no evidence for evolution

[Jerry Smith]

Here's a novel idea. HOW ABOUT CITING A REAL SITUATION? Maybe that would help. What? Can't do it? Why not? Because it doesn't happen, that's why.

She is only a beginner on genetics. Do you think if I cited one of the instances where a new trait was picked up by mutation that come from the scientific literature she would stand a chance of understanding it?

You've got that backwards. You're the one who thinks evolution happens, and you believe it happens through adding information. From a SCIENTIFIC perspective, the burden is upon YOU to OBSERVE the process of mutations adding information so you can confirm your theory. Or are you suddenly entirely unfamiliar with the scientific method now?

When we have observed evolution happen, it hardly matters whether we have observed the mechanisms for it anymore. In any case, they have been observed, but that is outside the scope of this thread. Especially until someone determines a way to quantify information.

Now if you claim something is impossible, you have the burden of proof. Prove it, or quit claiming it is impossible. THAT EASY!

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


Aha, so now you've not only forgotten the scientific method, you've forgotten how to use a browser. Now there's a really intelligent fellow with which to have a discussion.

Ok, I'm too stupid to use a browser. What were your answers, or are you waiting until the questions are three pages back on the thread?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Jerry, you are completely dodging the issue, and using semantics. Mutating existing traits like the color of eyes is possible, but what evolutionists have not shown to my knowledge is that mutations can add traits which never before existed in any form. Changing the color of the eyes is not adding a trait that never existed before in any form, but merely mutating an existing trait.

Inserting proteins that block light into the cell membrane of (say, for instance) cells in the retina - would that not be "adding a new trait"? Varying the reflective qualtities of those proteins... would that not be adding the "trait" of eye-color?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Who deleted my last two posts?

never mind, they are back now

 

[D. Scarlatti]

A creationist actually understanding what constitutes evolution, that would be a new trait.

It has happened, but there's no evidence of it in this thread.

Keep trying Jerry, Rufus, Morat et al. Maybe one of them will get it eventually.

 

[randman]

"Inserting proteins that block light into the cell membrane of (say, for instance) cells in the retina - would that not be "adding a new trait"? Varying the reflective qualtities of those proteins... would that not be adding the "trait" of eye-color?"

No, is is not the addition of an entirely new trait, but rather the mutation of an existing one. Try to remove the labels and see what I am saying here. It can be called a new trait, or an existing trait, but it still doesn't demonstrate what we are talking about here because it is essentially the mutating of an existing trait, not the addition of a trait which did not exist in any form.

 

[Morat]

Hmm. Interesting:
Me:

I think they both want something novel.

npeterley:

Just because it's an improvement doesn't mean the information is new! All of us have a degree of resistance to cholesterol "sticking" to artery walls. If we didn't, then (aside from us all being dead) this ability might be considered new information. As it is, it's simply a variation of existing information that happens to be beneficial.

and

No, I want something from the land of reality. It's a land foreign to evolutionists, which is why they can't produce anything from that land.

Randman:

That's a mutation of an existing trait, not the addition of entirely new traits that don't exist in any form at all. Eyes have color, and a mutation can possibly change the color of that eye. That was a possibility within the existing potential of the genetic material present. The question posed is can mutations develop entirely new traits that didn't exist before and thus evolve new kinds of creatures with added traits that never existed in any form before.

Randman does want something novel. npeterley claims he doesn't, but it really seems he does.

"Look, what would you consider a mutation that added the blue allele?"

"Not new information, because it's still an eye color.".

Sound familiar?

So, let me ask you npeterley a question: Can you give me an example, purely a mental exercise, as to what you would consider "new information" in terms of say..bacteria. Or even mammals?

I'm a little confused about what you would consider "new information" and an example would help a lot.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
"Inserting proteins that block light into the cell membrane of (say, for instance) cells in the retina - would that not be "adding a new trait"? Varying the reflective qualtities of those proteins... would that not be adding the "trait" of eye-color?"

No, is is not the addition of an entirely new trait, but rather the mutation of an existing one. Try to remove the labels and see what I am saying here. It can be called a new trait, or an existing trait, but it still doesn't demonstrate what we are talking about here because it is essentially the mutating of an existing trait, not the addition of a trait which did not exist in any form.

Ok, so going from no eye-color to eye-color is not adding a new trait. What exactly IS adding a new thrait? Maybe evolution doesn't even need new traits by the definition you are using...

 

[randman]

Eye-color existed so it wasn't adding color when none existed before.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Inserting proteins that block light into the cell membrane of (say, for instance) cells in the retina - would that not be "adding a new trait"? Varying the reflective qualtities of those proteins... would that not be adding the "trait" of eye-color?

Please re-read the first part of this..

 

[Jerry Smith]

Or to draw a finer line, working with proteins that already exist in the cell membranes: varying them so that they block light - how about that? Creating eye color from proteins that were previously only structural?

 

[Morat]

Hmm. Prediction: randman will either ignore this, or claim that the eyes already existed.

Which leads us willy nilly into the fun land of "microinformation" and "macroinformation".

He wants something novel. He refuses to give an example of what would be new information, because deep down he knows it's ludicrous, but he really wants something like "growing antenna".

 

[randman]

"varying them so that they block light - how about that? Creating eye color from proteins that were previously only structural?"

That sounds more like reorganization. What we are looking for is the addition of genes that can take, even if bit by bit, one kind of creature into another entirely. Can a bacteria gradually develop eyes for instance?

 

[Jerry Smith]

what kind of new traits do you think are necessary to change (bit by bit) one kind of creature into another? While you're at it, what kind of working definition of "kind" are we looking at here?

Why can't adding new traits (like light blocking proteins in the eyes, for instance) not accomplish what you are talking about (bit by bit)?

 

[randman]

You show me.

 

[Jerry Smith]

What exactly do you want me to show you?

 

[Morat]

Can a bacteria gradually develop eyes for instance?

You're putting the cart well before the horse.

Think about it.

How many cells does a bacterium have?

The answer would thus be "no". Bacteria cannot develop eyes, because eyes mean something is multicelluar, and bacteria only have one cell. Any bacteria with eyes would stop being bacteria.

However, I knew he was asking for novel structures.

So how about it, randman, how is the ability to digest nylon not a novel biochemical structure? It's certainly brand-spanking new, as nylon is a man-made substance.

 

[randman]

Being able to eat nylon doesn't count. Being able to eat when it couldn't digest anything might count.

Evolution requires the development of new genes, and creatures going from one-cell to all of life today.

 

[randman]

Show where mutations add genes and whole new traits as evolution requires.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Being able to eat nylon doesn't count. Being able to eat when it couldn't digest anything might count.

Evolution requires the development of new genes, and creatures going from one-cell to all of life today.

Digestion was probably something the first living cells had the capacity for, so it is probably a topic for study under abiogenesis rather than evolution. Furthermore, I don't feel confident that I could provide a plausible mechanism for the development of digestion step-by-step from a replicator or organism lacking it to a replicator or organism capable of it. I will have to pass on this one. Perhaps you have something easier? Like the change from ape-like organism to human?