Evolution is very obvious that is not true at all

[Arikay]

Your right, the DNA came from somewhere else. earlier mutations. Evolution is a building proccess. However, insertion mutations happen, and thus your claim that mutations can't add anything is false. Then, natural selection organizes this added material into better adapted designs.

Sure, your arguments were strawman because they were examples of what happens when there is no known mechanism that will increase their "order." This is not the case when talking about the diversity of animals.

I've seen the article before. However, that new DNA still came from somewhere. It wasn't brand new DNA. It's not like it wasn't there before. The basic information was still there.

Can you explain how my arguments were strawmen?

 

[septembers_crash]

I'm not addressing genes. I'm looking at "information" as DNA strictly. There is no new DNA in the genes. In order for the genes to be there, the DNA must be there first. Even if there is DNA inserted into a particular strand, it still came from somewhere in the cell, which in turn means it was taken from somewhere else. In the cell there is no net increase in the quantity of DNA. There is either a deletion or rearrangement of DNA.

 

[septembers_crash]

Your right, the DNA came from somewhere else. earlier mutations

So where did the first mutation come from? Where did it get its "new" DNA

 

[Arikay]

Now I believe you have exited the realm of evolution and entered the realm of abiogenesis.

So where did the first mutation come from? Where did it get its "new" DNA

 

[Tomk80]

I'm not addressing genes. I'm looking at "information" as DNA strictly. There is no new DNA in the genes. In order for the genes to be there, the DNA must be there first. Even if there is DNA inserted into a particular strand, it still came from somewhere in the cell, which in turn means it was taken from somewhere else. In the cell there is no net increase in the quantity of DNA. There is either a deletion or rearrangement of DNA.

No, as already stated, mutations can add DNA. Or more specific. Add a base pair. So picture a DNA-strand with 1000 basepair. If an addition occurs you have 1001 base pairs.
To add to that, entire pieces of DNA can also be multiplied. imagine a strand of DNA of 1000 base pairs were a piece of 6 base pairs is multiplied. You now have 1006 base pairs. Does that answer the question?

 

[Tomk80]

Now I believe you have exited the realm of evolution and entered the realm of abiogenesis.

Or that indeed.

 

[jb-creation]

Here's something on the 'nylon bug': www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

And like it or not, there is a link (conceptual, at the least) between abiogenesis and the general theory of evolution.

 

[Tomk80]

Here's something on the 'nylon bug': www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

And like it or not, there is a link (conceptual, at the least) between abiogenesis and the general theory of evolution.

There is a link yes. But now the funny thing...
link=/=equal to

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Here's something on the 'nylon bug': www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

And like it or not, there is a link (conceptual, at the least) between abiogenesis and the general theory of evolution.

My emphasis in the quotation.

It appears as though someone may have been lied to by Kent Hovind...

 

[Arikay]

I believe the page I posted rebutes what AiG says about it (at the bottom). and yes, there is a connection between abiogenesis and evolution (one comes before the other), but they are seperate theories and they stand or fall on their own (say abiogenesis was falsified, it would not effect evolution).
Or tom put it in a much simpler but as effect way.

Here's something on the 'nylon bug': www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

And like it or not, there is a link (conceptual, at the least) between abiogenesis and the general theory of evolution.

 

[septembers_crash]

Now I believe you have exited the realm of evolution and entered the realm of abiogenesis.

I was asking about the first original organism. After abiogenesis, where did the new DNA come from to make that organism (cell or whatever it is) have additional information?
When the cell has a mutation, where does the DNA come from that is added to the genes?

No, as already stated, mutations can add DNA

So do the mutations create new DNA from nothing?

 

[Physics_guy]

So do the mutations create new DNA from nothing?

No, from available organic molecules - sugars, nucleic acids, etc.

The new DNA in gene duplication or base pair insertion mutations comes pretty much from the same place all DNA replication comes from (you know, when a cell divides). These organic molecules which make up DNA (and everything else in your body) are in turn made of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and a few other individual atoms through well understood properties of chemistry. These atoms are made primarily from hydrogen in the bellies of stars through another well understood process call nuclear fusion. These hydrogen atoms are composed of elementary particles, one proton, one electron, and sometimes some neutrons thrown in. These particles are explained well by a combination of the Standard Model and Quantum Chromodynamics are also formed through understood, but decided more complex processes.

This is up there with some of the strangest creationist objections I have ever heard.

 

[The Son of Him]

No, from available organic molecules - sugars, nucleic acids, etc.

The new DNA in gene duplication or base pair insertion mutations comes pretty much from the same place all DNA replication comes from (you know, when a cell divides). These organic molecules which make up DNA (and everything else in your body) are in turn made of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and a few other individual atoms through well understood properties of chemistry. These atoms are made primarily from hydrogen in the bellies of stars through another well understood process call nuclear fusion. These hydrogen atoms are composed of elementary particles, one proton, one electron, and sometimes some neutrons thrown in. These particles are explained well by a combination of the Standard Model and Quantum Chromodynamics are also formed through understood, but decided more complex processes.

This is up there with some of the strangest creationist objections I have ever heard.

Actually I think they are trying to ask you is how abiogenesis might be possible

 

[Tomk80]

Actually I think they are trying to ask you is how abiogenesis might be possible

I would say so too, but septembers_crash specifically stated that he is talking about the first living organism. All I can say to that is read any basic textbook on genetics.

 

[Heavy_Metal_Jesus]

I'm christian so i have to beleive in creation.
Though i dont think anyone has proved evolution to be fully wrong.

 

[Physics_guy]

I'm christian so i have to beleive in creation.

I think there are quite a few christians who disagree with you here - depending upon what you mean by "creation."

Most theistic evolutionist will not deny that God created, they simply think that evolution, be it stellar, chemical, or biological, was the methods by which God created.

Though i dont think anyone has proved evolution to be fully wrong.

I'm absolutely sure that no one has - despite the arrogant claims of many creationists on this and other boards.

 

[Ryal Kane]

I don't quite understand the creatioist arguement on this.

After all, even if there is no new DNA,(and there can be), the code can still be different. If I have the word 'straw' and rearange the letters I can make the word 'warts'. The letters are identical, but the information is different.

This is how mutations in DNA work. Aren't there only 4 chemicals involved, G,C,T and A (I don't know the names off hand). But a huge string of them make up a virtually unique code in every living organism. change the letters, change the code, change the organism, but the base chemicals are still chemicals.

Ryal Kane

 

[Aron-Ra]

I'm christian so i have to beleive in creation.

Already I'm confused. How could you think this?

You don't HAVE to believe anything.
You don't even have to be a Christian.
But if you are, you still don't have to believe in the Bible.
Even if you do, you still don't have to believe in creation.
You certainly don't have to deny reality, (as so many so often do) to hide the fact that Genesis-based creationism has been completely disproved.

We are the only 1st world nation with a significant proportion of creationists, yet even here, they are about 45% creationist and 40% Christian theistic evolutionists. World-wide, most Christians are evolutionists and most evolutionists are Christians, including world-famous paleontologist, Bob Bakker, an outspoken evolutionist who also happens to be a fiery Pentecostal preacher, a scholar of scripture, and the author of Bones, Bibles, and Creation.

You do not have to believe in creation in order to be Christian.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I'm christian so i have to beleive in creation.
Though i dont think anyone has proved evolution to be fully wrong.

Not true. As Christians, we believe God to have created/started all things. How he chose to do this we may never fully understand. As information and facts from the science world become available, we have to be willing to adjust our views. No big deal. Truth is truth. If it appears to contradict the Bible, then maybe our interpretation is flawed. This is truly not an issue for most Christians.

Personally I believe that God is the almighty creator of all. However he chose to do this and set things in motion are his prerogative. We live in a wonderfully complex and amazing uiniverse. Do I believe that a few chapters in the OT adequately explain this? No, and I don't think it was meant to. He created man with an incredible ability for intelligence, and left it to us to figure out these things.

Being a Christian doesn't mean checking your brain at the door. On the contrary, we have an obligation to learn about our creator, and about the created. Science merely attempts to do this.

 

[jb-creation]

First of all, in response to the claim that the article from New Mexicans for Science and Reason refuted the AiG article to which I posted a link concerning the 'nylon bug': the NMSR 'refutation' was in response to a feedback letter written by AiG in the year 2000. The article that I referred you to was from December 2003, and the information contained therein is not what was addressed by NMSR. I'd like to see the various points made in the article addressed.

Now, to whomever it was (my apologies, I have already forgotten who posted this) who posted a quote of mine back to me with a term emphasized and said that perhaps I had been lied to by Hovind: what was the purpose behind emphasizing the term 'general theory of evolution'? Please elucidate. Also, I don't get my information from Hovind.

To the repititions of how many Christians are also evolutionists: I wasn't aware that truth subscribed to a system of vox populi, vox Dei. Whether there are Christians who believe in evolution is not an issue. Whether evolution is consistent with the contents of the Bible is.

Septembers_crash may not have requested an explanation of how some of you in this thread believe abiogenesis to be possible, but I will: how do you think that chemicals came together to form the first living organism?