tinyurl.com/peerreviewflaw
Apparently Louisiana agrees and passed the first antievolution "academic freedom" law called Louisiana Science Education Act recently. There is something very wrong with evolutionary logic.
If evolution was true then the DNA instruction would have to "increase" and that is just not evident in nature.
VERY IMPORTANT! Evolution is about an increase of instructions in the DNA.
The processes we observe tend to decrease the instructions in the DNA. It's the opposite of evolution. Natural selection actually reduces DNA instruction, adaptation loses instruction. It's the opposite of evolution. It's not logical.
Mutations are a lose of instruction also. Some of the instructions get's lost and a mutation occurs. It's the opposite of evolution.
Poodles have so many mutations that causes so many problems for them. How can you possibly think that a Wolf evolved into a poodle? A more accurate description would be to call it devolve? By the lose of instruction you see mutations to go from a good stock of a wolf to a putrid horribly deformed, mutated, disease prone poodle, the problems are apparent. OK so I don't like poodles, move on.
Mutations are beneficial at times because it helps the species survive like that Heike Crab, because of the superstition that Japanese fisherman had. It helped magnify the mutation. If a face on a crab can be considered a mutation. Lets say an insect loses it's wings on a very windy island the mutation is beneficial to keep the insect grounded and it reproduces a lot and magnifies the mutation. The mutation was originally a lose of instruction not a gain.
Mutations and natural selection is going in the wrong direction then evolution. There is nothing being added.
There are various mutations of DNA, for example, Point Mutation, Frame-shift mutation, Deletion, Insertion, Inversion, DNA expression mutation. For this discussion I want to talk about Insertion mutation which is what evolution is claiming happens.
Evolution: to evolve, to gain new instructions, right?
Only with an insertion mutation, it generally results in a nonfunctional protein. Even worse, If I understand correctly, also an insertion mutation often creates a frame shift mutation and can make the DNA meaningless and often results in a shortened protein. So again how is evolution is evident in science?
Here is something that I know you all will enjoy, it states the case quite well. I choose Ray and Kirk because I know how most of you feel about the two and I am emulating God. 1 Corinthians 1:27
We need to bear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" (like evolution) misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method.
*batting blindly in the dark*
ReplyDeleteUm i read somewhere that our DNA code has alot of seemingly meaningless information......like it goes like this.... "blueeyes-fizkedlp-diabeties-blondhair-shipidtrog"
SO perhaps information is not increased but used. The section of DNA matter that we know as *fizkedlp* has potintial to become the "letters" of a new adaption which is not increase of information but akin to defragmenting.
((i really should have paid attention in biology- please exuse the ignorance of my pondering. But my Drill Sargent told me the only dumb question is the one you dont ask.))
I'm too tired to go into any great deal of commentary right now about genetic information increase, so for now I'll just post a few links to some sites by actual scientists that talk about this topic in general: From the old evolution blog site a confrontation with Ken Ham about information increase, from a blog talking about AIG's claim about antibiotic resistance, and some stuff about Junk DNA.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'll post more later.
:Insert Sarcasm Here:
ReplyDeleteMutation always causes an increase in genetic variation, often causes in increase in genetic material, can cause an increase in fitness, and occasionally causes an increase in the creatures abilities.
I don't know what definition of "information" you (or any other creationist who makes this claim) are using, but I have yet to encounter a type of information that evolution hasn't been shown to increase.
Perhaps you'd like to do what no creationist has ever done in the entire time I've been following this debate, and define "information" for me?
Quasar,
ReplyDelete"I don't know what definition of "information" you (or any other creationist who makes this claim) are using, but I have yet to encounter a type of information that evolution hasn't been shown to increase."
This is a standard reply that Clostridiophile and that very anti-Christian website talk origins and now yourself are giving me. If you all have read the post I gave extremely specific types of mutations and the self proclaimed microbiologist (Clos) said he didn't understand and now you are giving me the same thing.
What part of "for example, Point Mutation, Frame-shift mutation, Deletion, Insertion, Inversion, DNA expression mutation." is confusing to you?
For the clarification of subject I provide links now to the examples I gave. No one can cry that same old boring claim of that fake website called talk origins is crying.
Frame-shift mutation and insertion mutations render the protein nonfunctional. The proof is right there that the DNA with an insertion DNA renders the "information "void.
So spelling something out isn't good enough? Is anyone reading what I write?
Insane,
From what I understand *fizkedlp* would render the protein void or nonfunctional.
"SO perhaps information is not increased but used" Not increased and not used. Not evolved. Amoeba to horse? Nope!
Heike crabs (and the superstitions surrounding them) are found in Japan, not China. I'd cut you a break on this one - even the best of us occasionally misremember details - but the last time you wrote about these critters, you mentioned several times that fishermen believed the ridges on their backs resembled the faces of samurai . . . and then went on to say that these fisherman were Chinese. This suggests to me that you think there were samurai in China, which is of course not the case.
ReplyDeleteOh, and you clearly don't know the first darn thing about genetics. This post reads like someone ran "The Worst of Dembski" through Babelfish seven or eight times.
There is more DNA information in let's say a horse then a single celled organism, like an amoeba would.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but this is just flat out wrong. Counterintuitive though it may seem, the complexity of an organism does not directly correlate with the size of its genome (that is, how many base pairs it has in its DNA).
Oh, and here's the beautifully ironic thing: the largest known genome belongs to Amoeba dubia, which is a species of . . . well, I'll let you guess, but it sure ain't a horse.
Irukandji,
ReplyDeleteI stand corrected, yes you are correct it's the Heike Samurai from Japan. Thank you for that.
"the largest known genome belongs to Amoeba dubia"
Interesting thanks, but can you tell me then what the reason for that is? Reasons for the size of a genome and the number of genes are an indicator of what? I guess what I am getting at is, does size really matter?
For now though, in light of this new information, until I can read up on it I will remove the horse/amoeba analogy since it may be incorrect.
Truth is what I seek, much obliged
Irukandji,
ReplyDeleteIn my quick 30 second read, Amoeba dubia indeed is large "This protozoan genome has 670 billion units of DNA.
Even frogs have more base pairs then us. It seems to be all over the charts. We have a billion more then snakes and bats but 5 Billion less then frogs?
What's the significance between the size of the base pair?
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"This is a standard reply that Clostridiophile and that very anti-Christian website talk origins and now yourself are giving me."
TalkOrigins is not anti-christian. It might be considered anti-Creationism, but this is simply a result of it being anti-Pseudoscience.
TalkOrigins goals:
"The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences."
Dan Wrote:
If you all have read the post I gave extremely specific types of mutations and the self proclaimed microbiologist (Clos) said he didn't understand and now you are giving me the same thing.
And what I asked for was a defination of information, not examples of types of mutations.
Dan, you've completely avoided the question whilst making it appear you had answered it already. I'll reiterate:
Can you give a definition of information within the genome that cannot be increased by one or several mutations?
Dan wrote:
"Frame-shift mutation and insertion mutations render the protein nonfunctional. The proof is right there that the DNA with an insertion DNA renders the "information "void."
Ah! So you're claiming that Function is the definition of information?
Nylon eating bug. A completely new function, caused by mutation and natural selection.
Finally, to expand on what I said earlier: all of these are legitimate definitions of information:
- Any mutation, even a detrimental one, will make a creature genetically different to the population it exists in, and will increase the genetic variability of that population.
- Insertion and Copying mutations will increase the genetic material available to the creature.
- Mutations which change a sequence to create a different protein, or more of the one protein, or even less of a useless protein, (all quite common) can improve the function of something or even do something entirely new (see nylon bug).
Now, you can only claim that mutations don't ever increase information if you have a different definition of information, or if you are intellectually dishonest and willing to jump from one definition to the other. I believe that you are honest, so I'm giving you a chance to explain what definition of information you believe cannot be increased by mutation.
Pleeeeeaaaaaasssssssee...
[Sickeningly Cute Puppy Eyes]
Quasar,
ReplyDeleteI claim ignorance of subject over intellectual dishonesty.
Nylon eating bug is a good link. Is bacterium the same as humans though. I see from what Irukandji said that e.coli has 4,800 genes compared to 30,000 in humans. Does that comparison matter?
- Any mutation, even a detrimental one, will make a creature genetically different to the population it exists in, and will increase the genetic variability of that population.
half is false some situations render protein unusable
- Insertion and Copying mutations will increase the genetic material available to the creature.
False an insertion mutation generally results in a nonfunctional protein.
- Mutations which change a sequence to create a different protein, or more of the one protein, or even less of a useless protein, (all quite common) can improve the function of something or even do something entirely new (see nylon bug).
?Create protein? New to me, I need to read more.
Simplify it for me please.
Take blood for example:
Dad: Ao
Mom: Bo (not body odor :-)
All combinations are possible right?
Child: Ao Bo AB oo
My question is, if there is a mutation would there ever be blood type E ('E'volution, ;-)
I say no because Mutation would render "information" useless. Dominate gene would determine blood, am I off? Oversimplification?
I'm no dummy, I know I am surrounded by some smart people. I'm trying my best to understand.
Irukandji,
Should I have used the term instructions with the horse amoeba analogy. Is this a true statement: A horse requires more "instructions" from the DNA (to make eyeballs and muscles, etc.) then a amoeba? Thus, A horses DNA is more complex then an amoeba.
Better?
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteTo counter your antibiotic (example of evolution) link:
I understand it like this, a bacteria that we want to get rid of so we produce a antibiotic for it. That bacteria creates and enzyme that eats that antibiotic and it creates a poison for the bacteria and kills it. Mutated bacteria can't create that enzyme (loss of instruction) and the antibiotic can't kill the bacteria not evolving into a new bacterium.
Mutations have benefits like that loss of wings insect example.
Not evolution just beneficial mutation. Mutation is still a lost of instruction not evolving into a new form.
Dan
ReplyDeleteThis is a standard reply that Clostridiophile and that very anti-Christian website talk origins and now yourself are giving me.
You are either ignorant or lying right here. "Very anti-christian"? BS. Some of their contributers are christian. Glen Morton, Glen Kuban, Steven Schimmrich, etc. They even have a section where they talk about how it's ok in their view to accept both god and evolution.
If you all have read the post I gave extremely specific types of mutations and the self proclaimed microbiologist (Clos) said he didn't understand and now you are giving me the same thing.
What part of "for example, Point Mutation, Frame-shift mutation, Deletion, Insertion, Inversion, DNA expression mutation." is confusing to you?
For the clarification of subject I provide links now to the examples I gave. No one can cry that same old boring claim of that fake website called talk origins is crying.
"fake website"? Huh? As compared with your website Dan, actual scientists are the ones who contribute to that "fake website". What do you even mean by that remark anyway?
Got any evidence to back up your ad-hom attacks? Or is ignorantly sneering the best you've got?
Anyway, on to what you said to me:
To counter your antibiotic (example of evolution) link:
I understand it like this, a bacteria that we want to get rid of so we produce a antibiotic for it. That bacteria creates an enzyme that eats that antibiotic and it creates a poison for the bacteria and kills it. Mutated bacteria can't create that enzyme (loss of instruction) and the antibiotic can't kill the bacteria not evolving into a new bacterium.
This topic is examined in more detail here
Now the long version. Research by Dan Andersson and colleagues has demonstrated that following mutations that confer resistance, and that lower growth rates in the absence of antibiotics (the supposed "loss of functional system"), compensatory mutations evolve.
What's a compensatory mutation? A compensatory mutation reduces or eliminates the fitness cost of a mutation (often lower growth rate)--in this case, the original mutation that confers resistance. For instance, compensatory mutations in the rpsL gene reduced or eliminate the costs of streptomycin resistance in Salmonella typhimurium. More recent work has demonstrated this in other bacteria, and in mouse models**.
In other words, mutation has expanded function. A ribosomal protein now functions in an environment with antibiotics, where, before the mutation, it did not. This isn't a loss of functional systems, but an increase in the range of function due to point mutation.
You may want to read Adaptation to the fitness costs of antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli. about how bacteria can still be "fit" even after it's changed to be resistant to antibiotics. In other words, it does change, without loss of information.
More here.
Mutations have benefits like that loss of wings insect example.
Not evolution just beneficial mutation. Mutation is still a lost of instruction not evolving into a new form.
No always. I don't know about loss of wings, but I've just read about loss of eyes. Check out blind cave fish
The Jeffery lab has worked out the molecular details of eye loss, and it isn't as simple as messing things up, turning genes off, and causing loss-of-function mutations. To the contrary, all the genes for eyes are there and functional in the blind species. Simply transplanting small bits of organizing tissue from species with eyes to embryos of the blind forms can recruit host tissue to build a complete functional eye — that tells you the genes are still there. A comparison of gene expression patterns between the two also reveals that the blind species actually upregulates a majority of its developmental genes. Contrary to what Luskin claims, this is a positive change in development, not a loss, but an active suppression of eye expression.
What's actually going on is that there is an increased expression of a gene called Sonic hedgehog, which causes an expansion of jaw tissue, including both the bones of the jaw and the array of sensory structures on the ventral surface — this is an adaptation that produces stronger jaws and more sensitive skin, what the fish finds useful when rooting about in the dark at the bottom of underground rivers to find food. The expansion of Shh has a side effect of inhibiting expression of another gene, Pax-6, which is the master regulator of eye development. Loss of eyes is a harmless (if you're living in the dark) consequence of selection for better tactile reception.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete"Dan, actual scientists are the ones who contribute to that "fake website"...Got any evidence to back up your ad-hom attacks?"
I can't tell you how many atheists look to talk origins for evidence. It appears that the website isn't objective at all like science should be. It isn't true science, it's scientists with presuppositions pushing one agenda. Fair point though and I understand your ad-hom attack accusation.
I guess I will just have to accept there are two viewpoints on this subject. The difficulty to find an unbiased website for scientific data will continue to be my wish.
Thanks for the links but even your "evidence" is from a website called "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal". Now before you claim ad-hom attack again I am merely pointing out the fact that there is a presuppositional bias on both sides, including mine. Again thanks for keeping us all honest.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of presuppositional bias do you suppose the people had who first realized that the geological record could not be reconciled with the Genesis account?
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI think you just answered your own question. Because of their presuppositions, they believed the geological record could not be reconciled with the Genesis account.
Incorrect. They were Creationists, and they set out to prove the Genesis account, but they could not. This was about fifty years before Darwin published Origin, btw.
ReplyDeleteSo how do you explain that?
Jason,
ReplyDeleteOh, it was a loaded question. Who were these "people" you talk of? Please back it up with some evidence, tell me 'who' the people were who couldn't reconcile the geological record with Genesis.
If a creationist gives up believing in God because they didn't find evidence was never a Christian.
"they set out to prove the Genesis account, but they could not."
How did they go about this task? We need evidence and details to evaluate it better. Be specific.
The person I am mainly talking about is William Smith, but there were others. He published the first geologic maps of England. He went about his study by actually examining the strata (some of this was while he was employed a surveyor) of the Earth and documenting his findings. For instance, he discovered the principle of faunal succession, and was able to correlate rock layers in different locations throughout England.
ReplyDeleteI never said they gave up believing in God. I also was once a Creationist, and I haven't given up believing in God.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteYou are sparking my curiosity now. So what was this great evidence that made him distrust the Bible?
So are you personally a Christian that believes in Evolution?
The first paper I found it said that William Smith was agnostic. So I was right his presupposition did get in the way.
ReplyDeleteBut you said "They [he was a] were Creationists, and they set out to prove the Genesis account, but they could not."
Can you link me?
ReplyDeleteThe books where I read about Smith are at home, and I am at work right now. I will try to make time to look it up when I get home. Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong guy, or maybe I'm wrong altogether, which I will freely admit, or maybe the paper you read was wrong.
And yes, I am a Christian that accepts evolution based on evidence.
I think I know why I'm having a hard time finding information on William Smith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Smith
ReplyDeleteThere's a million of them!
I'll limit my reply to my post:
ReplyDeleteQuasar wrote:
- Any mutation, even a detrimental one, will make a creature genetically different to the population it exists in, and will increase the genetic variability of that population.
Dan Replied
half is false some situations render protein unusable
I'm refering to genetic variability here: how much difference there is in the genome amongst the members of a population. Even a useless, detrimental mutation which renders a protein unusable will increase this difference. It is one of the genetic definitions of information, although clearly not the one you are refering to.
Quasar wrote:
- Insertion and Copying mutations will increase the genetic material available to the creature.
Dan Replied
False an insertion mutation generally results in a nonfunctional protein.
The definition I'm refering to here is genetic material, which is a simply a count of the number of base pairs in the genome. Both insertion and copying mutations increase the quantity of material in the genome.
Quasar wrote:
- Mutations which change a sequence to create a different protein, or more of the one protein, or even less of a useless protein, (all quite common) can improve the function of something or even do something entirely new (see nylon bug).
Dan replied
?Create protein? New to me, I need to read more.
Simplify it for me please.
OK, here's how DNA works: You know it's created out of Base pairs. 3 base pairs in a row create a 'codon' or amino acid.
An important point to note is that any three base pairs will create a functional codon, and any set of x number of codons will create a functional amino acid seqquence.
Any Amino acid sequence can be used by living cells to create a protein. You can't get a 'useless' protein: all proteins react in some environments. In certain environments many proteins will be useless, but in general they all are capable of something in the right environment.
Mutations can affect protein creation in various ways: your example of an insertion mutation changes the order of the code, and causes a completely different protein to be created. The only reason this protein is normally 'useless' is because the environment is not set up to take a random protein from the code and make use of it.
In the right situation, the environment might have a secondary system, or be able to make use of the new protein in a different way. This is a mutation which can easily have a massive effect on the creature. It's not necessarily a beneficial mutation: the secondary system might be the cells reproprduction mechanism, which might result in cancer.
But in the right situation, the protein can be useful. The perfect example is the nylon bug: Nylon didn't exist before the... 1930's?... I think... recently anyway, and this form of bacteria had a mutation which caused it's digestive tract to make use of a protein capable of breaking down nylon. Previously, this would have been a 'useless' protein, but the situation was right, and a new function was added to the species.
This is the third definition of genetic information: function within environment. It is entirely dependant on the environment, and natural selection works to keep it. The natural progress of evolution when you take NS into account increases this form of information far more than any of the others.
Therefore, the definition of information used in the "Evolution doesn't increase information" argument must not be one of these, which is why I'm politely asking you to either provide it, or to concede that mutations are perfectly capable of increasing the 'amount of information' in the genome, whatever the definition of information may be.
Hope this helped clear a few things up.
Cheers!
Qu.
PS: Yes, the blood analogy is an oversimplification. Bloodtype is determined by a large number of genes, because blood is a massive mix of proteins. Changing it with a single mutation is possible, but it would only change one of the proteins, and wouldn't affect the mix enough to warrent a different label.
The link I was looking at was William Smith
ReplyDeleteIf you are a Christian that accepts evolution what other compromises have you made about the Bible? Do you believe it to be the inspired, Inerrant, Infallible word of God? Or do you pick and choose what you feel is correct?
Quasar,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your take on DNA unfortunately I cannot concede to your explanation. IF you noticed instead of information I used instruction to clarify but with your explanation I don't think that would help.
Something bothers me though, in reference to a mutation in blood.
You said "Changing it with a single mutation is possible, but it would only change one of the proteins, and wouldn't affect the mix enough to [warrant] a different label."
But we are talking an extrapolation of billions of years. If any mutation is evolved then how come not blood? According to Dawkins and crew, the eye was evolved so why not blood? Why not super blood? Why not type "E" blood or any other combination? So basically you are saying the more complex the instructions the less likely a mutation or the mutation is rendered useless(void). So then I can rest my case based on that epiphany, correct?
The link I was looking at was William Smith
ReplyDeleteIn the same sentence that says he was an agnostic, it says he believed in the Flood! "While he was a known agnostic, it is said that he too believed in the Great Flood."
I'm home now. According to Donald R. Prothero in his book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters:
The geologists who first discovered the fact that fossils change through time, or faunal succession, were actually devoutly religious men who were not trying to prove evolution (an idea that would not be published for 50 to 70 years after they discovered faunal succession). One of them was William Smith...
The source he gives is The Map That Changed The World: William Smith and the Birth of Modern Geology by Simon Winchester, which I have not read but have just ordered from Amazon for $0.84 used.
The other book I mentioned that talks about Smith was Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God, but I skimmed through it earlier and I don't think he actually claims Smith was "devoutly religious" or a creationist or anything.
If you are a Christian that accepts evolution what other compromises have you made about the Bible?
I take strong issue with your wording here, unless you're just joking. I could just as easily say, "If you're a Christian that takes Genesis literally, what other lies are telling for Jesus?"
Do you believe it to be the inspired, Inerrant, Infallible word of God? Or do you pick and choose what you feel is correct?
It's important to me that I regard the Bible as what it actually is. Is it the inerrant word of God? I believe it can't be. It contradicts nature, the works of God. It says that bats are birds and that slavery is ok.
I believe that it's man's best attempt to describe an indescribable experience of the divine, and it is very much influenced by the times at which it was written, and needs to be interpreted in that light. I recommend the book Who Wrote the Bible? by Friedman.
The idea that Genesis doesn't have to be taken literally is not a new idea. In fact, Augustine wrote a book about it, in which he said:
Even a non-Christian knows something about the Earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and the orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics, and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
And that is exactly what is happening with Creationism.
I can't tell you how many atheists look to talk origins for evidence. It appears that the website isn't objective at all like science should be. It isn't true science, it's scientists with presuppositions pushing one agenda. Fair point though and I understand your ad-hom attack accusation.
ReplyDeleteI guess I will just have to accept there are two viewpoints on this subject. The difficulty to find an unbiased website for scientific data will continue to be my wish.
You do realize how what you're asking is impossible, right? At some point in every scientific argument one side will win over the other because of the evidence. Would you accept a flat-earther's claims that the science sites that refute his beliefs are not "objective"?
Same with YEC and creationism. The debate has been settled a long time ago. TalkOrigins just puts the information out there that the AIG and ICR people don't, which shows that.
Jason has done a good job with his post, so all I can add is to say to read Ronald Number's book The Creationists and you'll find in there the stories of the people who refuted flood geology and a young earth who used to be YECs themselves.
Those incidents are why Henry Morris first instituted oath-taking (swearing that the bible was literally true and genesis was accurate) when he set up the ICR as he was sick of people changing their minds about what they believed once they got out into the field.
You may also want to look at some stories of people who converted from YECism though not from xianity itself.
stories of people who renounced the biblical global flood.
The persion who runs that site, Glen Morton, is himself a christian though not a young-earther.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI have one for you "There are many people who reach their conclusions about life like schoolboys: they cheat their master by copying the answer out of a book without having worked the sum out for themselves." - S.K.
And that is exactly what is happening with evolution.
The subject is just too important to trust in some man for the answers. Please Jason seek God. (Proverbs 3:5-6)
Read the rules Bob they are right above you as you're typing but just in case you can't find them:
ReplyDeleteBe kind and I will keep the comments up and moderation off, you are free to express yourselves. Please try to understand others, we all have our opinions. I want you to be heard so please engage in the conversations. We seek to debunk atheists and their philosophy , but not attack them personally. Debunk the person logically, but personal attacks is no way to do it. Keep the ad hominems out of the conversation. Personal attacks is unnecessary and wastes our time. I will delete personal attacks. Please be respectful with the language also. Just use some proper decorum, please. Limit your c/p (copy/ paste) and use links if you can.
To link:
<a href="url">text</a>
(Thanks Pvblivs and Zilch)
Now do you want to try it again?
And that is exactly what is happening with evolution.
ReplyDeleteNo, that's not what's happening. That's not how science works.
The subject is just too important to trust in some man for the answers. Please Jason seek God. (Proverbs 3:5-6)
What a marvelous idea that has never occurred to me before ever! It's apparently too much to accept that someone could seek God and still disagree with you.
Hey Dan,
ReplyDeleteI do not have lots of time right now, but I will give you this two things:
1. Non correlation between genome size and complexity of organism.
This is called the 'C-value paradox' among biologists. Anyway, it just means that size and complexity do not necessarily go together. This is mostly a reflection of how important would be for an organism to eliminate superfluous DNA in order to survive or compete. Accidental increases in size are more compatible with organisms that do not care too much about timing (growing rapidly), or about how many complications wold come to an organism if the whole genome duplicates. This proves evilution to be true at many levels, but, again, I cannot elaborate right now.
2. You ask:
But we are talking an extrapolation of billions of years. If any mutation is evolved then how come not blood? According to Dawkins and crew, the eye was evolved so why not blood? Why not super blood? Why not type "E" blood or any other combination? So basically you are saying the more complex the instructions the less likely a mutation or the mutation is rendered useless(void). So then I can rest my case based on that epiphany, correct?
What you are missing in this inference is that evilution depends on both, random mutation events (which are evident in our variability), and selection. Unless there wold e a need for type E blood, or such type E blood were inconsequential, there is no need for it to appear and become common in the population. Evilution has no goals. Whatever survives might be the "goal." Nothing more. No need to add complexity unless there is a niche for the complex organism. But that depends on the life available at the time.
I hope this is clear enough Dan.
G.E.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI forgot, maybe somebody told you already:
VERY IMPORTANT! Evolution is about an increase of instructions in the DNA.
NOPE! Evilution is not about an increase in instrctions in the DNA. Anything can happen. Evilution s about survival. SOmetimes it involves losing information, sometimes increasing. But it has no direction whatsoever. Remember, no goal. Evilution happens when something survives a new niche, or selection environment.
G.E.