Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Evolution

[Hentenza]

How are you defining information, so that a proper response can be made?

Metherion

The genetic information content required to "evolve" a simple organism to higher organisms.

 

[metherion]

It doesn't make any sense to include the word 'information' in the definition of the word 'information'. I asked for the definition of information you were using, and you replied

The genetic information content required to "evolve" a simple organism to higher organisms.

Which does nobody any good. You can't define information as information, you need to define it as something.

Who says it's going from simpler to higher? They could have the same level of complexity, or become simpler, if that helps their chances of survival.

Any changes in the genotypes and phenotypes that would lead to speciation would be coming from changes in the DNA code due to all the usual suspects: Mutations in the germ cells, sexual recombination, etc.

Metherion

 

[Papias]

gradyll wrote:

Could you kindly please point out where this "new" genetical information comes from?

Well, from God, of course.

How does God deliver this new information? Scientists have observed many times ways that he does this, through mutations. As I posted earlier:


Here are some basic types of mutations and how they work:

• Duplication of a stretch of DNA. This is like accidentally copying part of a book twice. Example – when making a copy of a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12, you end up with a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12
• Deletion of a base pair. AATCTGTC becomes ATCTGTC
• Addition of base pair AATCTGTC becomes ACATCTGTC
• Transposition (like a mirror) AATCTGTC becomes CTGTCTAA

All of these can have no effect, an effect which is selected for, or an affect which is selected against.

To add information, first, take a functional gene, and make an extra copy using the duplication mutation. That won’t hurt the organism, since the second copy is simply redundant. Then use any of the other mutation methods so as to make the second copy do something new. The organism still has the original copy doing whatever it is supposed to do, but now has the added ability of whatever the new gene does (such as digesting nylon, as in a species of bacteria). This has been observed by scientists numerous times. The discovery of the way this new information is added helped us see how easily the tiny genome of a bacterium could easily grow to our 3 gigabyte genome (and other animals have even larger genomes).


So adding information - new information - is easy, expected, observed, and non-controversial.

Papias

 

[gluadys]

indeed it can happen it just hasn't is this what you are saying?

No. Since you agree that speciation does happen, how would you prevent the scenario I outlined happening? It is an inevitable consequence of speciation happening again and again and again over time.

There are many examples of observed speciation, and plenty of evidence that it has continued to happen as outlined.

Probably the best evidence is genetic. As you see, A1a, A1b, A1c, etc, are all descendants of A1 and not of A2 or A3. This means they are all more closely related to A1 and to each other than to A2 or any of their descendants. So if a unique genetic trait shows up in A2 and is passed to its descendants, it will be passed only to A2's descendants and not to A1's descendants. So, comparing the genomes of the third generation species will show which are most closely related to each other, even if the earlier species are extinct and their genomes not available.
If they are not extinct, of course, that makes the researcher's task even easier.

 

[createdtoworship]

No. Since you agree that speciation does happen, how would you prevent the scenario I outlined happening? It is an inevitable consequence of speciation happening again and again and again over time.

There are many examples of observed speciation, and plenty of evidence that it has continued to happen as outlined.

Probably the best evidence is genetic. As you see, A1a, A1b, A1c, etc, are all descendants of A1 and not of A2 or A3. This means they are all more closely related to A1 and to each other than to A2 or any of their descendants. So if a unique genetic trait shows up in A2 and is passed to its descendants, it will be passed only to A2's descendants and not to A1's descendants. So, comparing the genomes of the third generation species will show which are most closely related to each other, even if the earlier species are extinct and their genomes not available.
If they are not extinct, of course, that makes the researcher's task even easier.

In order for macro evolution to happen it needs to happen at higher taxa than species. The problem is It's hard to find hybrids that cross the genus barrier that are not sterile. So evolution has failed if it cannot reproduce.

 

[createdtoworship]

gradyll wrote:



Well, from God, of course.

How does God deliver this new information? Scientists have observed many times ways that he does this, through mutations. As I posted earlier:


Here are some basic types of mutations and how they work:

• Duplication of a stretch of DNA. This is like accidentally copying part of a book twice. Example – when making a copy of a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12, you end up with a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12
• Deletion of a base pair. AATCTGTC becomes ATCTGTC
• Addition of base pair AATCTGTC becomes ACATCTGTC
• Transposition (like a mirror) AATCTGTC becomes CTGTCTAA

All of these can have no effect, an effect which is selected for, or an affect which is selected against.

To add information, first, take a functional gene, and make an extra copy using the duplication mutation. That won’t hurt the organism, since the second copy is simply redundant. Then use any of the other mutation methods so as to make the second copy do something new. The organism still has the original copy doing whatever it is supposed to do, but now has the added ability of whatever the new gene does (such as digesting nylon, as in a species of bacteria). This has been observed by scientists numerous times. The discovery of the way this new information is added helped us see how easily the tiny genome of a bacterium could easily grow to our 3 gigabyte genome (and other animals have even larger genomes).


So adding information - new information - is easy, expected, observed, and non-controversial.

Papias

I didn't write that, some one else did.

 

[gluadys]

I was just talking to a person that said that there is a weat and rye hybrid of two genus however they are sterile. So it can happen it's just sterile. So evolution fails.

How does that make evolution fail when it is what would be expected when trying to cross two different genera?


And how does that make evolution fail in the rare cases where such a hybrid has succeeded? You know of Luther Burbank's success in crossing a cabbage with a radish? That hybrid was not sterile.

And did I give any example of hybrids in explaining how genera are formed through speciation?

Speciation, after all, is the opposite of hybridization. It is not uniting two existing species. It is dividing one species into two species.

(There are some cases of getting a third species by inter-breeding two others, but that is far from the only way method of generating new species.)

We would get new species (and new genera and higher taxa) if all hybrids were sterile. Successful hybrids are just one more option. They don't have to succeed all the time, and evolution predicts that the farther apart the species are to begin with, the less likely a hybrid mating will succeed in producing viable and fertile offspring.

When you get the result you expect, that is not evidence that your theory is wrong.


Btw, the hybrid of wheat and rye you are speaking of is probably triticale. Triticale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It is not actually sterile, but that is because after the first crossing it is treated to induce polyploidy which renders it fertile. (Polyploidy is also commonly a feature in natural plant hybrids as well.)

Oh, and for Hentenza: polyploidy is another way to increase genetic information too.

In order for macro evolution to happen it needs to happen at higher taxa than species.

I don't know who told you that, but it's wrong. Certainly higher taxa come into existence as new species emerge through speciation. But there is no need to depend on getting species from different genera to produce hybrids in order for evolution to happen. Higher taxa are built from species up as the initial species radiates into more species and the newer species do the same, and their descendants do the same. That is why speciation is THE macro-evolutionary event par excellence.

 

[Papias]

Gradyll wrote:

I didn't write that, some one else did.

Um, I never said you did write the part you quoted in your post #166.

Look back at my post, #163. Not only did my quote of you only include your one sentence, but I also explicitly said "as I posted earlier:"

Sorry for any confusion. Let me know if there is a way I can be more clear. Thanks-

Papias

P. S. Did post #163 help show how the evidence suggests God delivers the new information?

 

[Zeena]

Ecc 1:9
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

 

[createdtoworship]

How does that make evolution fail when it is what would be expected when trying to cross two different genera?


And how does that make evolution fail in the rare cases where such a hybrid has succeeded? You know of Luther Burbank's success in crossing a cabbage with a radish? That hybrid was not sterile.

And did I give any example of hybrids in explaining how genera are formed through speciation?

Speciation, after all, is the opposite of hybridization. It is not uniting two existing species. It is dividing one species into two species.

(There are some cases of getting a third species by inter-breeding two others, but that is far from the only way method of generating new species.)

We would get new species (and new genera and higher taxa) if all hybrids were sterile. Successful hybrids are just one more option. They don't have to succeed all the time, and evolution predicts that the farther apart the species are to begin with, the less likely a hybrid mating will succeed in producing viable and fertile offspring.

When you get the result you expect, that is not evidence that your theory is wrong.


Btw, the hybrid of wheat and rye you are speaking of is probably triticale. Triticale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It is not actually sterile, but that is because after the first crossing it is treated to induce polyploidy which renders it fertile. (Polyploidy is also commonly a feature in natural plant hybrids as well.)

Oh, and for Hentenza: polyploidy is another way to increase genetic information too.



I don't know who told you that, but it's wrong. Certainly higher taxa come into existence as new species emerge through speciation. But there is no need to depend on getting species from different genera to produce hybrids in order for evolution to happen. Higher taxa are built from species up as the initial species radiates into more species and the newer species do the same, and their descendants do the same. That is why speciation is THE macro-evolutionary event par excellence.

raddish and cabbage hybrids are man made

 

[gluadys]

raddish and cabbage hybrids are man made

So?

It still doesn't mean the theory of evolution has failed. It doesn't mean you need hybrids to get new genera at all. It means somebody sold you a trash idea about what is needed for macro-evolution to happen.

 

[Zeena]

raddish and cabbage hybrids are man made

Aren't raddishes and cabbages of the same family [EG;mustard]?

If so, then this is definately not macro-evolution, but rather, micro..

Merely the alteration of a species, rather than the creation of a new one.

 

[gluadys]

Aren't raddishes and cabbages of the same family [EG;mustard]?

Yes, they are both in the same family (Brassicaceae "mustard"), but not in the same genus. Radish is in the genus Raphanus and cabbage is in the genus Brassica. And, as gradyll said, it is very rare for species in different genera to form successful hybrids.

If so, then this is definately not macro-evolution, but rather, micro..

Merely the alteration of a species, rather than the creation of a new one.

Well some way back Metherion asked gradyll

So, just to be clear, you believe macroevolution is a new species emerging? Or a new genus emerging? Or a new family? Or what? What something new needs to emerge to be macroevolution?

Gradyll settled on a new genus emerging. Scientists say a new species emerging. So just to be clear, you say it is not macro-evolution until a new family emerges?


btw, ALL evolution is alteration. That is why Darwin referred to it as "descent with modification". He never claimed that evolution would be anything but alteration.

 

[Zeena]

Gradyll settled on a new genus emerging. Scientists say a new species emerging. So just to be clear, you say it is not macro-evolution until a new family emerges?

No, species.
After all, this theory does involve speciation, yes?

 

[createdtoworship]

So?

It still doesn't mean the theory of evolution has failed. It doesn't mean you need hybrids to get new genera at all. It means somebody sold you a trash idea about what is needed for macro-evolution to happen.

man can clone humans as well, it's a matter of what happens naturally in nature that can be considered true evolution.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, they are both in the same family (Brassicaceae "mustard"), but not in the same genus. Radish is in the genus Raphanus and cabbage is in the genus Brassica. And, as gradyll said, it is very rare for species in different genera to form successful hybrids.





Well some way back Metherion asked gradyll



Gradyll settled on a new genus emerging. Scientists say a new species emerging. So just to be clear, you say it is not macro-evolution until a new family emerges?


btw, ALL evolution is alteration. That is why Darwin referred to it as "descent with modification". He never claimed that evolution would be anything but alteration.

you can hybrid a rose with a tree and get a rose tree it doesn't mean it's evolution, even if it's not sterile because it's man made. it would never happen in nature that a tree and a rose bush would reproduce. its the same with rabbages, they would never reproduce naturally so they need special environments to reproduce. Even if cross pollination happened in the wild and not in controlled green houses which is always where it is done the experiment fails because they have the leaves of the radish and the roots of the cabbage and both is inedible. Natural selection would weed out this as a failed experiment in the wild.

 

[Incariol]

Can the creationists make up their minds as to where they want to put the goalpost?

Species, genus, or family?

 

[createdtoworship]

Can the creationists make up their minds as to where they want to put the goalpost?

Species, genus, or family?

you still cannot provide an evolution that is not man made that can cross the genus barrier. Every single hybrid presented was either man made or was sterile outright. So I think it's safe to say evolution has failed on a macro level.

 

[Incariol]

you still cannot provide an evolution that is not man made that can cross the genus barrier. Every single hybrid presented was either man made or was sterile outright. So I think it's safe to say evolution has failed on a macro level.

No, your strawman of evolution has failed, since evolution doesn't posit crossing barriers.

​

 

[createdtoworship]

No, your strawman of evolution has failed, since evolution doesn't posit crossing barriers.

​

I am glad you see that evolution doesn't cross barriers.