DNA Declares Divine Design

[sfs]

Mutations cannot write information at all.

Incorrect. Mutations change DNA all the time, and sometimes they give it new functions, or change functions. Sometimes they change the DNA back to the way it was before. If those aren't 'writing information', then you'll have to provide your definition of information.

DNA is a complex biological programming code containing specified complex information.

That's an assertion. Show that it is, using Dembski's definition of complex specified information (which is presumably what you're referring to. Be sure to show your work.

Viruses are not even alive, BTW. Viral mutation proves nothing.

Debatable, but so what? We also see mutations occurring all the time in every form of life, including mutations that make the organism more fit.

Mendel proved long ago that genetic change is self limiting.

How did he do that? Be specific.

That's all I'm going to bother with. You've never studied any genetics at all, have you? You're repeating creationist one-liners that you heard or looked up somewhere, but you have no basis for knowing whether they're true or not. Well, they're not -- you're being lied to.

 

[chad kincham]

Incorrect. Mutations change DNA all the time, and sometimes they give it new functions, or change functions. Sometimes they change the DNA back to the way it was before. If those aren't 'writing information', then you'll have to provide your definition of information.

That's an assertion. Show that it is, using Dembski's definition of complex specified information (which is presumably what you're referring to. Be sure to show your work.

Debatable, but so what? We also see mutations occurring all the time in every form of life, including mutations that make the organism more fit.

How did he do that? Be specific.

That's all I'm going to bother with. You've never studied any genetics at all, have you? You're repeating creationist one-liners that you heard or looked up somewhere, but you have no basis for knowing whether they're true or not. Well, they're not -- you're being lied to.

As shown in drosophila fly experiments, thousands of generations of irradiated fruit flies yielded nothing but deformed flies, flies with no wings, and flies with two sets of wings.

Genetic fact: a mutation is caused from a break in a DNA sequence from radiation, chemical, or a couple of other factors, that Editase failed to repair properly.

The most common mutation is the stop codone, which results in a missing gene sequence at that spot, so something ends up missing, such as a finger, for example.

The other two repair mistakes result in a duplicated gene sequence, resulting in an extra finger, to stay with that example, or the sequence is incorrectly transcribed, resulting in a deformed finger.

And that’s exactly what resulted from the drosophila fly mutation research: deformed flies, flies missing wings, flies with an extra set of wings

Not one new trait, not one useful mutation resulted.

Mutations absolutely can’t increase genetic information in the quantum leap required for new body plans.

American evolutionist have locked onto mutation as the mechanism that drives macro evolution, but that’s not true of every nation.

French evolutionist and zoologist Pierre Grasse, who is far from a creationist, has a lot to say about mutations:

Random chance mutations are generally considered by Darwinian evolutionists to provide the opportunity for evolutionary steps. Pierre-Paul Grasse disagrees vigorously, and says that mutations have nothing to do with evolution. His summary statement is, "Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve. This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution (p.88)." He goes on to point out that bacteria -- the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists -- are organisms which produce the most mutants. Yet bacteria are considered to have "stabilized a billion years ago!" He regards the "unceasing mutations" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect (p. 87)."

Pierre-Paul Grasse is the past President of the French Academie des Sciences and editor of the 35 volume "Traite de Zoologie" published by Masson, Paris.

 

[sfs]

As shown in drosophila fly experiments, thousands of generations of irradiated fruit flies yielded nothing but deformed flies, flies with no wings, and flies with two sets of wings.

And yet many other experiments have shown that mutations yield new traits. For example, this paper describes a mutation in zebra fish that causes new bones to form in the fins, bones that 'integrate into musculature, form joints, and articulate with neighboring elements.' Your claim that mutations do nothing but damage organisms is simply wrong.

Genetic fact: a mutation is caused from a break in a DNA sequence from radiation, chemical, or a couple of other factors, that Editase failed to repair properly.

Almost correct -- editases edit RNA, not correct mistakes in DNA.

The most common mutation is the stop codone, which results in a missing gene sequence at that spot, so something ends up missing, such as a finger, for example.

Incorrect for multiple reasons. Most mutations are not in coding sequence at all, so they can't produce stop codons. Damaging a gene is not going to cause the loss of a finger; that's not how genes affect development.

The other two repair mistakes result in a duplicated gene sequence, resulting in an extra finger, to stay with that example, or the sequence is incorrectly transcribed, resulting in a deformed finger.

Also incorrect. There are multiple other kinds of mutation that you haven't listed, and duplicated gene sequence does not produce extra fingers. In fact, sometimes duplicate sequence can be useful. Humans who come from populations that have traditionally eaten a lot of starch tend to have extra copies of the gene for amylase, which breaks down starch, for example. Malaria parasites that have been exposed to several different antimalarial drugs often have duplications of the gene pfmdr, for another example.

French evolutionist and zoologist Pierre Grasse, who is far from a creationist, has a lot to say about mutations:

Yes, Grasse (who died in 1985 at the age of 90) was one of the last biologists who accepted evolution but rejected Darwinian explanations for it. He was very much a holdout, and his thoughts about mutations have been overwhelmingly contradicted by the flood of information we've gotten about genetics through the advent of DNA sequencing.

So, is there some reason you think we should be paying attention to this particular biologist from the middle of the last century, rather than the tens of thousands of biologists living today who will tell you that he was wrong on this point?

In short, you have clearly been getting all of your information about evolution and genetics from creationist sites, and as a result have been fed a lot of stuff that isn't remotely true. Look, if you want to attack evolution, you really have an obligation to have some idea what you're talking about, and at this point you don't. These kinds of attacks do nothing but convince scientifically literate people that Christians don't care about truth.

 

[chad kincham]

I assume you mean 'survival', and the mechanism for that is simple: natural selection. Organisms that are better at passing on their DNA survive and their traits become more common in future populations.



Evolution isn't creation, but rather adaptation.




This is a complete non-sequitur. Biological evolution and cosmology have nothing to do with each other.

1. Adaptation is variety within a species, built into DNA by the creator, using gene shuffling and interaction of dominant and recessive genes already present, as seen in OT breeding over centuries - there’s a tremendous variations in dogs that’s resulted - yet they’re still dogs and always will be dogs: they’re not changing body plans and morphing into a different animal - micro evolution is a fact - it’s macro evolution that’s impossible.

2. They’re point re. cosmology is that everything in existence was created by God, the universe didn’t spontaneously begin from nothing, and the matter created didn’t spontaneously come to life either - everything shows deign and creation.

 

[Strathos]

1. Adaptation is variety within a species, built into DNA by the creator, using gene shuffling and interaction of dominant and recessive genes already present, as seen in OT breeding over centuries - there’s a tremendous variations in dogs that’s resulted - yet they’re still dogs and always will be dogs: they’re not changing body plans and morphing into a different animal - micro evolution is a fact - it’s macro evolution that’s impossible.

That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of cladistics. No one is saying that dogs will become 'not dogs', rather dogs are a more specific type of canines, which themselves are a more specific type of mammals, which are a more specific type of vertebrates, which are a more specific type of animals, which are a more specific type of eukaryotes, etc. Dogs are still all of these things. In the future it's possible that dogs might evolve into two or more groups that can't interbreed, adding another branch in the tree (already it would be pretty difficult to breed a Chihuahua with a Saint Bernard).

2. They’re point re. cosmology is that everything in existence was created by God, the universe didn’t spontaneously begin from nothing, and the matter created didn’t spontaneously come to life either - everything shows deign and creation.

That's irrelevant to the issue of biological evolution.

 

[Strathos]

The theory of evolution as defined by many in science today, starts with chemical evolution, aka abiogenesis, of the first living cell and DNA in a primordial environment, then becoming the common ancestor that all species descended from.

Shalom.

No it doesn't.

 

[chad kincham]

No it doesn't.

Every public school teaches chemical evolution as part of evolution.

That’s a fact.

 

[chad kincham]

That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of cladistics. No one is saying that dogs will become 'not dogs', rather dogs are a more specific type of canines, which themselves are a more specific type of mammals, which are a more specific type of vertebrates, which are a more specific type of animals, which are a more specific type of eukaryotes, etc. Dogs are still all of these things. In the future it's possible that dogs might evolve into two or more groups that can't interbreed, adding another branch in the tree (already it would be pretty difficult to breed a Chihuahua with a Saint Bernard).

That’s mere semantics.

You’re saying dogs came from a common single cell ancestor that morphed into a fish, which morphed into an amphibian which morphed into a vertebrate, which morphed into a mammal, which morphed into a canine.

You are absolutely making the claim of phyletic gradualism occurring, that lower animals can change body plans due to macro evolution.

And that’s exactly what can’t happen,

 

[Strathos]

Every public school teaches chemical evolution as part of evolution.

That’s a fact.

I must have missed that when I attended public school.

That’s mere semantics.

You’re saying dogs came from a common single cell ancestor that morphed into a fish, which morphed into an amphibian which morphed into a vertebrate, which morphed into a mammal, which morphed into a canine.

You are absolutely making the claim of phyletic gradualism occurring, that lower animals can change body plans due to macro evolution.

And that’s exactly what can’t happen,

There's no "morphing" involved. It's descent with modification.

 

[chad kincham]

And yet many other experiments have shown that mutations yield new traits. For example, this paper describes a mutation in zebra fish that causes new bones to form in the fins, bones that 'integrate into musculature, form joints, and articulate with neighboring elements.' Your claim that mutations do nothing but damage organisms is simply wrong.

Almost correct -- editases edit RNA, not correct mistakes in DNA.

Incorrect for multiple reasons. Most mutations are not in coding sequence at all, so they can't produce stop codons. Damaging a gene is not going to cause the loss of a finger; that's not how genes affect development.

Also incorrect. There are multiple other kinds of mutation that you haven't listed, and duplicated gene sequence does not produce extra fingers. In fact, sometimes duplicate sequence can be useful. Humans who come from populations that have traditionally eaten a lot of starch tend to have extra copies of the gene for amylase, which breaks down starch, for example. Malaria parasites that have been exposed to several different antimalarial drugs often have duplications of the gene pfmdr, for another example.

Yes, Grasse (who died in 1985 at the age of 90) was one of the last biologists who accepted evolution but rejected Darwinian explanations for it. He was very much a holdout, and his thoughts about mutations have been overwhelmingly contradicted by the flood of information we've gotten about genetics through the advent of DNA sequencing.

So, is there some reason you think we should be paying attention to this particular biologist from the middle of the last century, rather than the tens of thousands of biologists living today who will tell you that he was wrong on this point?

In short, you have clearly been getting all of your information about evolution and genetics from creationist sites, and as a result have been fed a lot of stuff that isn't remotely true. Look, if you want to attack evolution, you really have an obligation to have some idea what you're talking about, and at this point you don't. These kinds of attacks do nothing but convince scientifically literate people that Christians don't care about truth.

Mutations do not and cannot result in phenotype gradualism per Darwin, yet evolutionists try very hard to claim there’s evidence of that claim, when there isn’t.

As Darwin correctly stated, if mutations can stack up and result in new body plans, then transitional forms would be the rule and not the exception- thousands of fine gradations of transitional forms should be common - and admitted it would falsify the theory.

Mutational transmutation of one body plan into another body plan has since been completely falsified.

After creationists successfully hammered home the admission by paleontologists that transitional forms are missing in every important area, Gould ridiculously hypothesized that the glaring absence of transitional forms can be explained by going against every evolutionary precept of gradual change over millions of years, and postulating that evolution occurs so quickly over short periods of time that it leaves no findable fossil transitions.

The zebra fish example isn’t a natural mutation, it resulted from playing with its genes to see what happens, which I will expound upon later.