PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Macroevolution!

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I found this real interesting article and thought it would be worthwhile to post it here.
It's from here:
Macroevo

Here's the first few paragraphs:

"FIRST GENETIC EVIDENCE UNCOVERED OF HOW MAJOR CHANGES
IN BODY SHAPES OCCURRED DURING EARLY ANIMAL EVOLUTION

Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have uncovered the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals.

In an advance online publication February 6 by Nature of a paper scheduled to appear in Nature, the scientists show how mutations in regulatory genes that guide the embryonic development of crustaceans and fruit flies allowed aquatic crustacean-like arthropods, with limbs on every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into a radically different body plan: the terrestrial six-legged insects.

The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolution—the absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs.

“The problem for a long time has been over this issue of macroevolution,” says William McGinnis, a professor in UCSD’s Division of Biology who headed the study. “How can evolution possibly introduce big changes into an animal’s body shape and still generate a living animal? Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn’t be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome.” "

The theory of evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger...


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:44 PM on April 13, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So by losing genes for legs, the animal evolves into a higher creature.  This somehow explains macro-evolution (from single cell to complex cell)?  

This does nothing to explain where the crustacean got it's legs, and actually works in the opposite direction that macro-evolution is supposed to work (a loss of information and a loss of structure).  

Here's the Creationists view.

The fact that scientists can significantly alter the body plan does not prove macro-evolution nor does it refute creation.  Successful macro-evolution requires the addition of NEW information and NEW genes that produce NEW proteins that are found in NEW organs and systems.

For example, a single mutation that might prevent legs from forming is much different from a mutation that produces legs in the first place.  Making a leg would require a large number of different genes present simultaneously.  Moreover, where do the wings come from? Just because an organism loses a few legs doesn’t convert a shrimp-like creature into a fly.  Since crustaceans don’t have wings, where does the information come from to make wings in flies?

Having the wings themselves is not even enough.  Researchers in another study have found that the subcellular location of metabolic enzymes is important for the functional muscle contraction required for flight.4  Indeed, the metabolic enzymes must be in very close proximity with the cytoskeletal proteins that are involved in muscle contraction.  If the enzymes are not in the exact location in which they are needed within the cell, the flies cannot fly.  This study bears out the fact that ‘the presence of active enzymes in the cell is not sufficient for muscle function; colocalization of the enzymes is required.’  It also ‘…requires a highly organized cellular system.’

Therefore, changes in body plan—no matter how dramatic—do not automatically prove macro-evolution.  Losing structures, or misplacing their development, should not be equated with the increased information that is needed to form novel structures and cellular systems.


Also, it should be noted that these mutations are in no way random, as the scientists are carefully selecting the genes to mutate.  

I was intrigued by the Evolutionists quotes:

"The problem for a long time has been over this issue of macroevolution"  

I got news for him... there is still a problem.  If he would have said "hey - we can change the body plan of this creature - we can remove the legs by switching off some genes" creationists would agree this is possible.  This certainly a prime example of mutation.  But what isn't possible, and what they won't be able to do is "switch off some genes" and see the crustacean grow wings.  Unfortunately for the guys at UCSD, they have not demonstrated macro-evolution, they have demonstrated that mutation is the loss of genes and traits.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 11:07 PM on April 13, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As usual, you miss the point.  Spare me the ignorant creationist view!  Here is how radica
(different kinds) of body plans can arise.  We already know that new information can arise through mutation, that's all ready a fact.  But here we see the mechanics of a simple mutation radically altering the organisms body plan, something that creationists scream about and say "can't happen!"  Well of course this research proves them wrong!

Also, it should be noted that these mutations are in no way random, as the scientists are carefully selecting the genes to mutate.

No it shouldn't be noted, it is inconsequential to the experiment.  Again, your ignorance of real science is astonding!

got news for him... there is still a problem.  If he would have said "hey - we can change the body plan of this creature - we can remove the legs by switching off some genes" creationists would agree this is possible.  This certainly a prime example of mutation.  But what isn't possible, and what they won't be able to do is "switch off some genes" and see the crustacean grow wings.  Unfortunately for the guys at UCSD, they have not demonstrated macro-evolution, they have demonstrated that mutation is the loss of genes and traits.  

You keep making assinine statements!  Of course they have demopnstrated a mechanism of macroevolution, mutations to the HOX genes can have radical effects on the body plans of organisms, this is required for macroevolution.  Here is the evidence of how this has happened in the past.  Get your head out of the sand and join the 21st century!  This is another triumph for evolutionary science and even though creationism is as dead as a biblical flat earth, this research once again disproves it.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:33 PM on April 13, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Spare me the ignorant creationist view!
Again, your ignorance of real science is astonding!
You keep making assinine statements!


Sounds like you're getting a little ruffled there.  

We already know that new information can arise through mutation, that's all ready a fact.

On the basis of one example (the nylon eating bateria) that's been thoroughly refuted by creationists and real science, you claim it's a fact.  It clearly is not a fact.  If evolution were even plausible, this would have have to happen millions and billions of times.  The evidence for this should be everywhere.  But it's not.  You have to take one case and stretch it as far as possible to fit your dogma.  

In fact, as in this case at UCSD, a loss of genetic information (mutation) caused a change to occur.  A series of losses in genetic information are then supposed to account for macro-evolution - going from a single cell to a complex cell.  I think not.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 12:36 AM on April 14, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Then post some proof already:  Scientific studies that support your position.  You have yet to do this.  Instead, you rant and rave and give the opinions of you and AiG.  Without any actual studies, experiments, proof or facts, that is all it is.  Your opinion.  Where are all the scientific studies (and I don't mean quotes about what can or can't happen, I mean actual, verifiable, repeatable data sets) that support what you insist is fact?  Please post it already, as you've been asserting for a week now that it's out there.

And, by the way, AiG trying to refute evolution does not count as scientific evidence


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 12:54 AM on April 14, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sounds like you're getting a little ruffled there.

Not me, I'm just sick of your anti science arrogance.  You don't understand how the scientific method works, you don't understand evolution, you don't understand geology, you don't understand genetics, the list just goes on and on.  And you're continued insistance on using an unscientific, ignorant source like AIG for a scientific debate is just mind boggling.

On the basis of one example (the nylon eating bateria) that's been thoroughly refuted by creationists and real science, you claim it's a fact.

No this is still an example of a mutation increasing information and creationists, as usual, have refuted nothing!  Creationist Lee Spetner even agrees that the nylon bug is an example of a mutation ADDING information,
from here:Nylonbug

"It's interesting, first of all, that the URL you pointed to picked the "nylon bug" as an example of a random mutation yielding a gain of information. (The short answer is, the mutation does yield an increase of information, but was it random?)"

So, again, you are wrong!  From here:Talkorigin

"AiG claims that the Apo-AIM mutation, which produces a reduction in risk from heart attack and stroke, results in a loss of specificity. However, these claims are incorrect. Instead, Apo-AIM is 1) of a more complex tertiary structure 2) more stable and 3) activates cholesterol efflux more effectively than Apo-AI. Furthermore, Apo-AIM has an antioxidant activity not present in Apo-AI that is sequence and substrate specific. Thus, far from a loss of specificity, Apo-AIM represents a gain of specificity and "information" by AiG's own measures. Contrary to AiG's suggestion, all current evidence indicates that the Apo-AIM mutation is beneficial for its carriers, whether heterozygous or homozygous."

From here:

Geneinfo

"Since gene duplications are known to occur, the information content of a
genome can increase as a result. Point mutations in the duplicated or
original sequence have the potential of further increasing the complexity of
the DNA sequence and thus its information content. Since information theory
says that informational entropy tends to increase in a communication system
that is prone to errors (Yockey, 1992), the increasing complexity of genomes
over succeeding generations is inevitable. Thus the evolution of
increasingly complex organisms seems an unavoidable consequence of
information theory. This should be even more apparent when one realizes that
it is not just structural genes that will become more complex. The genes
that regulate body plans can also be duplicated and changed. Thus diversity
of form is inevitable. One thing moderating this increasing complexity is
natural selection. If a new, more complex genome is less fit, the inheritors
of that new, more complex genome will die off and the organisms that inherit
no mutations, fewer mutations, or different mutations will flourish. On the
other hand, if the inheritors of the new, more complex genome are more fit
in the old environment or in some new environment they chance upon, then
they will prosper and the increased complexity will be passed on with the
potential for further increases in subsequent generations."

Here's an example from the same site:

"Brown et al. (1998) reported that a population of bakerâs yeast grown in a
glucose limiting environment for a few hundred generations spontaneously
produced mutant offspring. The mutant offspring were better able to take up
the glucose from the low-glucose environment. The offspring were found to
have duplications of two different sugar transport protein genes.
Furthermore, there were more than three new genes formed from the control
region of one of the sugar transport genes with the coding region of the
second. Finally, the mutant offspring were able to out-compete individuals
of the ancestral population in pair-wise competition experiments."

Also from the same site:

"This is really three related examples in one. Akanuma et al. (1996) were
working with a bacteria that can normally grow at temperatures up to 85
degrees Celsius. They had a mutant that was thermally sensitive due to the
deletion of 22 nucleotides in a gene coding for a protein involved in the
synthesis of leucine, an amino acid. After growing the mutant strain under
strong selective pressure (i.e. temperatures where the mutant could barely
grow), the researches isolated three strains that had improved growth at
high temperature. The new strains differed from the wild-type bacteria from
which the mutant was derived, hence the term "pseudorevertant." (A true
revertant would have the same genotype as the wild-type organism). The three
pseudorevertants all showed duplications of just part of the gene that added
6 to 21 nucleotides to the gene. The proteins coded for by these new mutant
genes, which were longer and more complex in the informational entropy
sense, also had improved catalytic activity in addition to improved thermal
stability over the protein in the thermally-sensitive strain from which the
pseudorevertants descended. Thus three different mutations, all increasing
the information content of the genomes, produced more stable and efficient
proteins."

There you go, plenty of examples of information adding mutations, guess you'll have to drop that line about mutations can't add information!

In fact, as in this case at UCSD, a loss of genetic information (mutation) caused a change to occur.  A series of losses in genetic information are then supposed to account for macro-evolution - going from a single cell to a complex cell.  I think not.  

I really don't care what you think, but how is this a lose of genetic information?  The HOX genes mutate and cause radical body plan reconfigurations, but what genetic information is lost?  This mutation explains how body plans can be changed, in effect, how one 'kind' can becaome another 'kind', and this conclusion is supported by the results of the experiment.  Once again, creationism comes up short!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:46 AM on April 14, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon: There you go, plenty of examples of information adding mutations, guess you'll have to drop that line about mutations can't add information.

Accept that all 3 can be easily explained using the creation model and without the increase of information.  

The first example of the yeast, you have a great example of natural selection at work - speciation by strict isolation of specific traits or qualities.    "glucose limiting environment for a few hundred generations spontaneously
produced mutant offspring"  I would say that it was not 'spontaneous'.  As we see from Mendel's work, genetic traits can be inherited even if they are not expressed.  All that has really happened here is an isolation of the group where these existing genes are expressed.  

It does not account for where these genes came from to begin with.  

In the next example, you have mutant genes (defined by a deletion of nucleotides) which somehow managed to re-create or find it's way back to the missing genes.  This one again is under "strong selective pressure" where the bacteria could barley grow.  Again, we have the same situation - a gradual isolation of the samples that did not undergo the nucleotide deletion.  

You see even these cases make unrealistic assumptions.  Chiefly, that because there were a majority of mutated organisms, that ALL the organisms in the group were mutated.  In fact, had there been a single instance of an non-mutated specimen, the information it could contribute to the gene pool would be extremely valuable and thrive in the "strong selective" environment.  In very few generations, you would see it's variated offspring become dominant.

This doesn't prove that information can be added.  All that it decisively proves is that Mendel's work in inherited characteristics is valid - we've (the entire scientific community evolutionists and creationists) have known that for many years.

One thing that you have to realize is that when all living things were originally created, they were created at the absolute maximum information level.  There were 0 mutations and 0 disorder at the genetic level.  Mutation and selection has done it's thing to that perfect genetic structure over the last 6000 years.  Variation was a part of the original design - the originals were created with enough genetic information for a tremendous amount of variation.  Mutation limited the expression of that variation, and natural selection isolated those who were "varietarily challenged" into distinct groups.

So you see - here is another example of how creationism can explain direct evidence in exact opposite of evolutionism.  It's all about the interpretation based on preconceived framework.

So in answer to your question - I see no reason to dismiss the argument that mutations do not add information.  They may, however, isolate the expression of an already varied genome.


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 6:01 PM on April 14, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One thing that you have to realize is that when all living things were originally created, they were created at the absolute maximum information level.


One thing you have to realize is that you have absolutely no proof of this whatsoever, other than your wish that it be so


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 8:58 PM on April 14, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup the argument that information cannot increase by random mutation can be shown wrong.

Take the word RABBIT

Lets randomly change one of the letters:

RZBBIT

in terms of the english language we could say this random change has caused information to be *lost* as the word is less meaningful. This is the same reasoning creationists apply to a point mutation causing loss of functionality in a gene.

so: RABBIT to RZBBIT = LOSS in information

But hang on, if we start at RZBBIT can a random mutation not produce RABBIT?

RZBBIT to RABBIT = GAIN in information.

This is of course possible. A point mutation CAN change the second letter from a Z to an A. I don't care how unlikely it is, it is nevertheless possible. In the same way information gain in genomes via point mutation must be possible

So no, the statement "information cannot be increased by mutation" is obviously wrong as shown here. You don't need any qualifications in genetics or maths to see it, just common sense
----
The genetic basis of this argument:

If a point mutation changes a single nucleotide and renders a gene inoperative, creationists would be the first to claim it had lost information.

But it is POSSIBLE that a point mutation could change that single nucleotide back to its original value, hence turning an inoperative gene into a working gene. This corrects the loss in information, and therefore must be a GAIN in information (only a gain can correct a loss).
Therefore information gain IS possible



(Edited by Void 4/14/2004 at 9:12 PM).
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 9:11 PM on April 14, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: One thing you have to realize is that you have absolutely no proof of this whatsoever, other than your wish that it be so

Genesis 1 gives us the evidence.  After each day God "saw that it was good".  The word for good in Hebrew "towb" not only means good, but it also means prosperous - perfect and entire, wanting nothing - free from lack.  Also, we know that sin and death were a result of Adam's disobedience at "the fall".  

Void -

I can see where you are going, however, you have to realize that genes are made up of many bases and proteins to decode the bases.  In actuality, the A in the word RABBIT would have many bases.  If a mutation happened to 16% of the genes in an organism, it probably wouldn't survive.  A more realistic mutation would be to say that the crossbar in the letter A in the word RABBIT was removed.  So RABBIT was change to R^BBIT.  

Now lets say, for example, that the genes for fur color were in the A.  The animal was originally created with all the possible colors of fur.  However, because of the mutation, the animal now only has 2 "working" genes for colors - brown and white.  Lets say the animal is in a snowy environment.  The offspring born with white fur are going to be 'naturally selected' and have a much higher survival rate because of their natural camouflage.  Soon, you will only have white rabbits.  They will have lost the genes for other colors (or they may be mutated to the point where the proteins can no longer decode them properly).  In it's environment, the mutation is beneficial.  However, no amount of mutation can cause that gene pool to get back the colors it lost.  The only way for that to happen is for it to breed with another rabbit that has unmutated or intact genes for those other colors.  If the climate were to change, the animal would be out of luck unless it could find an animal with those genes to breed with.

The evolutionists exclaims A NEW SPECIES!  The creationist, however, sees an isolated variety of the same "kind" (for example, a miniature poodle and a great dane look very different but both are dogs).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 12:57 PM on April 15, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Genesis 1 gives us the evidence.

The bible is not scientiic evidence of anything.

Once again, where is your proof?  By this I mean, scientific (verifiable, observable, repeatable, testable) proof


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 2:03 PM on April 15, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Void - I can see where you are going

No I don't think you do yet and it is my fault for not being specific enough. In my example RABBIT was supposed to be a gene, not a genome. The letters represent nucleotides, not genes.
Changing A in the word RABBIT was equivelant to a point mutation changing a nucleotide in a gene. Such a change can affect the functionality of the protein produced by the gene

would have many bases.  If a mutation happened to 16% of the genes in an organism, it probably wouldn't survive.
Agreed but I am talking about a point mutation changing one nucleotide in one gene of an organism. This could quite easily have a beneficial effect.
The total field of possible nucleotide sequences is known as the protein space. Each nucleotide sequence in the protein space can be reached by a point mutation affecting a similar sequence.
In this way mutations can be seen as "hops" across the protein space
If you were to map out the protein space, you would find that lots of neighbouring proteins have the same effect but different levels of efficiency.
For example the gene for synthesising vitimin C can be represented by hundreds of similar nucelotide sequences, not just one. Some of these sequences are less efficient than others.
There is no barrier that prevents a "hop" to a better sequence from a worse one.
In fact if you take the example of the nylon bug that was raised earlier you will find an instance where the theory of evolution comes in useful for making predictions
The new protein in the nylon bug that allows it to synthesise nylon is not very efficient, I believe it is somewhere around as low as 20% efficient, but dont quote that figure. The low efficiency is because it is new and the optimal sequence has not been reached yet. But the theory of evolution says that the efficiency of that protein will improve over time via mutation and natural selection. Mutation will cause the "hops" to new sequences and natural selection will cull any bad hops made, the "law" of averages saying that in general the trend will be for improvement. Such improvement falls under the creationist concept of "microevolution" which creationism accepts. However as shown above, microevolution does involve beneficial mutations occurring

The evolutionists exclaims A NEW SPECIES!  The creationist, however, sees an isolated variety of the same "kind" (for example, a miniature poodle and a great dane look very different but both are dogs).

There are no clear definite "kinds" in nature, the word is okay for general use, even I use it (man-kind heh). But as nice as the idea is, noone has yet been able to categorise animals into seperate and distinct groups. Even taxonomic categories (species, families etc) has trouble
You point out two similar categories (great danes and poodles), but I image that if progressively less similar catogories were produced you would eventually have trouble determining if they were the same kind or not. For example dog and wolf, wolf and fox, fox and coyote, coyote and hyena

(Edited by Void 4/15/2004 at 4:20 PM).
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 4:14 PM on April 15, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would say that it was not 'spontaneous'

And why isn't it spontaneous? It's a new trait, the only explaination for it's appearance is mutation, a mutation that adds information!
Your ridiculous assertion that it isn't spontaneous is just a desperate attempt to rationalize your silly superstitions.

As we see from Mendel's work, genetic traits can be inherited even if they are not expressed.  All that has really happened here is an isolation of the group where these existing genes are expressed.

Yes, but this is a trait that the researchrs knew was not there before, so your point is invalid.  This was a 'spontaneous' mutation, no matter how much you wishit wasn't!

This doesn't prove that information can be added.  All that it decisively proves is that Mendel's work in inherited characteristics is valid - we've (the entire scientific community evolutionists and creationists) have known that for many years.

No, it just proves you don't know what your talking about and that no matter how many times something is explained to you you will make up something else in order to preserve your myths.

One thing that you have to realize is that when all living things were originally created, they were created at the absolute maximum information level

Hahahaha!!!!  Evidence?  Oh, that's right, you're making this up too!  

So you see - here is another example of how creationism can explain direct evidence in exact opposite of evolutionism.  It's all about the interpretation based on preconceived framework.

No, this is direct evidence of how some superstitious people can twist real scientific evidence to deny reality...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:36 PM on April 15, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Am I not right in saying that unexpressed traits don't occur in bacteria because they reproduce assexually? Mendels pea plants were sexual reproducers
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 4:52 PM on April 15, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Am I not right in saying that unexpressed traits don't occur in bacteria because they reproduce assexually? Mendels pea plants were sexual reproducers

Absolutely right, void!  Can't believe I missed that!

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:56 PM on April 15, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Void:  No I don't think you do yet and it is my fault for not being specific enough. In my example RABBIT was supposed to be a gene, not a genome. The letters represent nucleotides, not genes.
Changing A in the word RABBIT was equivalent to a point mutation changing a nucleotide in a gene. Such a change can affect the functionality of the protein produced by the gene


So your example is more close to the following analogy -

Instead of replacing the A in the word RABBIT, you are replacing the W in the phrase "FUR COLOR - BROWN FUR".  FUR COLOR - BROZN FUR might be the result.  Is this a more correct interpretation?  

In this example, the proteins decoding the bases would say "hey anyone heard of the color brozn?"  When there were no takers, the decoding process closed the file and moved on.  The animal couldn't produce brown fur because the code was corrupted.  A 'loss' of information has occurred.  

I think you are absolutely right when you say a point mutation can have a beneficial effect.  But, only because it may help to isolate the expression of genes the organism already has.  For example, if the rabbit in my example could have brown hair or white, and the genes for brown hair were damaged, forcing the white fur could be beneficial to rabbits in a snow-covered environment.

In the case of the nylon bug you mentioned that (in your approximation) the "old" genes were 20% efficient.  The mutated genes became more efficient.  Well what is efficiency here?  It is the measure of the overall ability of the whole group.  It would not be the measure of each individual bacterium.  There will be some that are better, and some that are worse.  Through natural selection (in this case directed pressured selection) the bacteria with the information present to be 'more efficient' would be isolated and promoted.  It doesn't mean that it is a new trait or that new information was added to the genome - it simply means that you have managed to isolate the bacteria who have this capability and support their rise to the majority.  

microevolution does involve beneficial mutations occurring

Again, I would agree with this statement.  But beneficial still does not mean "information producing" as it relates to a more robust genome.  

Some evolutionists, such as Richard Dawkins, will try to change the playing field and say that adaptation and natural selection are examples of information being added to a genome by way of the genome now "knowing what is beneficial and what is not".  This is word play - it's like saying our rabbit who no longer has brown fur genes is now smarter because he can always choose the "right" camouflage for his snowy environment.  In actuality, it is a loss of the ability to differ - a loss of adaptability - an isolation of a group with the expression of specific traits.

Void:  For example dog and wolf, wolf and fox, fox and coyote, coyote and hyena

I would submit for your speculation that when Noah and the animals loaded onto the ark, there may have only been several dog kinds - all loaded with enough genetic variety to eventually offspring the many 'species' of dog we have today.  Through mutation and natural selection, the genes for the species we have now were eventually isolated into the distinctions we see today.  None of which have the level of variety and "information" those who lived 5000 years ago had.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 5:49 PM on April 15, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Void: Am I not right in saying that unexpressed traits don't occur in bacteria because they reproduce assexually? Mendels pea plants were sexual reproducers

Are you trying to imply that just because Mendel's work was in sexually producing organisms, it doesn't apply to an asexually reproducing organism?
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 6:01 PM on April 15, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why don't you explain Mendel's work and how it applies to bacteria?

Edited to add:

Elswhere Gup20 states:
I think I have said it before, but let me say agian.  I was in a genetics class at the University of Minnesota,. . .


If you have taken a university level genetics class, this should be a trivial request to answer.

(Edited by Apoapsis 4/16/2004 at 10:04 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:44 PM on April 15, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In this example, the proteins decoding the bases would say "hey anyone heard of the color brozn?"  When there were no takers, the decoding process closed the file and moved on.  The animal couldn't produce brown fur because the code was corrupted
No, for a start the similarity between the english language and genetics should not be taken further than that they are both represented by strings of sequences.
Genetics is not half as syntax strict as the english language. In english if you change a letter it renders the phrase incomprehensible, as you show. But in genetics a point mutation often has a neutral effect (ie no effect) on the protein produced because the rules (of chemistry) are not as strict. The hundreds of valid different sequences for a single protein shows that changes can be made without destroying the meaning of the sequence

Well what is efficiency here?  It is the measure of the overall ability of the whole group.  It would not be the measure of each individual bacterium.  There will be some that are better, and some that are worse.
No the protein for efficient nylon digestion does not exist yet. If it did exist then the better digesters would have been dominant when they were discovered. This would have been spotted when samples were analysed. Instead the bacteria were found to be low in efficiency
Natural selection will produce a more efficient protein over time, it will be produced via genetic mutation. The sequence is inefficient at the moment and only mutation can change it

I really do not see your point at all. Bacteria reproduce asexually so there is no recombination involved, all variety in bacteria comes from genetic mutation
A bacteria is a clone of the parent. Realising this, where do you think all the variety comes from in a bacteria population? Claiming that there are different varieties of efficiency in the population is admitting that genetic mutation has caused such variety

But beneficial still does not mean "information producing" as it relates to a more robust genome
Information can certainly increase, I showed why in a previous post. You cannot claim information losses occur all the time and that information gains are impossible. This is against conservation of information, it means information can only fall. This runs contradictory to genetics where mutations can be reversed and therefore information loss must be reversed (gained).
In genetics you could have a mutation, reverse it, have the mutation again, reverse it, etc, arriving at the same sequence you started. Yet by your idea of information this would be an overall loss, raising the interesting situation that the end gene has less information than the start gene, even though both are the same sequence. For example:

Sequence AAAA -> AAAB = loss
Sequence AAAB -> AAAA = you say can't be a gain

Therefore
Sequence AAAA -> AAAB -> AAAA -> AAAB -> AAAA -> AAAB -> AAAA = 3 x loss

Meaning AAAA to AAAA is a loss. ie keeping the gene the same is a loss! Taking this further implies that each sequence has an infinite number of quantities of information
All information theories I know of support conservation of information, all these theories can be used to show information can be increased via mutation

I would submit for your speculation that when Noah and the animals loaded onto the ark, there may have only been several dog kinds - all loaded with enough genetic variety to eventually offspring the many 'species' of dog we have today.  Through mutation and natural selection, the genes for the species we have now were eventually isolated into the distinctions we see today.

The problem is that in the list I gave several of those species cannot interbreed. They therefore cannot be the same kind. If you ever actually attempt to categorise species into distinct kinds you will find it cannot be done.


 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 05:28 AM on April 16, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the similarity between the english language and genetics should not be taken further than that they are both represented by strings of sequences

Yet, that is exactly what you have done in your analogy of AAAA to AAAB sequences - you have taken information theory and applied our alphabet further than you should have.

AAAA -> AAAB  = information gain

Why?  Because B is recognized information.  A more correct analogy would be:

AAAA-> AAA¤

"¤" is not information.  This is a 'better' example of what I am trying to convey.  In practical application (with our furry rabbit friend), information would be the sequences of genes that lead fur to be black or white... or lead to large ears or short ears etc, etc.  When a sequence is mutated, error correction will occur.  Error correction occurs at all levels of information transfer.  This can account for mutations from AAA¤ being corrected back to AAAA.  However, sometimes mutation will be so severe that the original AAAA cannot be restored, and the information in the final A is 'lost'.  

The basic difference between the way evolutionists characterize information and the way creationists characterize it can be demonstrated by that analogy.  To an evolutionist, all code and sequence is random - whether or not it means anything.  A sequence of code that means nothing is just as much 'real information' as a sequence that means 'white fur'.  To a creationist, information is designed, and therefore we look for the 'non-random' characteristics that define specific traits.

This is analogous to a person who hears beeps and blips over a phone line and assumes they are random noise, compared to the person who knows that a code exists and that the beeps and blips represent specific information.  A person who is aware of the code, may pay attention to the code to try to decipher it.  To the person who does not know the code, or who doesn't think the code means anything, they would see the beeps and blips as random noise and not as information.  

Did you guys ever see the movie Contact (with Jodi Foster)?  Here you have people 'listening' to the sky for information.  But not just any information - they are looking for information that is organized and structured.  Why?  Because it would denote design and purpose.  The people who see the noise/interferance on their television screens see the "information" and assume it's random noise.  But those who realize it is more than just noise get excited - contact from an extra-terrestrial source!!  Whoohoo!  Why?  Because their original assumption is that isn't random.

In evolution, the original assumption is that everything happened randomly by chance.  There was no design, there was no creator.  The code for life formed by chance, circimstance, and time.  Information is random and undefined.  
To a creationist, however, we believe that God created all living things.  That the codes that make up our genes represent specific information.  This wasn't a random message delivered by time and circimstance - this was specificly designed by intelligence.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 1:00 PM on April 16, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In evolution, the original assumption is that everything happened randomly by chance.


WRONG the assumption is that the laws of the universe are followed.

It is you who want to define that as meaning no creator.  

Christianity has no problem with evolution, fundamentalists want to close God into a box of their own making.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:06 PM on April 16, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Apoapsis:  WRONG the assumption is that the laws of the universe are followed.

Fortunately, for the Christian, no assumptions have to be made.  The Bible spells out quite clearly how God created the Universe and the Earth, and Man.

Edited in:  By the way - how were the laws of the universe followed before the universe existed?  Where did the universe come from, and who made these laws of the universe?  The 'big bang'?  Isn't that a random, spontaneous event?  Yet you say WRONG when I say that evolutionists believe that everything is the result of random chance, circimstance and time?

Apoapsis:  It is you who want to define that as meaning no creator.

In fact it is my desire that people would come to believe in the creator.  In your opinion is there room for a creator, or for the Bible's account of creation in the Theory of Evolution?  

There may be a few people who would argue with you - such as:

The British Humanist Association
DarwinDay.org
The Humanist Hymnal
The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association

Good luck trying to convince that croud.  And just because some "christians" don't have a problem with evolution, doesn't mean that christianity as a whole feels the same way.  It is certainly contrary to the Bible's account in Genesis.



(Edited by Gup20 4/16/2004 at 2:06 PM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 1:56 PM on April 16, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yet, that is exactly what you have done in your analogy of AAAA to AAAB sequences - you have taken information theory and applied our alphabet further than you should have.

That is just nit-picking. I could have easily used base letters instead and my example would be immune from your argument above. ie:
ATCAGCATGAG -> ATCCGCATGAG

When a sequence is mutated, error correction will occur.  Error correction occurs at all levels of information transfer. However, sometimes mutation will be so severe that the original AAAA cannot be restored, and the information in the final A is 'lost'.  

There is no error correction, there is simply no such thing. If a point mutation occurs in a gene it simply changes one nucleotide in the gene. The fact is that such a change can have beneficial consequences - it can improve the efficiency of that gene.
Mutation and natural selection can increase order and complexity, I have seen it with my own eyes in computing, my field of study. I have seen symbols adapt via mutation and natural selection to solve a problem with no user help.
It is a very simple concept. You CAN go from a low efficiency sequence to a high efficiency sequence via small changes and this is encouraged by natural selection

This is analogous to a person who hears beeps and blips over a phone line and assumes they are random noise, compared to the person who knows that a code exists and that the beeps and blips represent specific information
Of course "evolutionists" accept there is meaning and expression in genetic code - they are the ones deciphering it
The point is that such meaning can be created by mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, recombination and all those other facts of genetics

[to an evolutionist] A sequence of code that means nothing is just as much 'real information' as a sequence that means 'white fur'
Information is not a word you can fling about like "stuff", it has to have a mathematical basis. How exactly do you calculate the amount of information in a given sequence of nucleotides. If I gave a Creationist the genetic code for a gene, what calculation would they perform to determine the amount of information in it? If they cannot do so, then how do they know information doesn't increase? If they cannot define the word information in terms of genetics then it is not worthy of being brought into an argument.

In evolution, the original assumption is that everything happened randomly by chance.  There was no design, there was no creator.  The code for life formed by chance, circimstance, and time.  Information is random and undefined.

Three false statements there:

1) plenty of "evolutionists" believe God created nature

2) Evolution does cause design - natural design

3) Evolution does not say everything formed by chance. There are underlying rules in chemistry that cause molecules to behave, there are rules in physics that cause matter to behave. The universe is not random


 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 4:39 PM on April 16, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fortunately, for the Christian, no assumptions have to be made.


We assume that the universe is God's creation and that he is not deceitful.

The Bible spells out quite clearly how God created the Universe and the Earth, and Man.


In the important spiritual terms yes, we are left to discover the unimportant physical details ourselves, subject to the assumptions above.

By the way - how were the laws of the universe followed before the universe existed?  Where did the universe come from, and who made these laws of the universe?  The 'big bang'?  Isn't that a random, spontaneous event?  Yet you say WRONG when I say that evolutionists believe that everything is the result of random chance, circimstance and time?


The best work and minds suggest that the cause of the singularity that became our universe is unknowable.  There was initial rejection of the concept because it so closely mirrors the biblical account of creation, and that it was first proposed by a Christian scientist.

In fact it is my desire that people would come to believe in the creator.  


Then why do you strive to heap derision on the Word of God?  

In your opinion is there room for a creator, or for the Bible's account of creation in the Theory of Evolution


There is plenty or room for a Creator, but there is no reason and lots of harm to be done by trying to include spiritual issues in the physical sciences.  God by definition is outside the physical universe, if not the existance of God could be proven or disproven scientifically.  To insist on an inerrant funamentalist materialist viewpoint, is to require a deceitful God, who has been disproven many times over.

nd just because some "christians" don't have a problem with evolution, doesn't mean that christianity as a whole feels the same way.  It is certainly contrary to the Bible's account in Genesis.


No, it is simply contrary to a materialistic fundamentalist interpretation.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 4:47 PM on April 16, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fortunately, for the Christian, no assumptions have to be made.  The Bible spells out quite clearly how God created the Universe and the Earth, and Man.

So, you assume that the bible is the literal truth, but that's not an assumption?

how were the laws of the universe followed before the universe existed?

Um, they weren't?  Who knows?

Where did the universe come from, and who made these laws of the universe?

Where did god come from?  No one made the laws of the universe.  Matter and energy have to behave someway, right?  Why not the way they do?

Yet you say WRONG when I say that evolutionists believe that everything is the result of random chance, circimstance and time?

Because cosmology has nothing to do with evolution

And just because some "christians" don't have a problem with evolution, doesn't mean that christianity as a whole feels the same way.  It is certainly contrary to the Bible's account in Genesis.

Gup, do you really think that you represent the majority of christians?  That the majority of christians believe as you do?  You may want to think about that for a while








-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 4:48 PM on April 16, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Void: That is just nit-picking... I could have easily used base letters instead ...

Yes it was a bit nit-picky, but I wanted to show you the assumptive paradigm involved in your argument.  Evolutionism always seems to make that assumptive jump without exploration.  

Void: There is no error correction, there is simply no such thing.

Even in my own limited University genetics experience (attending one class on introductory genetics), I learned that DNA has it's own built in mechanisms for making accurate copies of itself.  

I don't even need AiG or ICR for this one... there are gobs of evidence here.  I am really very surprised that you would make such a statement.  I would have expected you to be aware of this.

http://www.nature.com/nsu/020916/020916-4.html

http://www.idthink.net/biot/error/

http://www.azinet.com/originoflife.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_correction


These links are people with an evolutionary pardigm.  Even these folks agree that error correction occurs at a genetic level.  This is not some 'creationists viewpoint'.  It plays very well into the creationists viewpoint, but nonetheless it is part of general observational science.  

Void: Of course "evolutionists" accept there is meaning and expression in genetic code - they are the ones deciphering it

The analogy was imperfect and did imply this, so I apologize.  My focus was on the aspect of there being a 'transmitter' of the coded message, rather than the on the message itself.  I don't mean to say that evolutionists don't realize there is information in the DNA, but to show the correlation between information and code.  I should have communicated that in a better way.  Interestingly, you arrived at the exact opposite conclusion as I was trying to suggest (suggesting that despite your taking offense to the implication that evolutionists didn' try to uderstand the code, you understood the underlying principle I was trying to convey).  That this "code" couldn't have occured as a result of random chance.

Void:  Information is not a word you can fling about like "stuff", it has to have a mathematical basis. How exactly do you calculate the amount of information in a given sequence of nucleotides.

I thought I had explained it, but let me try it again.  ATCAGCATGAG isnt information - it is a sequence of letters in a code.  For this to be "information" the order and structure has to represent something physical - such as the color of skin.  This is an extremely oversimplified example of course, because what makes skin color?  The ammount of melanin in the skin (humans).  So information would be the sequence of genes that tell the rest of the code how much melanin to produce and express.  These are of course tied to the genes to tell the body what melanin is, how to make it, how to apply it, etc, etc etc.   The precise order of nucleotides determinds the order of proteins and ammino acids that make up all the actual "information" (more than just expressed traits or simple code alone).  

Mutations are defined as permanent random changes in cellular DNA. They change the genetic code for amino acid sequence in proteins, thus introducing biochemical errors of varying degrees of severity. Mutations have been classified as deletions (loss of DNA bases), insertions (gain of DNA bases), and missense or nonsense (substitution of a DNA base).  If the mutations affect germ cells (female ova and male spermatozoa), they will be passed to all the cells of the offspring, and affect future generations. Such mutations are called "germline mutations," and are the cause of most inherited diseases. Mutations also occur in other populations of body cells and will accumulate throughout a lifetime without being passed to the offspring. These are called "somatic mutations," and are important in the genesis of cancers and other degenerative disease processes.  

Void:  There are underlying rules in chemistry that cause molecules to behave...

Yes, there are underlying rules in chemistry that cause molecules to behave, and these take over quite nicely when an organism dies.  The natural chemical reaction of acids and bases (DNA) is what makes decompositon possible.  However, in order for life to occur by "natural means" these acids and bases would have had to come together in an 'unnatural way' by an outside influence.  It's been said by Biologist Dr Gary Parker that "aging and death are the triumph of chemistry over biology".  When those acids and bases do what comes naturally to them, a break down of cells occurs - this is the exact opposite of what needs to occur in "maco-evolution".  

Void: ... there are rules in physics that cause matter to behave. The universe is not random.  

I agree.  Matter had to produce the information and code systems for life to start with.  If you believe in evolution, matter had to produce a code system and information and over millions of years millions of times you had to get new bits of code… and new information.  Science has never seen one example where matter gives rise to one bit of new information.

Werner Gitt said:  “There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.  “ –Werner Gitt, 1997, In the Beginning Was Information.  CLV, Bielefeld, Germany. P. 64-67, 79, 107

He goes on to say “A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor)… It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code.  All experiences indicate that thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity is required.”
Werner Gitt, 1997.  In the Beginning Was Information.  CLV, Bielefeld, Germany.  P. 64-67


Apoapsis: We assume that the universe is God's creation and that he is not deceitful.

TQ: So, you assume that the bible is the literal truth, but that's not an assumption?


Yes, I suppose the both of you are correct.  Those things must be taken by faith.  However, it requires no more faith than the thought that a big bang happened and over billions of years life eventually came to be.  However, instead of trying to interpret the message of the creator within a humanistic framework, we have a first hand account (if you believe by faith that the Bible is the word of God) written to us.  

Apoapsis:  In the important spiritual terms yes, we are left to discover the unimportant physical details ourselves, subject to the assumptions above.

Therein lies the difference between a creationist and (I assume by your comments that you call yourself a 'christian') a theistic evolutionist (or progressive creationist).  To me, understanding the need for a savior (jesus christ) is foundational to being a christian (accepting Christ's salvation).  Why would Jesus need to come to the earth to die for our sins, and what meaning or significance would that have if there was no physical penalty for sin?  It would seem to undermine the entire foundation of truth and biblical authority that is the basis for 'our' faith.  This is wonderful news to the atheist or humanist.  That means they are no longer under God's authority, and are therefore free to do "whatever is right in their own eyes".  

Apoapsis: The best work and minds suggest that the cause of the singularity that became our universe is unknowable

You can know Jesus, who is God, creator of the universe.  So I wouldn't call Him 'unknowable'.  ;)

Singularity eh?  A singularity that exists without any from, matter, energy, and the laws of physics don't apply?  Where did the singularity come from?  Where did the causes of such a hypothetical singularity come from.  What caused the causes that created the singularity that our universe came from?  That doesn't explain anything... we are just shifting causality (blame) from the big bang to what created the big bang, to what created the creative force that created the big bang and so on and so forth.  

Apoapsis:  Then why do you strive to heap derision on the Word of God?

I assure you that is not the intention, nor the result.  Even you can see what a headstart it is to know the beginning and end when trying to solve a problem.  We have been given logic and reason so that we can confirm the Bible and know that it is true.  We have been given the Bible so that we can know truth and so that truth can set us free (christ's work on the cross) from the bondage of sin and death that is our inheretance through Adam.

Apoapsis:  There is plenty or room for a Creator, but there is no reason and lots of harm to be done by trying to include spiritual issues in the physical sciences.  God by definition is outside the physical universe, if not the existance of God could be proven or disproven scientifically.  To insist on an inerrant funamentalist materialist viewpoint, is to require a deceitful God, who has been disproven many times over.

WOW!  You have bought into materialistic humanism hook line and sinker!  Let me ask you a question - You call yourself a christian, right?  So that means you believe in Jesus, right?  That he is the Son of God?  

How about prayer?  Do you believe in prayer?  Isn't prayer asking a 'spiritual' God to intervene in our 'physical' life?

Okay, so how about when Jesus prayed "the lords prayer".   "thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven"  Give us... our daily bread" Do these sound like prayers asking God to please keep his nose out of our physical world?

TQ: Um, they weren't?  Who knows?

That is the most honest answer I have seen you give yet.  

Where did god come from?  No one made the laws of the universe.  Matter and energy have to behave someway, right?  Why not the way they do?

Well I'm glad you asked.  

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.  
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.  
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.  

What do we know about God?  

1Jo 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

So we know that God is Light.  

Exd 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them?  
Exd 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.  

So God's name is I AM.  What does that mean?   I AM is translated from the Hebrew word hayah.  It means "to be, to exist, to be in existance, abiding, remaining, continuing,  be with".  Sounds a lot like 'eternal' or 'forever'.  

So we see that God is eternal, he alwlays was and always will be.  

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Einstein calculated that as you approach the speed of light, time ceases to exist.  His theories mathamatially prove the concept that Peter talks about:

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Which is to say, as you approach the speed of light, a thousand years passing on earth would be as a single day.

All of this is demonstrated in Genesis 1:4
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.  

This is to say, God created our space and time.  So a God, being outside our space and time (being eternal) created our space and time.

Where did God come from?  What was before him?  God has always been, there was no "before God" as there was no time before creation.

TQ: Because cosmology has nothing to do with evolution

Oh really?  Where did the primordial ooze that first sparked evolution come from?  Where did the matter that evolution says spontaneously burst into information come from?  Where did the elements for DNA and protien and ammino acids come from?

Gup, do you really think that you represent the majority of christians?  That the majority of christians believe as you do?  You may want to think about that for a while

No, i think most christians don't know a fraction of what I know, let alone think the way I do.  Why is that?  Perhaps because humanistic theology permeates the fabric of our society today... perhaps because kids are taught ToE as is a fact all throughout their educational process.  The 'church' has done a poor job at giving us the truth.  If that's all that people do - rely on their church to tell them what to think - they are no better off than those who rely on Evolutionism and humanism to tell them what to think without 'finding out for themselves' or critically thinking about it.  It's pretty sad the stagnation that ToE, or any other religion brings to minds.  Most christians don't understand that Christianity is much more than a religious practice, it is a relationship with Jesus.  Those who see it as a religion or just a religous tradition (in my opinion a majority of those who call themselves 'christian' - at least in the USA) just don't know the reality and power of what they believe.  

2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 8:41 PM on April 18, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup, time to get a grip and maybe actually do some reasearch.  

Question:  If god is eternal, why can't the universe be?

(Edited by TQ 4/19/2004 at 02:21 AM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 02:13 AM on April 19, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where did god come from?  No one made the laws of the universe.  Matter and energy have to behave someway, right?  Why not the way they do?

Well I'm glad you asked.


And, of course, you answered nothing!  Where did God come from???

So we know that God is Light.

God is light????  But I thought God didn't create light until the 3rd day???  Seems paradoxical to me, or maybe it just doesn't make sense...And I thought WE were created in God's image?  Humans aren't made of light...

So God's name is I AM.  What does that mean?   I AM is translated from the Hebrew word hayah.  It means "to be, to exist, to be in existance, abiding, remaining, continuing,  be with".  Sounds a lot like 'eternal' or 'forever'

Sounds like??  OK...sounds like a myth to me...

Einstein calculated that as you approach the speed of light, time ceases to exist.  His theories mathamatially prove the concept that Peter talks about:

Hahahahaaa!  So now Einstein is proving Peter???  Now that's funny!  You could justify anything!  Please explain how the using the words Alpha and Omega turns into a confirmation of the theory of relativity???

Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.  

This is to say, God created our space and time.  So a God, being outside our space and time (being eternal) created our space and time.


Wait a minute, God divided the light from the darkness?  I thought you said God was light?
Doesn't make sense...Where in the Bible does it say that seperating light form darkness means God was outside of time and space and he created time and space?  

The amazing thing is you can't see what superstitious rot this is!  To think a young adult in college actually thinks this is a rational explaination of reality, well, your wasting your time is school!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:25 AM on April 19, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Even in my own limited University genetics experience (attending one class on introductory genetics), I learned that DNA has it's own built in mechanisms for making accurate copies of itself.

You are correct in that respect. However I thought you were refering to error correction methods occuring in the next generation to "fix" mutated code. Such methods certainly don't exist.

Afterall we were talking about differences between the parent's genome and the the offspring's genome. Details of the copying process inbetween these states is largely irrelevant and it hasn't entered the conversation as till now. All we need to know is that copy errors do occur in the offspring's genome of which there are no mechanisms (except chance) that can recorrect them in the next generation

I thought I had explained it, but let me try it again.  ATCAGCATGAG isnt information - it is a sequence of letters in a code.  For this to be "information" the order and structure has to represent something physical - such as the color of skin.

Right but that doesn't explain how you quantify the amount of information in a DNA sequence. Without being able to mathematically quantify it how can you say for sure that a mutation has caused information to increase, decrease or stayed the same?

And again surely if sequence A->B is a decrease then sequence B->A must be an increase in information. Seeing as point mutations are reversable then it is clear that information can increase in the genome
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 06:20 AM on April 19, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Question:  If god is eternal, why can't the universe be?

Adam blew it for all of us.  By his disobedience, sin entered the universe.  The 2nd law of themodynamics bears that out.  God's sustaining, eternal power is not part of this universe because it has been corrupted by Adam's sin.  

Demon: Where did God come from???

You are still thinking from within a paradigm of Time.  God is eternal, therefore, outside time.  There is no concept of "come from" outside of time.  There just "is or is not".  Again we see this concept in Exodus 3:
Exd 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them?  
Exd 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.  

Also we know that God and his Word are synonymous.  

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

It is very difficult as our flesh is bound by time and space (and the 'physical' laws of the universe) to think outside our paradigm of time.  God knew this - he even mentions it -

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

This sets a clear distiction between a man's spirit and his 'flesh'.  In the context of eternity, the spirit part of person being the eternal portion.  

TQ: God is light????  But I thought God didn't create light until the 3rd day???

Read Genesis chapters 1 through 11.  God created light on the first day.  However, he did not create the sun or any other stars until day 4.  (importantly, he created plants and grass on day 3 - if the days of creation were figurative days representing thousands or millions of years, not literal 24 hour days, how would plants survive without the sun for photosynthesis?)  How do we have light without sun or stars?  Like I said, this is most likely referring to the concept of time and space - God separated the light from the darkness - giving the impression that he made a distinct difference between eternity and time.  Another hypothesis is that the "light" referrs to energy.  When God said let there be light, he was saying let there be energy, and separating light from dark is separating matter from energy.  That is for someone with way more letters behind their name than me to figure out.

TQ: Hahahahaaa!  So now Einstein is proving Peter???

Einstein said that as you go faster and faster, approaching the speed of light, time slows down. To clarify his premise, suppose you had two clocks synchronized together so that they ticked in perfect harmony - second by second. Now, one clock is put into a rocketship and transported so that it is travelling really fast. What Einstein showed will happen is that when the rocketship clock ticks just once, the other stationary clock will have ticked more times since the rocketship clock slows down.   He, in fact, proved this theory with the following, lesser known, equation:



It is interesting to play with this formula and see the effect on the rocketship clock when the velocity is 1/2 of the speed of light, for example. Here, when the rocketship clock ticks once you will find that the stationary clock will have ticked 1.15 times. Not much of a difference. However, when you get to 3/4 of the speed of light the stationary clock will have ticked 1.51 ticks for every tick of the slower rocketship clock - still not very significant. However, when the rocketship clock is going 99% of the speed of light the stationary clock ticks 7.08 times (Ie: 1 second rocketship clock = 7.08 seconds stationary clock). It is only when the rocketship clock "approaches the speed of light" or gets to 99.999% of lightspeed that suddenly the difference in ticks of the two clocks becomes very significant. For interest, when the rocketship clock is travelling at 99.999% of c, the stationary clock ticks 2,236.07 times for every one tick of the now much slower rocketship clock. At this point, the stationary clock has ticked away 0.62 of an hour! This theory has been proven over and over again through the years by scientists using super-accurate clocks. It is an interesting fact of the universe.

The Bible says, as noted in 1John, that "God Is Light" and it also notes in 2Peter that a day to God is like a thousand years to man (Ie: 1 day of Gods clock ticking = 1000 years of mans clock ticking). Therefore, noting Einsteins findings, these Biblical statements point to the possibilility that God is travelling very fast. In fact, if you figure it out in seconds or "ticks", you will find that 1 tick of Gods clock = 365,250 ticks of mans clock. A calculation, shown below, of the speed that God must be travelling at in order to have a thousand year time difference with humans reveals the following:



Here we see that in order to solve for the velocity you have to rearrange Einsteins formula. Upon doing this and solving for the velocity renders the speed of light or at least 99.999% of c! Therefore, 2Peter is telling us that God is travelling at the speed of light! Again, verifying that God is Light as 1John states in no uncertain terms.

(don't ask me about the Math, I kiped those images off some website)

It is also noteable that John is quoting an old testament passage Psalm 90:4 "‘For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night."

Now neither of these verses are meant to be scientific - but they do reveal some truth about the physical characteristics of God.  

TQ: The amazing thing is you can't see what superstitious rot this is!

Well, you did ask.

[i]Void: Right but that doesn't explain how you quantify the amount of information in a DNA sequence


Very good point.  Personally, I have no idea.  The way that I understand it is, that informtion represents specific fuctions and traits.  When a mutation occurs this function or trait is effected by being removed as an operational function or trait.  This can be beneficial to an organism, but it is most usually detrimental.  In an enzyme, a loss of specificity occus as as result of mutation.  This is also a loss of information.  

A man named Dr Lee Spetner (an Israeli biophysicist) says it this way:

In my book [Not by Chance—right] , I did not quantify the information gainor loss in a mutation. I didn't do it mainly because I was reluctant to introduce equations and scare off the average reader. And anyway, I thought it rather obvious that a mutation that destroys the functionality of a gene (such as a repressor gene) is a loss of information. I also thought it rather obvious that a mutation that reduces the specificity of an enzyme is also a loss of information. But I shall take this opportunity to quantify the information difference before and after mutation in an important special case, which I described in my book.

The information content of the genome is difficult to evaluate with any precision. Fortunately, for my purposes, I need only consider the change in the information in an enzyme caused by a mutation. The information content of an enzyme is the sum of many parts, among which are:
* Level of catalytic activity
* Specificity with respect to the substrate
* Strength of binding to cell structure
* Specificity of binding to cell structure
* Specificity of the amino-acid sequence devoted to specifying the enzyme for degradation
These are all difficult to evaluate, but the easiest to get a handle on is the information in the substrate specificity.

To estimate the information in an enzyme I shall assume that the information content of the enzyme itself is at least the maximum information gained in transforming the substrate distribution into the product distribution. (I think this assumption is reasonable, but to be rigorous it should really be proved.) We can think of the substrate specificity of the enzyme as a kind of filter. The entropy of the ensemble of substances separated after filtration is less than the entropy of the original ensemble of the mixture. We can therefore say that the filtration process results in an information gain equal to the decrease in entropy. Let's imagine a uniform distribution of substrates presented to many copies of an enzyme. I choose a uniform distribution of substrates because that will permit the enzyme to express its maximum information gain. The substrates considered here are restricted to a set of similar molecules on which the enzyme has the same metabolic effect. This restriction not only simplifies our exercise but it applies to the case I discussed in my book.

The products of a substrate on which the enzyme has a higher activity will be more numerous than those of a substrate on which the enzyme has a lower activity. Because of the filtering, the distribution of concentrations of products will have a lower entropy than that of substrates. Note that we are neglecting whatever entropy change stems from the chemical changes of the substrates into products, and we are focusing on the entropy change reflected in the distributions of the products of the substrates acted upon by the enzyme.  ...


The page goes on to give a bunch of equasions that 'quantify' it in much more detail.  

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_10September2001.asp

Void: And again surely if sequence A->B is a decrease then sequence B->A must be an increase in information. Seeing as point mutations are reversable then it is clear that information can increase in the genome

I am confused by this statement.  Are we talking about bases again, or information?  

Molecules-to-man evolution requires the production of large amounts of new genetic information.  In searching for possible mechanisms, evolutionists have sometimes pointed to the ability of cells to make, and retain, multiple copies of their DNA.  Every time a cell divides, the DNA is copied and the new copy is usually passed on to the daughter cell.  But it can sometimes happen that the copy remains in the parent cell.  When a whole set of chromosomes is copied and retained in this way, the condition is called ‘polyploidy’.  Some defenders of evolution have tried to claim that this is an example of the ‘new information’ creationists ask (so far in vain) to see proof of, if evolution is to have credibility.  However, informed evolutionists generally realize that photocopying a page adds no new information; it just duplicates it.  

However, many evolutionists have argued that this ‘extra’ DNA from chromosome duplication can provide at least the raw material for mutations to work on.  The ‘extra copy’ is supposedly liberated to produce new genetic information by accidental change, in addition to the standard information in the original.

If this process had been an important factor in the ‘evolution’ of life, then we should find that the number of chromosomes and/or the mass of DNA per cell would increase as you move up the Tree of Life.  The organisms with the most DNA should have had the greatest exposure to mutation and thus the greatest opportunity for evolutionary advancement.  Bacteria and other single-celled organisms should have the least amount of DNA, and complex organisms like man should have the most.

Is that what we find?  Not at all.  Some microbes have more chromosomes and more DNA than man.  Man has only a modest 46 chromosomes, falling somewhere in the middle of the range that goes from 1 chromosome in an ant (quite an advanced organism compared to a microbe) to over six hundred in some plants.  

Some ‘variation within a kind’ can occur by this mechanism.  In chrysanthemums, (1) for example, the regular number of chromosomes is 18, but 27, 36, 54, 72, 90 and 198 also occur, together with odd combinations like 19, 26 and 37.  However, a chrysanthemum with 198 chromosomes is still a chrysanthemum.  The variation appears to be limited to species differences within the genus.  Within the palm family Arecaceae (2) the standard chromosome number ranges between 26 and 36, except for one genus, Voanioala, which has around 600.  It is not unreasonable to suppose that such extraordinary polyploidy has contributed to the separation of this genus from its related genera within the family—all from the one original created kind.3

But surprisingly, the all-time champion of genetic multiplication is a super-giant bacterium.  Epulopiscium fishelsoni is the world’s largest bacterium.  It is half a millimetre long and weighs in at a million times the mass of a typical bacterium.  In fact no-one believed it was a bacterium until genetic tests proved it.  And it has a whopping 25 times as much DNA as a human cell.  The number of multiple copies of one of its genes has been counted and found to be no less than 85,000.4

It is hard to comprehend such numbers, and to think that it all happens inside a tiny little dot of one of the world’s ‘simplest’ organisms.  But it is much easier to comprehend the fact that, even with genes copied 85,000 times, Epulopiscium fishelsoni is still a bacterium.  Multiple copies of DNA do not explain the difference between the microbe and the man.  It is the information contained in the genes, not the opportunities for mutation, that makes the difference.  And that points to an intelligent Designer!

References and notes
1..Fedorov. A. (Ed.), Bolkoskikh, Z., Grif, V., Matvejeva, T. and Zakharyeva O., Chromosome Numbers of Flowering Plants, V. L. Komarov Botanical Institute, Leningrad, p. 83, 1969 [Reprint Koenigstein 1974].

2.  Röser, M., Trends in the karyo-evolution of palms.  In: Brandham, P.E. and Bennett, M.D. (Editors), Kew Chromosome Conference IV, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, pp. 249–265, 1995.  

3.  In contrast to plants and microbes, animals do not tolerate chromosome duplication well, even in part.  For example, in humans, an extra chromosome number 21 results in Down’s syndrome.   Plants seem to have been created with the capacity for spontaneous polyploidy and many of our most useful agricultural plants are polyploid (e.g. wheat).  

4.  Randerson J., Record breaker, New Scientist 174(2346):14, 8 June 2002.


From Copying Confusion
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 4:49 PM on April 19, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow, I'm stunned by the sheer unadulterated garbage on display.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:31 PM on April 19, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have seen Lee Spetner's calculations before and he barely touches on quantifying information in terms of genetics. This page here explains why the assumptions he did make are flawed:
http://home.mira.net/~reynella/debate/spetner.htm

When a mutation occurs this function or trait is effected by being removed as an operational function or trait.
A point mutation to a gene does not always remove a function or trait. Often it affects the efficiency of the function, or it can change the function of the gene (create a new gene)

Void: And again surely if sequence A->B is a decrease then sequence B->A must be an increase in information. Seeing as point mutations are reversable then it is clear that information can increase in the genome

I am confused by this statement.  Are we talking about bases again, or information?


Anything. Information in bases, information in enzymes, whatever. The reasoning is simple:
By claiming a decrease in information you are stating that the end object E has less information in than the start object S - that is what a decrease is

So if E < S
S -> E is a loss in information

But inversely S > E
Therefore E -> S is a gain in information

With numbers for even more clarity:

if A has 10 units of information and B has 5 units then,
A (10) ->B (5) is a loss of 5 units
However B(5) -> A (10) is a gain of 5 units

As we know genetics is a system by which any change can be reversed. Therefore it is clear that for every information losing mutation that exists there must be an inverse information gaining mutation.

Some quoted author: If this process had been an important factor in the ‘evolution’ of life, then we should find that the number of chromosomes and/or the mass of DNA per cell would increase as you move up the Tree of Life.  The organisms with the most DNA should have had the greatest exposure to mutation and thus the greatest opportunity for evolutionary advancement. Is that what we find?  Not at all.  Some microbes have more chromosomes and more DNA than man.
That is one awful argument.
First of all there is no reason at all why microbes would have less chromosomes than man. Their lineage on earth is just as long as ours. This guy hasn't thought it through.

Secondly his argument is nothing but a more complicated version of the "if we came from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist" argument. Except in his case he is asking why bacteria still exist and haven't "progressed up the tree of life" (a concept which shows flawed understanding of evolution in itself)
He seems to be under the false impression that because gene duplication and alteration can lead to novel gene creation, and because bacteria possess gene duplicates, then all bacteria should have developed novel genes  long ago and there should no longer be any bacteria left. Gene duplication means novel genes can arise, not that they definitely will. Plus there are many more genetic methods for new genes being created other than duplication and alteration

The author has also ignored the blatently obvious here too: For all bacteria to "disapear" would require a time when every last one of them on earth independantly and simultaneously developed novel genes. He hasn't thought through it at all.

Thirdly has he not considered that bacteria actually fill a rather comfy niche in the environment? Why does he expect all bacteria should have "moved on". Evolution isn't about pushing organisms up some imaginary ladder, that is a common misconception. Evolution is largely a force that pushes organisms into new niches. There is no reason for bacteria to "move on", they are one of the most successful organisms on this planet

 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 7:50 PM on April 19, 2004 | IP
tifagomez

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

[b][color=purple] Just wondering if you all
know about the heavy hard core debates,
at: EvCforum.net
It's pretty intense!
I am a christian/creationist
Blessings.


-------
tifagomez*
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 8:57 PM on April 19, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



(don't ask me about the Math, I kiped those images off some website)


No kidding.

Congratulations, you have just demostrated your materialism perfectly.   You have constrained God to fit your own interpretations.

Your humility is noted.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:54 AM on April 20, 2004 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thats actually not proof for macroevolution. Thats just an interpretation of a choice subgroup of the facts, offered as debatable support for a forgone conclusion. That is--As opposed to sound science, which draws conclusions based on, and never in conflict with, the entirety of available data--you, like most evolutionests, are merely interpreting data in such a way as best proves your already decided belief,dismissing interpretations of equal or greater holistic validity, due solely to their non-support of the theory.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 7:00 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thats actually not proof for
macroevolution.


Nope, macroevolution is defined as a change at or above the species level.  We've observed new species arising, both in the wild and in the lab.  Macorevolution is a fact.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:40 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

yea, in cells and bacteria germs, but no new reptiles arising.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 12:02 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

yea, in cells and bacteria germs, but no new reptiles arising.

No, we've seen new species of reptiles, new species of amphbians, new species of birds, new species of fish, new species of mammals, new species of insects.  The list goes on and on.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:35 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ya, you discover new animals, but no geckos turning into a new kind of reptile.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 6:26 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ya, you discover new animals, but no geckos turning into a new kind of reptile.

So what, how does that disprove evolution?  What you're talking about would take longer than any human life span, it's not possible for a man to see that kind of evolution.  Fortunately, we have overwhelming evidence that it does happen, evidence that you haven't been able to falsify.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:59 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

there are no written documents of a creature in mid-evolution


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 9:15 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

there are no written documents of a creature in mid-evolution

sure there are!  Every creature is in mid-evolution!  Do you mean a transitional creature that shows characteristics of 2 different related groups?  Like a creature that is part mammal and part reptile?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:04 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i'm talking about a weird looking critter that isnt alive today.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:10 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i'm talking about a weird looking critter that isnt alive today.

What about one that is alive today, the platypus.  The platypus is transitional between mammals and reptiles, it is best explained by evolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:19 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

proof please.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:44 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Again, Creationest6, I'd prefer you stick to scientific terminology and discard that word "proof". No one's claiming "proof" here. Nothing in science is proven, from quantum physics to gravity to evolution to chemical development.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:00 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evidence for the transitional status of the platypus, from here:

Platypus

"In general, the platypus has a fascinating mixture of reptilian and mammalian features. Mammalian traits include fur and mammary glands. Reptilian traits include the laying of eggs, and a common rectal and urinogenital opening, or cloaca (hence 'monotreme', Latin for 'single hole'). There are a number of skeletal features of the pectoral girdle that are found only in therapsids, extinct mammal-like reptiles thought to be ancestral to mammals. This mixture is even found at the cellular level; the chromosomes and sperm of platypuses display both reptilian and mammalian traits. (Griffiths, 1988)"


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:31 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

there are lots of weird animals and the platapus is one of 'em doesnt make it a evolutionary landmark.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:54 AM on August 17, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

there are lots of weird animals and the platapus is one of 'em doesnt make it a evolutionary landmark.

It has reptilian characteristics and mammalian characteristics, how do you explain it without evolution?

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:09 PM on August 17, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it is a mammal that has a bill, webbed feet and a beaver tale. so?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:07 AM on September 1, 2007 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.