not getting your creationist resources from Dr. Dino - are you?

The fall may have brought on changes but even creationists who know there stuff will say no such thing! What is falling apart is that which God has made to be “very good” or haven’t you noticed that as you get older things just increasingly don’t work. In fact the many useful things break down ever so quickly, and the useless things one can’t get rid of! Which is the opposite reality of what evolution predicts in that the useful things will remain because the useless things have been selected out. So why aren’t parasites becoming anything other than better at what they do that is to become self sufficient and no longer parasitized?

Wow! Loss of information actually increases biological complexity!

It doesn’t take a lot to amaze an evolutionist does it? Becoming a self sufficient organism would be an increase in complexity, to become dependent on another organism is nothing less than a blood sucking parasite.

If I had a lot more time and a lot less work I could probably make the following argument rigorous:

Not rigor enough to say the least. If it’s anything like your thread on the bible condoning slavery – I won’t hold my breath.

a) Loss of information increases biological complexity

Let’s see here is a riddle to clarify things a bit. A man starts a business making and selling a product called a “whatisit”. He sells his whatsits for $10 a piece but it takes him $12 to make the product. After about ten months he becomes a millionaire. How is this possible, when his outflow is more than his intake. Easy answer, he was a billionaire to begin with. Much so how can a process which damages or destroys existing information result in more information that is not only unique but purposeful? Saying that a decrease of information will add up to create new purposeful information is nothing less than saying that by randomly deleting and rearranging the codes of Windows ME you will eventually get XP in the end. Makes me wonder just how programmers at Microsoft upgrade their operating systems?

b) Evolution causes loss of information

I thought it was mutations + natural selection + time + (evolutionist wishful thinking)? I hope your not making stuff up as we go along - are you? How does randomness account for complexity when the information required to build complexity isn’t there to begin with? How does random changes in the coding for a few amino acids a step at a time bring an organism new and unique functions that it never had? But let’s go into a more detail discussion shall we?

To understand how such a change would affect the delicate biological niche that it has been established to function within - we will need to go much deeper into the biochemical level of how enzymes actually work and how any change at all in a system will affect how it functions or does not function.

Although the changing of only one nucleotide sequence is known to have detrimental effects on its host, still lets suppose that a random mutation occurred which caused a stop condon to be deleted causing to sequences to be fused and transcribed into a protein. What functions if any will it now possess that it did not have before - after all such change was never planned? From what we know about enzymes, which require exact assembly instruction in that of dna, if it is assembled incorrectly it won’t fold correctly and will serve no function. As such it will not select for the correct molecule it is to catalyze. If the shape of an enzyme isn’t near enough to select for the right molecule, it does not matter how close the sequence may be to the correct function. Let’s take an enzyme that is half of the average length - say two hundred amino acids. A single deviation at a single point along this amino acid chain can render it useless.

The reason for this is that enzymes function on the bases of discontinuity between shape and amino acid sequence. If I remember correctly continuity in mathematics tells us that when one has a specific target in mind which is controlled by another entity, the nearer the controlling entity gets to the correct value, the nearer the target value also becomes. However in the discontinuous function of enzymes the smallest change in the controlling entity can and will result in a wild, uncontrolled and unrelated change in the target value rendering the new protein useless or less efficient.

The obvious conclusion of course is that since the relationship between enzyme structure and amino acid sequence is discontinuous, the correct shape for an enzyme required for a specific function could not have been reached simply by simple modification of coding for the amino acid sequence in a series of gradual steps.

Because relationship between enzyme shape and amino acid sequence is a discontinuous function and by nature a single step process – meaning that it all had to be there at once or it won’t work. Hence the idea of new enzymatic protein functions being acquired through the process of gradual single steps as evolution teaches is very much ludicrous not to mention for the birds.

c) Evolution causes an increase of biological complexity!

Again if it cannot account for the complexity in terms of gain in purposeful information, evolution causes nothing.

In fact, since viruses are biologically inert without causing disease in host organisms, therefore viruses went from being non-life (since there was no disease before the Fall, apparently) to being life (since there is disease after the Fall, obviously).

You must have a different definition of a virus than what I understand. Outside its living host a virus is completely inert - however when a virus comes into contact with a suitable host it is able to replicate itself causing illness or disease. Why do you suppose the term “virus” means, just a harmless particle of nucleic acid enclosed in a protein coat? It is for the very reason that they exploit the metabolism of the host cell in order to multiply that they are a threat to their host and often the cause of diseases.

Therefore the Fall's loss of information actually caused the abiogenesis of viruses! Who says complexity needs information? Not creationists.

A most disingenuous misrepresentation - even if it does have the stench of sarcasm.

What we consistently observe is that present day biological systems are assembled using genetic information. Information then is not only an essential part of all living organisms it is required before a new function or structure can be added or assembled and then passed on. And so in order for evolution to be scientifically valid it must account for the increases of information – something in which mutations no matter how numerous fail to show this increase.

But if information and complexity is what you want to discuss then by all means lets do so. It is after all observable that the more complex an organism is the more cell types it requires to perform vital functions. For instance a single celled eukaryote though internally it is specialized with a nucleus and various organelles it is a self sustaining organism. A trilobite, on the other hand, has dozens of specific tissues and organs which require functionally dedicated and specialized cell types.

At the molecular level of an organism we find that the more complex an organism becomes the more cell types it requires which itself demands many new and specialized proteins to build and maintain – which itself requires specified genetic information to synthesize. An example of this is an epithelial cell which lines the intestine and secretes digestive enzymes which not only require structural proteins to modify its shape, but regulatory enzymes to control the secretion of the digestive enzyme and then the digestive enzymes themselves. Now these would be brand new proteins which did not previously existed if it did not have this ability.

An increase in the number of cell types implies that in principal there should be represented a considerable increase in the amount of specified genetic information needed to maintain and pass this advantage on to future generations.

The question then is: Does an increase in genetic information always mean an increase in complexity? The answer is no – as a change in ability does not indicate that it is on its way into becoming something more complex, it simply shows its ability to do what it has been designed to do. After all a good example of variance within any single person is the human immune system which can create antibodies for just about any infection out there and yet the information required for building a particular antibody is not found readily available as that would be too much information to have on hand and sort out. But if that is the case that an increase in information does not mean an increase in complexity then is it reasonable to say that all increases in complexity requires that there also be an increase of information? That would be a definite yes, as the acquisition of this increase in genetic information must be retained in someway or it won’t be passed on to the next generation? But how is this done when the metabolic energy of the living cell is exclusively used to repair and duplicate, and maintain itself and non is used to purposely create new unique structures and functions?

It is a fact that a growth in biological complexity requires an equal increase in genetic information and not just random arrangements but purposeful information that is ignored by evolutionists. Perhaps because, again, nothing in nature is known to add to its own genome a new nucleotide sequences that would eventually add up and code for a new specific structure or function purposely. The only process that all evolutionists hopes have been placed on are copying mistakes.

But what happens when genetic copy mistakes do occur? What we see is that mutations when they do occur are quickly corrected - to the point where living organisms as that of bacteria only make about .1 to 10 copy errors in about a billion transcriptions! (Drake, J.W. “Spontaneuos Mutation” Annual Reviews of Genetics, Vol. 25 p.1132. 1991) In more complex organisms it is believed to be even smaller – somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.01 to 1 copy errors in a billion transcriptions. I wonder why even evolve a three level correction system when it is those mistakes that are needed to generate the millions upon millions of mutations which will add any beneficial nucleotide sequence to its own genome to finally reach man in the short amount of time that the earth is speculated to be – some 4.6 billion years (if I remember my evolutionary timeline correctly). What isn’t surprising is that the fossil record is pretty silent about this matter - hence the curtains open for the punctuationists.

 

[Clarity]

There are some major differences between viruses and humans.

Viruses are not considered living organisms by most scientists as they cannot reproduce by themselves and need to inhabit the cell of a living organism to reproduce. We also need to consider has the flu evolved? The virus still has the same effect it is still called the flu and it is not a completely new virus just a new variant of the old virus, it has just changed its protein coat and it is no more complex than before. We do not see flu viruses turning into smallpox all we see are tiny insignificant changes which are not on the scale proposed by evolution.

To make a link between animals and viruses is unscientific as they both reproduce in different ways so just because a virus evolves says nothing about whether animals evolved.

Another good question is
What does evolve mean? Does it just mean that if something changes in any way evolution has occurred? Are all changes evolution? or do the changes have to lead to greater complexity?

In this case the virus is no more complex it still is the same virus but it has helped the virus to survive. Is a change that adds no complexity only survival value considered evolution?