How many steps does it take?

[Jfrsmth]

Can anyone give a quantitative answer to David Berlinski's question:

"Quantitatively, how many changes must take place for a cow to become a whale?"

Can anyone quantify the number of changes that would be needed to morph from one creature to another?

 

[-57]

Can anyone give a quantitative answer to David Berlinski's question:

"Quantitatively, how many changes must take place for a cow to become a whale?"

Can anyone quantify the number of changes that would be needed to morph from one creature to another?

You will never get an evo to answer this question.

Their problem is...trying to show it can actually work. Showing how the DNA code can change, increase its information via a process of random chance mutations.

I've been asking for literally decades on how mutations add up and have never received an answer.
I have come to the conclusion evolutionism is based squarely on faith.

 

[lasthero]

Can anyone give a quantitative answer to David Berlinski's question:

"Quantitatively, how many changes must take place for a cow to become a whale?"

Can anyone quantify the number of changes that would be needed to morph from one creature to another?

Who ever said whales evolved from cows?

 

[Jfrsmth]

Thanks -57!

I was beginning to wonder if anyone would touch this one.

"Showing how the DNA code can change, increase its information via a process of random chance mutations. " I would love to know more about this.

Surely "faith" is the key word from both camps. (y)

 

[lasthero]

I was beginning to wonder if anyone would touch this one.

Maybe you'd have better luck if you didn't put it in the debate forum. Especially since you've said time and again that you don't want a debate.

 

[The Cadet]

Can anyone give a quantitative answer to David Berlinski's question:

"Quantitatively, how many changes must take place for a cow to become a whale?"

Can anyone quantify the number of changes that would be needed to morph from one creature to another?

I don't know. How is this relevant for evolution? Whales did not evolve from cows, they shared a common ancestor. However, if you're looking for someone who actually engages the question of "How many changes from a common ancestor to a whale", Potholer54 put out an excellent video on it:

 

[Oafman]

39

 

[JackRT]

It is an impossible question to answer, in fact it doesn't make sense. We must always keep in mind that while mutations happen to individuals, evolution is what happens to populations.

 

[Loudmouth]

Can anyone give a quantitative answer to David Berlinski's question:

"Quantitatively, how many changes must take place for a cow to become a whale?"

Can anyone quantify the number of changes that would be needed to morph from one creature to another?

Quantitatively, the answer is the number of mutations (i.e. substitutions, indels, and recombination events) that it would take to change the cow genome into the whatever whale species you are moving towards.

Of course, whales didn't evolve from modern cows, so the question doesn't have much bearing on evolution.

 

[Nithavela]

Over 9000!

 

[-57]

Quantitatively, the answer is the number of mutations (i.e. substitutions, indels, and recombination events) that it would take to change the cow genome into the whatever whale species you are moving towards.

Of course, whales didn't evolve from modern cows, so the question doesn't have much bearing on evolution.

I think it's rather obvious that no one believes a whale evolved from a modern cow....even if evolutionism was possible.
The big problem for the evos-crowd is they don't know what to assume the whale evolved from. The second problem would be if it were even possible to increase the information in the so-called proto-whale DNA to code for a whale via a process which contains random chance.

 

[The Cadet]

The big problem for the evos-crowd is they don't know what to assume the whale evolved from.

Actually, the fossil record has been pretty great about whale fossils.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

The second problem would be if it were even possible to increase the information in the so-called proto-whale DNA to code for a whale via a process which contains random chance.

Well... Yes. It's not just possible, it's trivially possible. Increasing the "information" in DNA is actually pretty straightforward. We know that gene duplication happens; this is well-established. We know that point mutations happen; this is also well-established. So let me lay out some steps:

CGAT (Original gene)
CGATCGAT (gene duplication)
CGATCAAT (point mutation)

No matter how you want to slice it, the bit on the bottom has more information than the bit at the top. It contains the original information, plus another foreign string. This occurs constantly through purely random mutations. And that's just the most obvious way to increase information - there are many more ways that genes can mutate to produce new information.

 

[-57]

Actually, the fossil record has been pretty great about whale fossils.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03


Well... Yes. It's not just possible, it's trivially possible. Increasing the "information" in DNA is actually pretty straightforward. We know that gene duplication happens; this is well-established. We know that point mutations happen; this is also well-established. So let me lay out some steps:

CGAT (Original gene)
CGATCGAT (gene duplication)
CGATCAAT (point mutation)

No matter how you want to slice it, the bit on the bottom has more information than the bit at the top. It contains the original information, plus another foreign string. This occurs constantly through purely random mutations. And that's just the most obvious way to increase information - there are many more ways that genes can mutate to produce new information.

It's not a mutation that's a problem.....it's a beneficial mutation occurring over and over again that is the problem. TO DATE the Evo's have not even come close to demonstrating this is possible.

 

[The Cadet]

It's not a mutation that's a problem.....

Well, you just said it was... But okay.

it's a beneficial mutation occurring over and over again that is the problem.

How do you mean "over and over again"? Like, do you think the same mutation has to occur numerous times? Or do you just mean that multiple beneficial mutations have to occur? Because if the latter, I'm not sure why you seem to think that this is impossible, and if the former, then you don't understand how mutations propagate within populations.

 

[-57]

Well, you just said it was... But okay.


How do you mean "over and over again"? Like, do you think the same mutation has to occur numerous times? Or do you just mean that multiple beneficial mutations have to occur? Because if the latter, I'm not sure why you seem to think that this is impossible, and if the former, then you don't understand how mutations propagate within populations.

In order to establish a new trait..such as a dolphins echo-location system according to evolutionism mutations are required. Those that believe in evolutionism also tell us the changes are small and incremental.

For those so-called beneficial mutations to add up they must occur in and change the coding of the DNA responsible for the trait. Later a second mutation must occur which is also considered as beneficial and enhances the fitness of the trait and make a change to the DNA information in the animals progeny. This MUST occur over and over again many, many times.
Considering just how rare a so-called beneficial mutation are...the huge number of places where it can occur...how it must occur in the correct DNA, often at just the right time...fold the proteins precisly..there is no known method for this to occur.

Evolutionism simply fails.

 

[The Cadet]

In order to establish a new trait..such as a dolphins echo-location system according to evolutionism mutations are required. Those that believe in evolutionism also tell us the changes are small and incremental.

For those so-called beneficial mutations to add up they must occur in and change the coding of the DNA responsible for the trait. Later a second mutation must occur which is also considered as beneficial and enhances the fitness of the trait and make a change to the DNA information in the animals progeny. This MUST occur over and over again many, many times.

And yet, we are aware of numerous complex constructs (the eye and the bacterial flagellum, just to name two well-researched examples brought up by creationists) that did come about exactly this way. So I'm not sure why you simply stamping your feet and saying "IT CANNOT HAPPEN" is supposed to impress me. This is not an argument against evolution. Your incredulity does not amount to a solid argument against the evidence.

 

[SkyWriting]

For those so-called beneficial mutations to add up they must occur in and change the coding of the DNA responsible for the trait. Later a second mutation must occur which is also considered as beneficial and enhances the fitness of the trait and make a change to the DNA information in the animals progeny.

This model does not rule out variation by design or even a pyramid of variations by design.
What "computing power" would it take to predict the results of 20 levels of planned variation?
Is that "computing power" available to God? I'd think so.

 

[-57]

And yet, we are aware of numerous complex constructs (the eye and the bacterial flagellum, just to name two well-researched examples brought up by creationists) that did come about exactly this way. So I'm not sure why you simply stamping your feet and saying "IT CANNOT HAPPEN" is supposed to impress me. This is not an argument against evolution. Your incredulity does not amount to a solid argument against the evidence.

The eye and the flagellum to this day can't be explained. I've looked and can't find it...Now, if you happen to have some well researched examples..lets see them.

 

[The Cadet]

The eye and the flagellum to this day can't be explained. I've looked and can't find it...Now, if you happen to have some well researched examples..lets see them.

The eye has been known for quite some time:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

The flagellum's evolution has been more carefully explored fairly recently:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/flagellum_evolu.html

 

[-57]

The eye has been known for quite some time:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

The flagellum's evolution has been more carefully explored fairly recently:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/flagellum_evolu.html

OK, so I went to the first site and read the following:
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

.....and you dare post..."The eye has been known for quite some time"...really? All you produced was someone scenario of how they thought it happened.

Cadet, you've produced nothing but the typical coloring book version....once again....you never showed how random changes then created a depression....and so on. Nothing but pure speculation. Sorry, you failed. F