How can you prove evolution?

[Ondoher]

It's never adding information, it's copying it. There is no new information.

Duplication and divergence is the creation of NEW information. Something that didn't exist before, but does now. Again, see the above references.

 

[NatJo]

"New" means to be different from the former or old. "Copy" means an imitation or reproduction of an original.

 

[NatJo]

Mutations are new in a sense, but are still copies.

 

[Ondoher]

"New" means to be different from the former or old. "Copy" means an imitation or reproduction of an original.

Read the cited sources. Here is an abstract example of what I mean:

AGGTCGCGTCGTTGCGT gets duplicated to become
AGGTCGCGTCGTTGCGT, AGGTCGCGTCGTTGCGT This gets further modified to become
AGGTCGCGTCGTTGCGT, ACGTCGCGTCGTTGCGT and then
AGGTCGCGTCGTTGCGT, ACCTCGCGTCGTTGCGT and then
AGGTCGCGTCGTTGCGT, ACCTCGCGGCGTTGCGT and then
AGGTCGCGTCGTTGCGT, ACCTCGCGGAGTTGCGT

The sequence: ACCTCGCGGAGTTGCGT represents new information, this would produce a novel protein. Something that did not exist before, but does now.

Do this a bunch of times, and you get a gene family.

 

[Vance]

It's never adding information, it's copying it. There is no new information.

You keep saying that, even when proof is provided to you that it is not true. There have been many threads providing all kinds of evidence of information being added.

The whole "no new information" stuff is just the latest gambit by Creationist when all their other gambits have failed. This one does not work either. Check out my thread called "Information about Information Theory".

But you didn't answer my question. Are you getting your information from a Creationist source?

 

[Crispie]

It does, however, make it the more likely explanation. And thanks for admitting evolution has more support than the alternatives.

Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. "Just because it has more evidence"

If you read what I said, youll notice that what I mean in my statement is you can have all the evidence you want, and keep getting more evidence, but it still wont make it more proven or not, its either a proven fact or not. Period.

 

[h2whoa]

Ok, macroevolution, such as a belief that frogs eventually became dogs, is impossible because the genetic information in each species' gene pool is fixed, or limited, and never increases by mutations. All mutations are a loss or copy of information, not an addition or any new information

Hello Nat,

Please see my reply in another thread regarding this.

Just click -------> HERE!

h2

 

[Vance]

This is true, something is either proven or not proven. But the theories are never proven. A theory's worth is based on it's LIKELIHOOD to be the best explanation of events. Evolution is, by far, the most likely explanation of the facts that we find.

 

[Ondoher]

Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. "Just because it has more evidence"

If you read what I said, youll notice that what I mean in my statement is you can have all the evidence you want, and keep getting more evidence, but it still wont make it more proven or not, its either a proven fact or not. Period.

So? Science is provisional. Science is not about proof, it is about finding the best explanations.

As an example, drop a pencil. Pick it up and drop it again. Repeat 10 times. 100 times. 1,000 times. 1,000,000 times.

Tired yet?

Now, have you proven that the next time you drop the pencil it will fall? Of course not. Do you believe it will? Of course.

Why?

 

[kingreaper]

Mutations are new in a sense, but are still copies.

You seem to be saying that information isn't any of the things we observe, but you're also saying

IT'S SOMETHING WE DON'T NEED TO EXIST

so define information precisely, not in a namby-pamby "it's not what you've shown me" way, and prove that we need it for evolution

until you show your type of information is NEEDED we have no need to prove its produced

 

[awstar]

So? Science is provisional. Science is not about proof, it is about finding the best explanations.

As an example, drop a pencil. Pick it up and drop it again. Repeat 10 times. 100 times. 1,000 times. 1,000,000 times.

Tired yet?

Now, have you proven that the next time you drop the pencil it will fall? Of course not. Do you believe it will? Of course.

Why?

So if a billion human babies were born and not one of them had wings so that it could fly, you would not have proven evolution theory to be false, but it's reasonable to believe that it might be flawed?

 

[Nathan Poe]

So if a billion human babies were born and not one of them had wings so that it could fly, you would not have proven evolution theory to be false, but it's reasonable to believe that it might be flawed?

Why would anyone expect a baby to grow wings?

 

[Tpt]

But the point is that we base science on pst experiences, no it MAY be different but because of what we have tested, we believe otherwise.

 

[Sopharos]

That all sounds pretty dogmatic. Did God tell you that face to face, like He talked to the author of Genesis? Or, do you know that to be truth because of a special DNA mutation that none of the rest of us have been changed by?

Why should everything has to be consulted with God first before being considered true? For example; you want to prove that in equation 4x + 2y = 132, x equals 8 and y equals 50, do you consult God if it's correct? Does it contradict scripture that according to you, x = 8 and y = 50? No. Same with abiogenesis. A theologically-viable interpretation by theistic evolutionists of Genesis only states that God created the Heavens and the Universe, and all life that is on Earth, but did NOT mentioned anything about the precise mechanism by which life was created. Therefore Abiogenesis does not contradict the scripture, and consulting the bible is not required.

If you disagree, and that in your view abiogenesis DOES contradict scripture, then it is a scriptorial debate, which is not my specialty. So please, by all means do go discuss the scripture with theistic evolutionists, but not me.

As for God personally, well I don't think God has said anything to theistic evolutionists over the subject, so it does not look like He has anything against it. But again, it is up to TEs to clarify this, not I.

Hahha oh man, I love it how evolutions love to try to prove there Evolution by giving as many explanations as possible. Just because it has more evidence doesnt make it 1 bit more proven, its either proven or not. Gz poeple these days.

The overwhelming evidence in support of evolution and the lack of evidence in support of Creationism means compaired to Creationism, Evolution is as good as proven.

Ok, macroevolution, such as a belief that frogs eventually became dogs, is impossible because the genetic information in each species' gene pool is fixed, or limited, and never increases by mutations. All mutations are a loss or copy of information, not an addition or any new information

False, like I have demonstrated in another thread:

Actually, mutations is adequate in meeting this demand. There are many kinds of mutations: Deletion, Duplication, Inversion, Insertion and Translocation.

Picture source: Wikipedia

One causes a loss in formation, two are neutral and two cause a gain. All are observed. In fact, Translocation can also cause a gain in information:

It's never adding information, it's copying it. There is no new information.

Wrong again. For this segment of this post, I would like you to keep very well in mind this table as I go through the processes by which DNA mutations gain totally new information. Each of the boxes in this table represents an amino acid. The left of the box represents the codon series of three rybonucleic bases on the transfer RNA (tRNA) which instructs rybosomes how to produce a chain of polypeptide (protein). AUG produces Met, or Methionine, which signals the start of ALL protein chains, while UAA, UAG, UGA signals the rybosome to cease coding.

Now, let's say we have a line of code that goes AUG-CAU-GAU-CGA-AAG-UCA-UAG. This codes into Met-His-Asp-Arg-Lys-Ser-Stop. Below are diagrams demonstrating each of the types of mutations shown in the diagram in the above segment of the post can produce "totally" new information:

The mechanisms for BOTH increasing the VOLUME of information AND creating of NEW information for new amino acids being coded in new places have been demonstrated. So where, then, is this "magic barrier" to prevent macroevolution from occuring?

 

[gluadys]

It's never adding information, it's copying it. There is no new information.

Well first you have to define "information". Then you have to show how you measure it. Then you have to show there is not/cannot be any increase.

There is one sense in which you can say there is no new genetic information. The coding part of DNA is made up of four nucleotides: adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine (A,G,T, C).

And guess what? No new nucleotide has been added!

But that is like saying the English alphabet consists of 26 letters and has never been expanded to 30 letters.

But when letters are combined to make words and words to make sentences, we can get a lot of new information even though we still have just 26 letters.

Just so, when nucleotides are read as codons, coding for amino acids, which build proteins----then you can get quite new and different information by changing even one base pair in a codon.

For a good explanation of how new information is inevitable, see this post by Cubist on Darwintalk:

http://darwintalk.com/message-board-forum/viewtopic.php?t=258&start=90

Note: it is well down the page, so keep scrolling until the name "Cubist" comes up.

 

[awstar]

Why would anyone expect a baby to grow wings?

Why would an ape require clothes?

 

[Mistermystery]

Why would an ape require clothes?

His point is that evolution doesn't say that babies are sprouting wings in like 1 generation. Concidering our current mass and bone structure it's clear to see that to grow wings that can adapt to our body, you'll need a lot of energy and time put into in it.

 

[kingreaper]

Why would an ape require clothes?

To more easily adapt to a range of different climates of course

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why would an ape require clothes?

Apes (including humans) don't require clothes. There's no biological or environmental reason not to go naked.

Nudity is a social taboo (and not even a universal one), not an evolutionary issue.

 

[Magnus Vile]

Apes (including humans) don't require clothes. There's no biological or environmental reason not to go naked.

Nudity is a social taboo (and not even a universal one), not an evolutionary issue.

Say that when it's -25C and the winds up.