Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.This is a serious misstatement of the creationist argument. The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways that an information loss can confer resistance, as already discussed. We have also pointed out in various ways how new traits, even helpful, adaptive traits, can arise through loss of genetic information (which is to be expected from mutations).
On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organisms DNA)bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.
i am defining information as information, and that it is impossible for say a plant to just conjure up the required instructions needed to start producing fruit on its own without intervention,I see this argument used a lot, but I've never seen somebody answer the questions:
a. How do you define information? If you mean 'entropy', then entropy can be reduced if energy is input into a system, via sunlight for example or food or something else.
b. Where is the 'law of non-increase of information'? Again, in the case of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply here, so what are you defining information as?
i am defining information as information, and that it is impossible for say a plant to just conjure up the required instructions needed to start producing fruit on its own without intervention,
to everyone on this thread i do not want another definition of natural selection and speciation again, that is not my questionHi and welcome
Humans have been cultivating the bio-diversity for thousands of years, so the variety within species is easily accountable.
Before this, the natural fauna selected by taste and ease of management, thereby weeding out less taseful species and varieties.
However, we have to remember that nothing operates in isolation, so it can easily be seen that one species, whilst becoming extinct in one environment, survives in another for a multitude of reasons.
The interelationships between flora and fauna is also together, an evolutionary process, in that whilst the flora is evolving, so also are the fauna. This is why any one species of whatever, at any particular time, in any particular location, interacting with any particular pollinator, feeder or diversifier, can result in a vast array of successful critieria for further evolution.
We have to also remember that this diversity that we are presently able to witness, is but a fraction of the unsuccessful menagerie of species that didn't proceed through the evolutionary process.
Basically, and both have been mentioned in previous posts, the two guiding proofs are diversification and time.
Both exist today and are readily witnessable.
There has been no evidence ever produced in any field of science to prove that these two guiding criteria were no available at any time in the past, indeed, they are inherant within the very origins of creation.
That being said, the proof of the past is in the present. You cannot have one without the other.
thankyou ,you are the only one to understand or is honest enough to answer my question, hats off to you ,so my answer to that is that the fruit was there because it was gods intention for it to be there,that it didnt evolve as defense or anything else
indeed the whole of the TOE is based on the premise that mutations can create entirely new instructions and information ,but this is yet to be proven, here is a little take from answersingenesis.com:
When they begin to talk about mutations, evolutionists tacitly acknowledge that natural selection, by itself, cannot explain the rise of new genetic information. Somehow they have to explain the introduction of completely new genetic instructions for feathers and other wonders that never existed in simpler life forms. So they place their faith in mutations.
In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating new genetic code, they attack a straw-man version of the creationist model, and they have no answer for the creationists real scientific objections. Scientific American states this common straw-man position and their answer to it.10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organisms DNA)bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.
This is a serious misstatement of the creationist argument. The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways that an information loss can confer resistance, as already discussed. We have also pointed out in various ways how new traits, even helpful, adaptive traits, can arise through loss of genetic information (which is to be expected from mutations).Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae, and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. [SA 82]
Once again, there is no new information! Rather, a mutation in the hox gene (see next section) results in already-existing information being switched on in the wrong place.1 The hox gene merely moved legs to the wrong place; it did not produce any of the information that actually constructs the legs, which in ants and bees include a wondrously complex mechanical and hydraulic mechanism that enables these insects to stick to surfaces.2These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses. [SA 82]Amazingnatural selection can test for possible uses of non-functional (i.e., useless!) limbs in the wrong place. Such deformities would be active hindrances to survival.
or maybe ive just got a life and dont spend my every waking hour on this website like you probably do, in case youve been looking with your eyes shut, i have got my answer to my question and that was provided by wiccan child, and the answer for me says that you dont know why or howI think huggybear abandoned this thread once he realized he'd been thoroughly pwned.
or maybe ive just got a life and dont spend my every waking hour on this website like you probably do, in case youve been looking with your eyes shut, i have got my answer to my question and that was provided by wiccan child, and the answer for me says that you dont know why or how
you must be kidding, you state that fruit evolved so that it could be spread around and be favourable and thus continue the line, so your saying that it "knew" it needed to do that to survive, you cannot account for the instructions and information can you ? other than to say something that cant be provenAnd the Bible says "God helps those who help themselves."
...........
But wait, no it doesn't! That phrase is a modern saying that is nowhere found in the Bible. Except that, according to some surveys, a majority of people asked, including Christians, thought that this very lesson is taught in the Bible. It's clearly not.
Your statement about what evolution is just as valid - that is, it is not. Evolutionary theory DOES NOT state that anything needed to "know" to evolve something. It is a popular misconception that, like the phrase above", gets passed around long enough to where people believe it is true, when it clearly is not.
Evolutionary theory DOES NOT state that anything needed to "know" to evolve something.
so your saying that it "knew" it needed to do that to survive
why should i have to define it ,you know what it meansCan either you, or your whacky mates at AIG, coherently explain what you mean by "genetic information" please?
no my point is that you think you have it all worked out but really dont, and that is evidenced by the beliefs of 67% of americans and billions around the worldWas you point that you didn't understand what evolution is?
You've proved that
no i think it is you that doesnt "know" anything, if you want to jump in ,answer how and why the fruit tree produced the fruit,and then tell me how it "knew" that whyWow... Just, wow... That's very dense. That is not a well reasoned response. I could say evolution doesn't "know" anything again, but I'd just be repeating what RealityCheck just said.
no i think it is you that doesnt "know" anything, if you want to jump in ,answer how and why the fruit tree produced the fruit,and then tell me how it "knew" that why
why should i have to define it ,you know what it means
you say life started with a code of say 3 letters and that over time now we have codes that are comprised of billion upon billions of letters of incredibly complex code, what im asking is how can you account for the increase in information?
are you joking? please give me a non theoretical example ofOk, here's an information test for you.
Which sequence of letters contains more information? Explain your answer.
Sequence 1: IAMAFRUIT
Sequence 2: RTAIUMAF
So the raw number of base pairs is your quantitative measure of genetic information content? Is that your final answer?
are you joking? please give me a non theoretical example of
sequence 1 : a turning into
sequence 2 iamafruit
How can I tell you how it knew anything? How many times are we going to have to say evolution has no knowledge!? It has no memory either.
Everyone is asking you what information is, clearly it is not as simple as you say. The closest you have come is:
So the raw number of base pairs is your quantitative measure of genetic information content? Is that your final answer?
How many times are we going to have to say evolution has no knowledge
Not at all. There is no foreknowledge whatsoever in evolution. Natural selection is merely the fact that those that are better at surviving and reproducing do so more often than those who aren't. No foreknowledge, just simple survival of those sorts of traits that are good at surviving (and reproduction).you must be kidding, you state that fruit evolved so that it could be spread around and be favourable and thus continue the line, so your saying that it "knew" it needed to do that to survive, you cannot account for the instructions and information can you ? other than to say something that cant be proven
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?