no evidence for evolution

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


Adding your imagination is adding nothing, Jerry. The fact that you don't like that truth pointed out leads to YOUR bluster.

Are you so threatened by the possibility that I'll push this thread back onto facts and away from what you can imagine?

Please re-read this thread. Observe:

1) Lanakila's position is that evolution is in trouble because mutations cannot "add information".
2) She defines information as DNA sequences (the best I can tell)
3) She continues to assert that information can only be decreased or "scrambled" by mutation.
4) She does not offer any evidence for this whatsoever.

Because she does not appear to be a troll (or at least not the worst kind of troll), I, and others describe to her the kinds of mutation that she is unfamiliar with, to show her that it is not reasonable to conclude that mutations cannot "add information."

Her position remains the same, and no response to our explanations is forthcoming. I conclude (because she does not appear to be a troll) that she just isn't understanding them, so I offer a simple illustration of how genetic diversity could come about (if the claim is only that "information" cannot be added, it is more than sufficient to show how it could in order to render the claim disproven), to help her understand the process.

You jump in and mouth off about evolution being "based on speculation." Well, admittedly, my illustration was a) oversimplified, and b) somewhat speculative (though also c) a fair analogy to many genetic events that are empirically observed). However, for you to conclude from this that evolution is based on speculation, you must first prove that evolution is based on the objections of creationists, because the illustration was part of an answer to those objections.

Please, now, go bluster elsewhere!

 

[Jerry Smith]

We know blue is recessive. So trying to invent a case where someone without the genetic code for blue eyes,by mutation has offspring with blue eyes is a faulty argument.

This is correct. Before the mutation that changes the pigment color to blue can be expressed in the phenotype (that is, the way their genes affect their physical characteristics), the new mutant gene must spread somewhat through the population, so that it is possible for one person to be born to a parent who both carry that gene.

As you point out, at this point, we are only speculating about one way that the new trait can be introduced to the genome (and later spread enough to influence the phenotype of the individuals in the population). There is no guarantee that this is how blue eyes came about. However, there are good reasons to believe that a similar process is responsible for the fact that some of us had blue eyes, even if Adam and Eve were both homozygous for brown eyes.

Still, it is only part of the story, because natural selection (including sexual selection) have to be called upon to explain why the blue-eye gene became more common in the gene pool.

 

[randman]

"Because she does not appear to be a troll (or at least not the worst kind of troll), I,"

Jerry, this kind of remark is just plain ignorant and offensive. Personally, I have never met a more twisted group of people, nearly all "trolls", than those that argue on the Net for evolution, and I think upon showing the threads to others with little interest in the debate, they generally agree that the Talkorigins and Infidels crowd have something wrong with them.
Personally, for instance, Nick's comments have not been "troll=like" but right on. It appears when a critic of evolution makes a good point that he is them labelled a troll and the personal attacks against him begin. This is so common, it is completely predictable.

 

[Lanakila]

Read back through the thread I have explained what I mean by information repeatedly. The genetic code in the DNA of the individual organism. The reason you evolutionists are arguing this one so strong is that without genetic mutation as a workable mechanism for evolution you have no macro-evolution. Random chance changes in the highly complex structured DNA code do not create order or more complex structures or add new information. Instead, any changes appear to produce disorder, and either rearrangement, deletion, duplication, or insertion are examples of disorder. Mutations are harmful over 99% of the time. Are there any beneficial mutations? Very few that we can find, but it depends on the definition of beneficial.

How could evolution ever operate if the only mechanism is gene mutation and mutations severely restrict advantageous development? By either killing the organism, making it sick, or making it less fertile or sterile.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Lanakila
Read back through the thread I have explained what I mean by information repeatedly. The genetic code in the DNA of the individual organism. The reason you evolutionists are arguing this one so strong is that without genetic mutation as a workable mechanism for evolution you have no macro-evolution. Random chance changes in the highly complex structured DNA code do not create order or more complex structures or add new information. Instead, any changes appear to produce disorder, and either rearrangement, deletion, duplication, or insertion are examples of disorder. Mutations are harmful over 99% of the time. Are there any beneficial mutations? Very few that we can find, but it depends on the definition of beneficial.

How could evolution ever operate if the only mechanism is gene mutation and mutations severely restrict advantageous development? By either killing the organism, making it sick, or making it less fertile or sterile.

Lanalika,

Look how much you have changed your position since the beginning of this conversation. That proves that asking questions and being open to the answers can help you learn, and correct your mistakes.

You've seen how it is possible that "information" can be added by your definition AND how novel traits can be added as well. You still have some questionable ideas about what percentages of mutations are harmful, and you don't seem certain of how a beneficial mutation is defined, but you have come a long way.

Keep asking questions & we'll keep trying to answer.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat

The eye example is not faulty. It is quite on topic. In a population consisting of solely brown-eyed people, with no blue-eyed recessive's lurking, would a mutation that caused blue eyes be "new information"? The fact that blue eyes exist now is immaterial. We're talking a restricted population without that allele.

It is completely faulty. One might just as well ask, "In a population consisting of solely brown-eyed people with no blue-eyed recessive's lurking, if an alien came down and added a new gene to their DNA to make blue eyes, would that constitute adding information?"

You're just making up a hypothetical situation out of nowhere (your imagination) and expecting to use it to arrive at a valid answer as to whether or not it is possible for mutations to add information?!? That's perfect evolutionary thinking, but it's certainly not science.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
"Because she does not appear to be a troll (or at least not the worst kind of troll), I,"

Jerry, this kind of remark is just plain ignorant and offensive. Personally, I have never met a more twisted group of people, nearly all "trolls", than those that argue on the Net for evolution, and I think upon showing the threads to others with little interest in the debate, they generally agree that the Talkorigins and Infidels crowd have something wrong with them.
Personally, for instance, Nick's comments have not been "troll=like" but right on. It appears when a critic of evolution makes a good point that he is them labelled a troll and the personal attacks against him begin. This is so common, it is completely predictable.

randman, I know you agree with Nick's position, and can see why you agree with the basic ideas behind his posts in some threads. If you have honestly read this thread and what was said on it, and you still think Nick was "right on" and had a "good point", then I don't think there is any help for it. I really don't understand it - you sometimes seem observant and willing to think about an issue, and you sometimes seem just the opposite.... I guess I won't ever understand you.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Her position remains the same, and no response to our explanations is forthcoming.

Her position is based on an understanding of genetics. Your explanations are based on imaginary scenarios. And you complain that her response to your so-called explanations is not forthcoming!?!

If what you have is a solid case, then make it based on facts, not some hypothetical situation about brown eyes that you have to dream up.

I realize that my intrusion upon your conversation is unnerving because I'm forcing you to deal in reality, but that's just too bad. Perhaps you can start another thread just for me to blow off steam.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


It is completely faulty. One might just as well ask, "In a population consisting of solely brown-eyed people with no blue-eyed recessive's lurking, if an alien came down and added a new gene to their DNA to make blue eyes, would that constitute adding information?"

You're just making up a hypothetical situation out of nowhere (your imagination) and expecting to use it to arrive at a valid answer as to whether or not it is possible for mutations to add information?!? That's perfect evolutionary thinking, but it's certainly not science.

I'm fighting myself over whether to click "ignore" on you. On the one hand, I don't want your bluster to go unanswered. On the other hand, I don't want to have health problems on account of high blood pressure.

The fact is, genetic mutations are KNOWN to make changes in proteins (like pigments), that can affect their molecular structure in a large variety of ways, including causing them to reflect different colors of light. To use this as a hypothetical to ILLUSTRATE how genetic information can be added to the genome is, until you demonstrate WHY (which I know you won't) perfectly legitimate.

So, please, please, please, either make your point or go somewhere else.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by Lanakila
Mutations are harmful over 99% of the time.

Where did you get this figure? And to which mutations does this figure refer? Gene mutations, errors that occur during cell division, during which base pairs are replaced by other base pairs? Or chromosomal mutations? Polyploidy? Chromosomal inversion?

Are there any beneficial mutations? Very few that we can find, but it depends on the definition of beneficial.

There are neutral, as well as beneficial and deleterious mutations. What percentage of mutations are neutral? Less than 1%? How do you know?

How could evolution ever operate if the only mechanism is gene mutation and mutations severely restrict advantageous development?

Who said that? This sounds like another caricature of evolution. Do you antievolutionists ever read anything other than antievolutionist "literature"?

You'd do well to read a book by an actual biologist.

By either killing the organism, making it sick, or making it less fertile or sterile.

Then it wouldn't be able to reproduce, would it? That's where selection comes in. If an organism can't reproduce, then there's not going to be any inheritance of its genetic material, is there? So what is the point of objecting to mutations that don't get passed on?

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by npetreley
Her position is based on an understanding of genetics.

!!!!

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


Her position is based on an understanding of genetics. Your explanations are based on imaginary scenarios. And you complain that her response to your so-called explanations is not forthcoming!?!

If what you have is a solid case, then make it based on facts, not some hypothetical situation about brown eyes that you have to dream up.

I realize that my intrusion upon your conversation is unnerving because I'm forcing you to deal in reality, but that's just too bad. Perhaps you can start another thread just for me to blow off steam.

Nick, her arguments are based on the mistaken notion that only two kinds of mutations occur, and that mutations (therefore) cannot "add" "information". We have "explained" to her that there are more than two kinds of mutations that occur and some of them add the "information" that she has defined as "genetic code", by increasing the "length" or "number of nucleotides" in the "genetic code."

Why hasn't she responded to our explanations? Well, I think she has started to. And I think that is why you jumped in to start trolling this thread.

 

[Morat]

Read back through the thread I have explained what I mean by information repeatedly.

Actually, you haven't. Which is why people keep asking you to clarify things, and giving you examples.

Regardless of whether you think you've been clear, there are several people who think you haven't. So why tell them to reread your posts when it's obvious your posts were unclear to them?

The genetic code in the DNA of the individual organism.

So you're definition of information is what DNA encodes for?

If that's the case, then the formation of a new allele should be new information, correct?

The reason you evolutionists are arguing this one so strong is that without genetic mutation as a workable mechanism for evolution you have no macro-evolution.

Actually, we're arguing this because you haven't defined information. Or rather, you've defined information as "a thing evolution can't do". It's very fluid, and makes arguing with you really pointless.

No matter what we point out, it can't be new information, because your definition assumes evolution can't make it.

Although you're quite right about the role of mutation in evolution. Without a source of variation (various types of mutations, as well as the fun things viruses and bacteria can do), evolution doesn't get to far. That's what the New Synthesis was all about.

Random chance changes in the highly complex structured DNA code do not create order or more complex structures or add new information.

But you won't define "information". Is the formation of new biochemical pathways "adding information"? Is the formation of new alleles "adding information"?

Your statement is null without a definition of "information". It's a meaningless assertation.

"Random chance" by the way, is redundant.

Mutations do all sorts of things. A frame-shift mutation gave a bacterium the ability to digest nylon. Very useful for it. Mutations in other bacteria allow them to survive, and even thrive, in previously hostile enviroments.

Heck, a mutation about 400 years ago in a single man in Europe drastically lowered the ability of cholesteral to stick to his artery walls.

Is any of this "new information"?

We can't tell, because you won't tell us what new information is.

So perhaps you'ld give us some examples of what you'd consider new information?

Instead, any changes appear to produce disorder, and either rearrangement, deletion, duplication, or insertion are examples of disorder. Mutations are harmful over 99% of the time. Are there any beneficial mutations? Very few that we can find, but it depends on the definition of beneficial.

Beneficial makes sense only in terms of the enviroment. Do you find lactose tolerance beneficial? Lowered chance of a heart attack?

You're claiming that all changes produce disorder by pointing out that all mutations change the DNA of an organism, which you claim is disorder. Thus you're assuming yourself correct.

Then you go on to claim information cannot be measured by DNA changes, but by outward effects. If it changes outward appearances, it's still losing information because the DNA has changed.

So which is it? Is information the DNA? Or the results?

How could evolution ever operate if the only mechanism is gene mutation and mutations severely restrict advantageous development? By either killing the organism, making it sick, or making it less fertile or sterile?

Natural selection.

What? You asked.

 

[randman]

The question is not adding information per se since, as can be demonstrated, taking away information can add a "new" trait. Some creationists believe for instance the polar and grizzly bear are from the same kind.

The question is the nature of the limits on mutations, the limits being the genetic material present, and this is where I have not seen a satisfactory answer from evolutionists. I admit I don't know a lot about genetics, but creating an albino, or blue eyes, etc,...is something easiy envisioned as within the parameters of the genetic material present. Changing an animal from being cold-blooded to warm-blooded, or developing complex organs like eyes, or a backbone, or things which seem to require new genes, it isn't clear to me that any amount of mutations can create those things if the genetic material just isn't there to do so. Yes, a trait can be mutated, and thus a new trait formed, but can traits that don't exist in any form be added, and this is what evolutionists insist on being what happens, but there just isn't any evidence of it yet to my knowledge.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

The fact is, genetic mutations are KNOWN to make changes in proteins (like pigments), that can affect their molecular structure in a large variety of ways, including causing them to reflect different colors of light. To use this as a hypothetical to ILLUSTRATE how genetic information can be added to the genome is, until you demonstrate WHY (which I know you won't) perfectly legitimate.

But that's not a demonstration of adding information at all. It's a demonstration of various combinations of existing information, and in some cases, an example of losing information (as in albino). So if that's what you're getting at, you've just disproved what it was you wanted to prove. And that's why you avoided a REAL example in the first place in favor of your imaginary scenario.

 

[randman]

Mutating existing traits is possible, but the idea that new traits that don't exist in any form can be added via mutations is what is contested.

 

[Lanakila]

Lanalika,

Look how much you have changed your position since the beginning of this conversation. That proves that asking questions and being open to the answers can help you learn, and correct your mistakes.

You've seen how it is possible that "information" can be added by your definition AND how novel traits can be added as well. You still have some questionable ideas about what percentages of mutations are harmful, and you don't seem certain of how a beneficial mutation is defined, but you have come a long way.

Keep asking questions & we'll keep trying to answer.

Thank you, but I don't think my position has changed at all. I still think mutations could never create all the living organisms on the earth. I still believe God created everything exactly the way he said in Genesis. Is the earth exactly the way he created it and are all the organisms exactly the same? No. The Genesis Flood changed the earth, and created most of the fossils evolutionists use to prove it didn't happen. Its really kind of crazy, if you look at it as: What if the Bible is correct, and what Lanakila is telling me is true? We creationists aren't crazy or clinging to blind faith as you suppose, but actually are interpreting the same evidence differently.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


But that's not a demonstration of adding information at all. It's a demonstration of various combinations of existing information, and in some cases, an example of losing information (as in albino). So if that's what you're getting at, you've just disproved what it was you wanted to prove. And that's why you avoided a REAL example in the first place in favor of your imaginary scenario.

Define information in a way that can be quantified and prove that it cannot increase during mutation. Prove also, if you are claiming it, increase of the information as you define it is necessary to macroevolution.

Otherwise, you are blowing hot air.

 

[Morat]

Changing an animal from being cold-blooded to warm-blooded, or developing complex organs like eyes, or a backbone, or things which seem to require new genes, it isn't clear to me that any amount of mutations can create those things if the genetic material just isn't there to do so. Yes, a trait can be mutated, and thus a new trait formed, but can traits that don't exist in any form be added, and this is what evolutionists insist on being what happens, but there just isn't any evidence of it yet to my knowledge.

Do you know what eyes started out as? What a spinal cord started out as?

Light-sensitive cells and a simple nerve pathway.

Claiming mutation would pop in a spinal cord in an invertebrate in one lump, or pop in a complete eye in something eyeless is a cartoon version of evolution. (Now, creating extra eyes in something is fairly simple. Happens a lot).

Evolution works by starting simple and building. Why do you insist on portraying it as claiming to add fully functioning and complex structures in a single blow?

Do you really have that poor a grasp on the topic?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat


Heck, a mutation about 400 years ago in a single man in Europe drastically lowered the ability of cholesteral to stick to his artery walls.

Is there no end to the obfuscation of the issues by evolutionists?

Now you're attempting to prove new information by giving an example of a beneficial variation on existing information!!

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.