no evidence for evolution

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by 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.

If there are only brown eyes, and then a mutation makes a gene for blue eyes and that gene stays in the population and spreads through it, the trait of "blue eyes" has been added. I don't know what your objection is?

 

[Morat]

So you think that new information is the addition of complex and fully formed structures in one go?

Goodness. It's no wonder you're having problems in this conversation.

Jerry: I think they both want something novel. The appearance of fully-formed eyes in an eyeless species, or a tail in something tailless. Rather cartoony.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

If there are only brown eyes, and then a mutation makes a gene for blue eyes and that gene stays in the population and spreads through it, the trait of "blue eyes" has been added. I don't know what your objection is?

And if there are only brown eyes, and then your fairy godmother appears, waves her wand, and gives you blue eyes, then that's new information, too.

You can't seem to get out of fairy land, Jerry. DEMONSTRATE that your hypothetical scenario has occurred and it will be meaningful. Otherwise you're just playing with Barney.

 

[randman]

"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?"

I don't, and it is apparent you don't have a good grasp of the debate. The discussion is on the nature of mutations. Just a dding them up isn't going to change that fundamental nature that mutations are simply mutating existing traits. How are these new traits that require new genetic material going to form?

I realize that evolutionists position has always been given enough time, it can magically happen, but that isn't good enough. First, they must show mutations have the capability of developing new traits, not merely changing old ones, and then they must demonstrate that this is actually what happened. Neither the 1st nor 2dn has happened yet.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by Lanakila
What if the Bible is correct, and what Lanakila is telling me is true?

So what is Lanakila telling us?

As far as I can see, that she doesn't know what mutations are; she doesn't know how many types of mutations there are; she doesn't know what effect mutations can have on the genotype of populations; she doesn't know that deleterious mutations are weeded out by selection; etc.

We creationists aren't crazy or clinging to blind faith as you suppose, but actually are interpreting the same evidence differently.

How can that be, since you've obviously not examined the evidence?

Tell me - what books on biology and/or genetics have you read?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat

Jerry: I think they both want something novel.

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.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by D. Scarlatti

As far as I can see, that she doesn't know what mutations are;

It seems like she knows perfectly well what mutations are. The only way anyone (Jerry) has tried to refute her assertion is to make up an imaginary scenario that lies outside her assertions. If she simply lacked the facts, Jerry could have used facts to refute her assertions.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Ok, Nick & rm -

Answer these questions:
1) CAN a mutation change a protein's molecular structure somewhat?
2) Does the color of light reflected by a light-reflecting protein depend on its molecular structure?

Answer these, stick by your answers & then lets go on to the next questions.

 

[randman]

"If there are only brown eyes, and then a mutation makes a gene for blue eyes and that gene stays in the population and spreads through it, the trait of "blue eyes" has been added. I don't know what your objection is?"

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.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


It seems like she knows perfectly well what mutations are. The only way anyone (Jerry) has tried to refute her assertion is to make up an imaginary scenario that lies outside her assertions. If she simply lacked the facts, Jerry could have used facts to refute her assertions.

Several of us did, prior to my illustration. Since she didn't seem to be getting it from just getting the facts, I thought maybe creating a hypothetical situation from them would help her.

By the way, if you want us to accept the assertion that mutations cannot add "information" & that this is important, you must PROVE THAT IT IS TRUE.

If you can't do that, you are just blowing hot air.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Answer these, stick by your answers & then lets go on to the next questions.

I answered it already.

 

[randman]

The sign the evolutionists lost the debate.Next.

"How can that be, since you've obviously not examined the evidence?

Tell me - what books on biology and/or genetics have you read?"

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
"If there are only brown eyes, and then a mutation makes a gene for blue eyes and that gene stays in the population and spreads through it, the trait of "blue eyes" has been added. I don't know what your objection is?"

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.

If you think the answer to that question is "no" then you have a large burden of proof upon you.

Evolution was devised before mutations were known of. It requires a mechanism for adding new traits, but it doesn't require that mechanism to be known. We do now know that the mechanism includes genetic mutation, which can (for instance), alter the code for the proteins present in the cell membranes of (for instance) the iris, so that it reflects light. It can then be further changed so that it reflects light of different mixtures of colors. You can learn more about what mutations can do by studying genetics.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Several of us did, prior to my illustration. Since she didn't seem to be getting it from just getting the facts, I thought maybe creating a hypothetical situation from them would help her.

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.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

By the way, if you want us to accept the assertion that mutations cannot add "information" & that this is important, you must PROVE THAT IT IS TRUE.

If you can't do that, you are just blowing hot air.

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?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


I answered it already.

I don't remember the answers.

1) Can a mutation effect molecular structure of a protein?
2) does the molecular structure of a protein determine how it reflects light?

please repeat your answers to those questions so that we can go to the next step.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by randman
The sign the evolutionists lost the debate. Next.

"How can that be, since you've obviously not examined the evidence?

Tell me - what books on biology and/or genetics have you read?"

What debate? I don't see any debate.

If someone has not effectively demonstrated that they understand the full range and effect of genetic mutations on populations, then, by definition, they have not examined the evidence.

It's as simple as that.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by randman
The sign the evolutionists lost the debate.Next.

"How can that be, since you've obviously not examined the evidence?

Tell me - what books on biology and/or genetics have you read?"

ROFL!!!! True, true, true, and too true.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Regarding this current discussion, your claim that one must first “measure the amount of information contained in the gene pool” is in this case anyway, a classical example of bifurcation (false dilemma). That is, whether intentional or not, you have still evaded the stock issues previously revealed in this discussion.

Lanakila, I haven’t evaded anything. Your premise is that evolution cannot increase information. This has two obvious flaws.

1. An unsupported assumption that the amount of “information” is related to macroevolutionary changes. (I assume her that you are trying to argue against macroevolution, since you’ve said elsewhere that you have no problem with microevolution.)

2. You haven’t actually shown that it is impossible for evolution to increase “information.” You have claimed as such but given no proof that has withstood scrutiny.

1. Natural selection manipulates “pre-existing information”.
2. Genetic mutation deletes/rearranges “pre-existing information”.
3. Ergo: the “theory” of biological evolution cannot account for the “pre-existing information”.

Three does not follow from One and Two because the theory of evolution is more than mutation plus natural selection. Also one and two are still suffering from the same flaw: a direct linking of information theory to genetics and evolution. You have said that the genome contains information. But what type? Fisher? Shannon? Kolmogorov?

To be sure, the very best natural selection can do with a mutation is to produce what is termed “balanced polymorphism” like sickle cell anemia. In this case, this condition caused by a genetic mutation provides resistance to malaria, but likewise threatens the overall heath/survivability of the organism.

Sickle cell anemia is not a balanced polymorphism. It’s a genetic disease caused by being homozygous for the Hemoglobin-S allele at the Beta-Hemoglobin locus. In parts of the world where malaria occurs, selection does currently maintain polymorphism at that locus because heterozygous individuals have the greatest fitness. However, there is also another allele Hemoglobin-C, which provides the advantages of the Hemoglobin-S allele with none of the drawbacks. Scientists predict that, if current conditions stay the same, the Hemoglobin-C allele will eventually become fixed in malaria-infected populations in Africa.

Furthermore, polymorphic loci are very important to the preservation of genetic diversity. Evolution occurs by both the increase and decrease of genetic diversity. Natural selection operates on the level of the individual not its genes. Selection does not act to promote heterozygous loci, it only acts to promote phenotypes that are important to success. Natural selection does not get to “look” at the genotype.

The question is not how much information is there, in the gene pool, but rather where did the information come from in the first place!

Assuming by “information” you are referring to this gene and it’s alleles, then they got there by mutation. Hemoglobin-S is simply a mutation of the wildtype allele. A point mutation causes the amino acid valine to replace a glutamine. One nucleotide difference is enough to determine whether an individual dies from malaria or not. If you’re wondering where the locus came from, the answer is mutation too. In this instance the mutation was a gene duplication of another globin locus. This duplication increased the amount of information in the genome for coding a globin protein. At first the information was redundant, but subsequent mutations changed the genes so much that they contained information for different proteins. It is not hard to see how the accumulation of mutations can change and add information for new proteins into the genome. Another globin duplication-divergence event, which produced the fetal hemoglobins, was extremely important in our evolutionary history because it allowed fetuses to have a higher affinity to oxygen than adults. That’s very important to the transmission of oxygen in the placenta.

See this page for more discussion on the evolution of globin genes.

The various functions of genetic mutations (insertion, translocation, deletion, and inversion) are in fact, merely deletion, rearrangement or a combination of the same of “pre-existing information” this is inescapable.

See above. “Pre-existing information” is initially copied, but subsequent mutations can also change it to make it something novel and in turn add information for novel proteins and phenotypes.

The fact is that neo-Darwinistic theory is intrinsically “theory laden” and a convoluted representation of both scientific data and philosophical foundations of cosmogony.

Lanakila, biological evolution has no more to do with the origins of the universe or life than does music theory. Maybe you should stop learning about evolution from creationist sources. After all, do you ask Castro to explain capitalism to you?

Like it or not, you have quite a dilemma my friends, because classical evolutionary theory unequivocally begins with a presupposition (i.e. faith) that the worldview of naturalism is valid and then proceeds to evaluate the scientific data accordingly. Yet, the theoretical infrastructure of such cannot support the scientific evidence or philosophical data.
I beg of you, please attempt to conduct a careful introspective evaluation, of your hearts and minds, to make sure that you are seeking after truth, regardless of the consequences. It is obligatory to us within the academic community to be honest, with both ourselves and the data, so that we achieve not “our” conclusion, but “the” conclusion—objective reality.

Like it or not, Lanakila, evolutionary biology is a science. Its accuracy cannot be determined by whatever philosophical, emotional, religious, and political arguments and conclusions people might draw.

 

[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.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

I don't remember the answers.

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.