Question 3

[tonybeer]

I have backed this up...

Tony brought up the example of giraffes. The giraffes environment changes (trees get taller) and only the giraffe with the longer necks survive because only they can reach the food. The longer neck giraffe breed with each other causing long necked giraffe as off-spring and over generations the length of the necks of giraffe gets longer. This is an adaptation to the environment. I was told that you would reach a point where it would no longer be possible to breed a shorter necked giraffe. This means the mutation HAS caused a loss of information. I was then told the information is not lost, its is simply redundant - I can't see the difference. The giraffe had moved from a point where they could breed short necked giraffe and now no longer can - hence information is lost (certainly not increased!).

Examples like this could be made with just about any species - this process of adapting to the environment NORMALLY results in a loss of previous information. At best, the pool of genetic information remains the same. Even the evolutionist in the link I was sent admitted that mutations are not usually beneficial and that even if it was accepted that genetic information did increase, this was a far less likely outcome of a mutation.

Danny, 99.9% of the biologists in the world would disagree with you on this this.

I hate you using this word "admitted" like there is some scientific global conspiracy to make stuff up. This is absurd and if science worked this way we wouldn't be able to sit at a computer and communicate with each other as we would be stuck in the middle ages.

If you had discovered some flaw in genetic theory like you claim to have, you would get a Nobel prize.


Back to the giraffes. Why do you assume that the taller giraffes have lost information? They are just as likely to have more information if the only reason you are saying they can't breed is because one has a different amount of information to another.

There is a process called Gene duplication whereby the gene gets doubled, i.e.

ABCD goes to ABCDABCD

see Proof and evolutionary analysis of ancient genome dup... [Nature. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

This is a doubling of the information.

There are mutations where ABCD goes to ABCDB. Information gain.

There are mutations where ABCD goes to ABCA. No information gain/loss

There are also deletion mutations where ABCD goes to ABC. Loss of information.

 

[MorkandMindy]

...

I was told that you would reach a point where it would no longer be possible to breed a shorter necked giraffe. ...

No.

This is about science, some people don't know much science.

You don't have to find an atheist to learn about biology. You don't need to find an atheist to learn about geology or astronomy or physics. Just look it up like you would any subject.

In fact in this village you could ask the Baptist minister because she was a biology teacher in her first career.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I wouldn't blame you if you get bored with this conversation-I'm am just a layman trying to explain what presently makes sense to me!

It appears to be true that it is not your fault. What has been happening is some Christian evangelists (I've just realised it is likely to be Campus Crusade again), have been spreading a bunch of made up junk about evolution, so yes we've all heard the same arguments from Christians about a billion times.


The point about telling the truth apparently isn't binding on Christian evangelists, they can say anything they like just as long as they get the numbers.

There might be a bit of reasoning that goes like: we get the converts therefore what we are doing is validated by God and therefore the stuff we made up is actually right...

 

[tonybeer]

"I was told that you would reach a point where it would no longer be possible to breed a shorter necked giraffe"

If that was me then that was not what I said. I said the long necked giraffes would at some point not be able to breed WITH any of the original "short necked giraffes" that hadn't taken part in the experiment, at which point under some definitions it is a different species.

 

[Danny777]

Danny, 99.9% of the biologists in the world would disagree with you on this this.

Yes, the vast majority would but the percentage depends on how you word your search. I've found that 95%-97% is a better average. It may be an interesting search to look at what sometimes happens to scientists who aggressively challenge the conventional theory of evolution with good evidence. This will prove nothing in itself but there are many "scientists" that do have different views.

I hate you using this word "admitted" like there is some scientific global conspiracy to make stuff up. This is absurd and if science worked this way we wouldn't be able to sit at a computer and communicate with each other as we would be stuck in the middle ages.

I did not mean it like that. I am not suggesting that scientists are not sincere. Read his quote yourself (you sent it to me!) - he was simply pointing out that most mutations are not beneficial...

Sometimes, there seems to be some over-sensitivity on the part of atheists about this issue.

Back to the giraffes. Why do you assume that the taller giraffes have lost information? They are just as likely to have more information if the only reason you are saying they can't breed is because one has a different amount of information to another.

My guess is that giraffe have encoded within their DNA the information for both long and short necks. If the environment favours the long necked ones, only they survive. Over the generations, we only have long necked giraffes. These long necked giraffes are very unlikely to produce a short necked giraffe (even if they did, it would be a less beneficial mutation as it would not reach food and therefore would not survive). This to me seems like a loss of information to me - they were once able to produce short necked giraffes and now they cannot. If an environment become untenable for the giraffe to survive at all, they either adapt or become extinct. This is observable and testable. As far as I know, they don't seem to turn into different animals - this is the bit that I believe is not testable and not observed and therefore remains a theory. Maybe I've got this all wrong - I'm no scientist...

The problem with a discussion like this is that every comment gets lumped onto one side of "creation v evolution" propaganda debate. Just read the comments from most of other atheists on this post. I am not attacking, I'm just asking what I think are good questions. There are many things I don't have the intelligence to understand and at times this will lead me to asking stupid questions...

 

[Danny777]

Information being lost means it no longer exists. That is not the same as genes becoming redundant and dormant - the information still exists, it is just not used. The gene may also undergo changes - in which case the information is indeed lost, but only because it has been replaced by new information.

Look at Down's Syndrome. That is caused by a partial or complete copy of chromosome 21. An additional chromosome is additional information. In this instance the mutation is not beneficial, but that does not alter the fact that it is new information.

I was born with extra muscles in my hands. Again, that was caused by a non-beneficial mutation (they were discovered and surgically removed when I was a teenager because I had a trouble writing long essays due to the muscles restricting blood flow when I held a pen for long periods). That was new genetic information which I hope has not been passed to my sons

OK, that may be deemed "new" information. It seems to me that on the most part this "new" information leaves the person in a "less" beneficial state than before. Is it not the case that most mutations result in a less desirable position than before? If humanity has evolved as a result of a long journey from algae/fungi/bacteria etc would not all of these steps need to be beneficial ones? If this is the case, this is NOT what we observe as most mutations we do observe (like the examples you gave) are not beneficial? Even if you argue correctly that it is possible - surely humanity has arrived from a very unlikely path of mutations?

 

[MorkandMindy]

...

There are mutations where ABCD goes to ABCDB. Information gain.

There are mutations where ABCD goes to ABCA. No information gain/loss

There are also deletion mutations where ABCD goes to ABC. Loss of information.

Well here's one where a mutation led to a loss of a pre-existing ability:

Albert Lehninger studied vitamin C biosynthesis in animals, and realized that, unlike many species, such as cats and dogs, which can biosynthesize their own vitamin C supply, humans are unable to do so.

Human cells cannot perform the crucial last step of vitamin C biosynthesis, the conversion of l-gulono-g-lactone into ascorbic acid, which is catalysed by the enzyme gulonolactone oxidase.

As a follow-up to Lehninger's work several years later, Nishikimi and co-workers observed that the gene that codes for gulonolactone oxidase is actually present in humans, but is not active due to the accumulation of several mutations that turned it into a non-functional pseudogene (Nishikimi & Yagi 1991).

Notably, not only all humans, but also gorillas, chimps, orangutans, and some monkeys have this inborn genetic flaw, meaning that the loss of vitamin C biosynthesis must have occurred first in one of our primate ancestors.



The exact flaws have been traced through many primates which therefore all have a common ancestor with that mutation.


Guinea pigs also can not make their own vitamin C but the genetic defect is different, so they're fault is descended from a different mutation.


Humans evidently lived in an area where vitamin C was abundant and therefore the loss of the ability to produce it was not a problem.

It was during long sea voyages eating non fresh foods that lack of vitamin C caused the severe and often fatal disease 'scurvy'. Sauerkraut, fruit, wild celery and countless other edibles were found to cure it. To make things more confusing, lack of vitamin C leads to a number of problems and lack of vitamin B also produces the lack of energy problems and was therefore rolled together with it in the disease named 'scurvy' along with a surfeit of vitamin A.

must go, I was enjoying that Captain Cook

 

[tonybeer]

OK, that may be deemed "new" information. It seems to me that on the most part this "new" information leaves the person in a "less" beneficial state than before. Is it not the case that most mutations result in a less desirable position than before? If humanity has evolved as a result of a long journey from algae/fungi/bacteria etc would not all of these steps need to be beneficial ones? If this is the case, this is NOT what we observe as most mutations we do observe (like the examples you gave) are not beneficial? Even if you argue correctly that it is possible - surely humanity has arrived from a very unlikely path of mutations?

We're back to natural selection again.

If a mutation results in a worse trait it is a lot less likely to replicate as it leaves the animal worse off.

Even if 99.9% of mutations results in "worse" traits this doesn't actually matter. A lot of mutations have neither a negative nor positive effect. Like you having a slightly longer ear lobe than someone else.

As to your last line we have no idea as to whether intelligence is likely to arise from evolution or not. We will need to examine other planets with life on to assess this.

It you could re-run evolution again you would end up with different plants and animals. I've no idea the probability of an intelligent lifeform forming is. We know it is greater than zero, and a famous Christian Paleontologist says it is 100% (i.e. God created the universe knowing that evolution would produce intelligent life)



Going back to the post before speciation (turning from one species to another) has been observed.

I urge you to read this: A New Step In Evolution – The Loom

 

[Bungle_Bear]

OK, that may be deemed "new" information. It seems to me that on the most part this "new" information leaves the person in a "less" beneficial state than before. Is it not the case that most mutations result in a less desirable position than before? If humanity has evolved as a result of a long journey from algae/fungi/bacteria etc would not all of these steps need to be beneficial ones? If this is the case, this is NOT what we observe as most mutations we do observe (like the examples you gave) are not beneficial? Even if you argue correctly that it is possible - surely humanity has arrived from a very unlikely path of mutations?

You are quite right that most mutations are not beneficial - the vast majority are neutral. Not sure what you think that proves?

I think what you may be misunderstanding the whole process. It is not just that mutations happen, we also need to know what happens to those mutations. Very simply (and this is extremely oversimplified), where a mutation is beneficial it may be passed on. Why? Those with a beneficial mutation gain an advantage and are therefore likely to be able to breed more than those without the advantage. Pass that mutation on and guess what? The next generation have an advantage and breed, thus passing on the mutation.

Harmful mutations are unlikely to be selected for (disadvantaged organisms are less likely to be successful breeding) and so will not be passed on. Neutral mutations may or may not be passed on, but that's still evolution

 

[MorkandMindy]

I'm not sure what other people's experiences are, but over the years as an atheist, Christian and now atheist again I've found there are two entirely different 'Christian' opinions:

1. Evangelists

2. Church pastors

1.
I was sitting in my room when two evangelists from Campus Crusade arrived, explained the four spiritual laws, told me how God promised as soon as I took the step of faith and prayed the prayer, I would be a new creation, on God's highway instead of man's way, and so on.

Within a couple of days it was evident that nothing significant had happened. I would have gone straight back to my attempts to become wise, and eventually succeeded but for

2.
The local chaplain explained how it was an ongoing process, the new creation was a tiny seed that needed rain and nurture and Bible reading and going and Christian companionship and that meant going to church.

Years later it was evident still essentially no progress was being made, I knew parts of the Bible by heart and started learning Hebrew but it really wasn't working. Furthermore I now knew that nobody really understood the Bible, there was no single theology that worked for all of it, just lots of different theologies. And that the Bible was only correct 'as originally received' and nobody knew what that was. Nobody could even be sure which books belonged in it.


So 1. promises a lot and 2. back pedals to avoid a person having realised 1 was lying just throwing the whole stupid lot out.



What about other 'facts'


The Evangelist promises there is no firm evidence and evolution is a flimsy theory. It happens to be the core of biology, but the evangelist won't tell you that. The evangelist claims born-again Christians have the lowest divorce rates. The statistics show no group is higher.

The evangelist claims there were many accurate historical records of Jesus' life ministry death and resurrection. Go to the Vatican which has the records and is biased in favour of finding some, and see that despite some hopeful talk, the number is actually zero.

Evangelists say whatever nonsense is required to get people to believe.

 

[theFijian]

it is the science that doesn't point to God

Nor does the science point to no God, science doesn't say anything about God's existence or non-existence. People can come to the conclusion that there is no God if they want, but they can't claim there is any science to back it up because if they do then they've stopped doing science and started doing philosophy. Danny's problem is he also has made the same mistake.

 

[lismore]

Danny's problem is he also has made the same mistake.

Maybe Danny's right and your wrong. Have you considered that?

 

[ianb321red]

The Evangelist promises there is no firm evidence and evolution is a flimsy theory. It happens to be the core of biology, but the evangelist won't tell you that. The evangelist claims born-again Christians have the lowest divorce rates. The statistics show no group is higher.

What's your source for that claim about divorce?

Seems to be a myth according to this article:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...mVzvpOjlD_x8p3olg&sig2=FmxQ1PZekqkTBf-tfg7Ljw

The evangelist claims there were many accurate historical records of Jesus' life ministry death and resurrection. Go to the Vatican which has the records and is biased in favour of finding some, and see that despite some hopeful talk, the number is actually zero.

Evangelists say whatever nonsense is required to get people to believe.

Sorry, you've completely lost me here. Why exactly would the Vatican be biased in FAVOUR of finding accurate records of Jesus' life, death and ministry?

 

[ianb321red]

It appears to be true that it is not your fault. What has been happening is some Christian evangelists (I've just realised it is likely to be Campus Crusade again), have been spreading a bunch of made up junk about evolution, so yes we've all heard the same arguments from Christians about a billion times.


The point about telling the truth apparently isn't binding on Christian evangelists, they can say anything they like just as long as they get the numbers.

There might be a bit of reasoning that goes like: we get the converts therefore what we are doing is validated by God and therefore the stuff we made up is actually right...

You appear to be very misinformed about current scientific thought WITHIN the Christian community.

I'm NOT talking about apologetics or evangelism.

I'm talking about the Faraday Institute:
The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion

I'm talking about people like John Polkinghorne, John Lennox, Denis Alexander and scores of others....

We're talking about a credible movement which harmonises science with God. Nothing more, nothing less.

The problem is NOT with Christianity; science is our gain and we embrace what it does in affirming our beliefs.
The problem IS with those who cannot see that the 2 are compatible; those who hold a position of conflict.

To limit scientific understanding among Christianity to just evangelists and apologists is quite simply complete ignorance!

 

[tonybeer]

You appear to be very misinformed about current scientific thought WITHIN the Christian community.

I'm NOT talking about apologetics or evangelism.

I'm talking about the Faraday Institute:
The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion

I'm talking about people like John Polkinghorne, John Lennox, Denis Alexander and scores of others....

We're talking about a credible movement which harmonises science with God. Nothing more, nothing less.

The problem is NOT with Christianity; science is our gain and we embrace what it does in affirming our beliefs.
The problem IS with those who cannot see that the 2 are compatible; those who hold a position of conflict.

To limit scientific understanding among Christianity to just evangelists and apologists is quite simply complete ignorance!

The Farady Institute promotes evolution.

It's not a massive institution either so I'm not surprised people haven't heard of it, even scientists who work in Cambridge haven't.

It is also funded by the Templeton Foundation, which doesn't have a great reputation amongst the scientific community. They are trying to fund science projects that give the answer they want. This is totally unscientifi and goes against the core principle of science. I have first hand evidence of this from someone very close to me who works in the scientific community.


The problem with saying science "affirms our beliefs" is that to me as an outsider, Christians either say "that discovery is more evidence God exists" or "the scientists are wrong".

It's just the same as the people who claim that old books like the bible containing amazing predictive powers, yet it only works on events that have already happened and you can fit the data to.


If science does go on to show that such a deity does exist then that is the time to start believing it.

 

[theFijian]

Maybe Danny's right and your wrong. Have you considered that?

We can always rely on you for some razor sharp insight. Why have you never been invited on Question Time?

 

[ianb321red]

If science does go on to show that such a deity does exist then that is the time to start believing it.

You're talking about science as a collective entity (which it is to some extent) but is not centralised nor is it unequivocal in it's views (so in that way it is a bit like the church!)

But my point is that you will inevitably have different factions, motivations, beliefs and agendas within the scientific community - as much as you will have within any other human community.

Therefore, because of this I don't think this is the correct perspective to take because you cannot rule out an agenda by some to suppress the truth of the findings of their research.

Who can say for certain that the findings from a piece of research conducted by a team of atheistic scientists could and would not contain some kind of bias from their beliefs?

This may sounds like conspiracy theory stuff, but if you're looking to affirm a belief system through research, then what better way than using researchers who adhere to that belief system in the first place?

I do realise the same argument could be applied at Christian scientists, but nevertheless the argument still stands.

I don't think it's down to science to decide whether a deity exists or not; I think it's down to science to catch up with what's been common knowledge for the last 6-7,000 years!!!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I don't think it's down to science to decide whether a deity exists or not; I think it's down to science to catch up with what's been common knowledge for the last 6-7,000 years!!!

How on earth is a belief held by a tiny minority of people for 90% of that time and a larger minority (but still a minority) for the remaining 10% "common knowledge"?

 

[ianb321red]

How on earth is a belief held by a tiny minority of people for 90% of that time and a larger minority (but still a minority) for the remaining 10% "common knowledge"?

Sorry, I've got absolutely no idea what your talking about!

 

[tonybeer]

Therefore, because of this I don't think this is the correct perspective to take because you cannot rule out an agenda by some to suppress the truth of the findings of their research.

Who can say for certain that the findings from a piece of research conducted by a team of atheistic scientists could and would not contain some kind of bias from their beliefs?

This may sounds like conspiracy theory stuff, but if you're looking to affirm a belief system through research, then what better way than using researchers who adhere to that belief system in the first place?

I do realise the same argument could be applied at Christian scientists, but nevertheless the argument still stands.

I don't think it's down to science to decide whether a deity exists or not; I think it's down to science to catch up with what's been common knowledge for the last 6-7,000 years!!!

Why would an Atheist have an agenda? An Atheist has a lack of belief in a God. Atheism is not a positive statement, it is a null hypothesis.

For example I didn't belive the stories of giant squid just from old tales from sailors. I was therefore the Giant Squid equivalent of an Atheist.
I didn't believe Giant squids didn't exist either. I just wasn't going to believe they existed until I had evidence.
Once I saw news reports with videos of said Giant squids I believed they existed as I now had evidence. There was no bias on my front, just skepticism.

I didn't watch the news report and say "Oh they must have faked it". That would be biased. This is quite rightly absurd, yet what you are accusing Atheists scientists of.


Science works by proposing a hypothesis and then testing the predictions of this hypothesis. I can't think of a better way of establishing the validity of a hypothesis.