Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[Gustave5436]

dna gets change(mutated) but the information for coding a particular protein gets loss.

Changed, not lost. If you break your hard drive, the information is lost. If you reformat it, the information is changed. Mutations cause a "loss" in the ability to make a protein, but simultaneously cause an equally large "gain" in the ability to make a slightly different one.

 

[carlosMM]

magicfan101, still no attempt to turn your confused babble into anything resembling a coherent argument?

 

[Miles Teg]

Bleh, this is what happen when you get your concept of evolution from creationist speakers. You'd do just as well to pop in an episode of Pokemon to learn about biology.

There's no such thing as "better" or "worse" in evolution. There's no upward or downward. There's only less fit and more fit, and only for a given environment. If I can fly in space and fart rainbows, but my space flight and rainbow farts require so much food that I have to spend my whole life eating instead of getting laid and reproducing, I'm evolutionarily unfit. Humans are extremely fit for an incredible variety of environments, but we are't "more evolved" or whatever than a sea slug that inhabits a deep sea vent. The Theory of Evolution doesn't make value judgments about organisms.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Spoiler :

the natural course of things say that mutations are errors in dna replications

true, the large majority are "neutral"(only because we dont know the full effect on the genome)but the bad mutations when they happen far outweigh the good mutations. according to wiki 4000 harmful to 4 "good" mutations in humans.( good mutations taken from talkorgins website)

Spoiler :

No they are neutral simply because they have been demonstrated that they make no change to the organism whatsoever. The fact of the matter is most changes to the DNA code make no change on a larger organisational level. For example the 64 triple letter snippets that produce proteins only code for 20 different proteins exactly.

the genome is changing but no new intelligible information is being produced

genetic disorders are diseases caused by mutations. see mutations are harmful.

evolution depends on an increase or a least intelligible change that is upward and outward. all good mutations shown to me in this thread were a lack of expression of something or a loss of a function. this type of change can not be sustained over millions of years.

A) How do you know more and the opposite of geneticists who spend their whole lives studying this area? Short answer is you don't, long answer is you don't but you are making things up to suit your fantasy.

B) Mutations of the genome also cause things like photosynthesis, sexual reproduction, the eukaryotic cell essential to all lifeforms more complex than bacteria. Can you explain them satisfactorily in any other way?

C) Evolution depends on change pure and simple. Any change which makes an organism fitter to survive is kept any which does not isn't. Just because you have no comprehension of natural selection doesn't mean you can ignore it and hope it goes away. That is the same level of sense as Chamberlain believing Hitler's megolomania would go away after the Munich conference.

i still stand by my statement why fix something that is not broke.

Because in a dynamic system, what is not broken today can be broken tomorrow.

It doesn't end up with the entire population suffering from some kind of.... genetic... breakdown where everyone has a billion different ailments all the time. And there's zero evidence of that, because we have mice and bacteria and flies with short life spans and lots of data which shows that our genes aren't DEGRADING through mutation, they're merely changing.

This is exactly what we have been saying all along. If you can actually see this then you are half way to realising the truth of evolution.


The rest of your post is just random noise which is indecipherable to anyone with any bit of common sense.

 

[PeteAtoms]

Bleh, this is what happen when you get your concept of evolution from creationist speakers. You'd do just as well to pop in an episode of Pokemon to learn about biology.

There's no such thing as "better" or "worse" in evolution. There's no upward or downward. There's only less fit and more fit, and only for a given environment. If I can fly in space and fart rainbows, but my space flight and rainbow farts require so much food that I have to spend my whole life eating instead of getting laid and reproducing, I'm evolutionarily unfit. Humans are extremely fit for an incredible variety of environments, but we are't "more evolved" or whatever than a sea slug that inhabits a deep sea vent. The Theory of Evolution doesn't make value judgments about organisms.

The problem Miles Teg, is that creationists also usually think of the geologic history of the Earth as static. You are of course right in your post, and a dynamic environment is a key catalyst for natural selection giving rise to new species.

The fact that life is suited for Earth's environments now, does not mean if you took all of modern life in a time machine to Earth billions of years ago they would still be fit.

You can't look at evolution in the context of a static environment, a vacuum, or an environment that is the same everywhere geographically. That is why creationists cannot grasp these concepts.

Because in a dynamic system, what is not broken today can be broken tomorrow.

What he said

 

[magicfan101]

If you break your hard drive, the information is lost

.correct

If you reformat it, the information is changed.

incorrect, when you reformat your you hard drive the information that was once there is now lost

Mutations cause a "loss" in the ability to make a protein

, correct

but simultaneously cause an equally large "gain" in the ability to make a slightly different one

. incorrect , the information for that protein has now been lost what is left is no longer intelligible. so its a information loss nothing is gained

 

[Brian Shanahan]

incorrect, when you reformat your you hard drive the information that was once there is now lost

Wrong, you still have so many GB of knowledge on your computer, just because it is rsndom noise doesn't make it any less volumnous.

incorrect , the information for that protein has now been lost what is left is no longer intelligible. so its a information loss nothing is gained

How do you know the knowledge is unintelligible, are you able to read genetic code and predict outcomes for all changes now? Look there have been experiments done where genes have been changed, with predictions made and borne out by subsequent experiments, for heaven's sakes. We know that a change in DNA only means a possible change in the information meaning carried by the DNA. Unless there is a lengthening or shortening of the total code there is no change in the amount of information carried.

For anyone that is interested here's a link to a nice little Java programme which shows the process of mutation within DNA, and what happens with mutations. I'd recommend it to magicfan, except for I know he'll get no use out of it, due to close-mindedness.

 

[duckstab]

Sorry about the tangent, but the idea that reformatting destroys data is generally not true.

Although it varies by file system and the reformatting application, reformatting usually does not actually overwrite any data. It usually just throws away (and then rebuilds) the file system index so whatever was on the disk can no longer be easily found.

Even if a reformat were to overwrite the actual data on disk, forensic methods can often be used to detect enough traces of the original magnetic signal to recover it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How do you know the knowledge is unintelligible, are you able to read genetic code and predict outcomes for all changes now? Look there have been experiments done where genes have been changed, with predictions made and borne out by subsequent experiments, for heaven's sakes. We know that a change in DNA only means a possible change in the information meaning carried by the DNA. Unless there is a lengthening or shortening of the total code there is no change in the amount of information carried.

I bolded some words I'm sure Creationists are not familiar with.

If any of you need any help figuring out what these exotic sounding terms mean, feel free to ask.

 

[Gustave5436]

.correct incorrect, when you reformat your you hard drive the information that was once there is now lost , correct . incorrect , the information for that protein has now been lost what is left is no longer intelligible. so its a information loss nothing is gained

So if I reformat my hard drive, it is utterly obliterated and can never be used for anything ever again?

The information cannot simply disappear; the 1st law of thermodynamics states that energy (i.e. information) is never created or destroyed. It is merely changed and in this respect a mutation does not "destroy" the information content of DNA, but merely changes it to something new.

Sorry about the tangent, but the idea that reformatting destroys data is generally not true.

Although it varies by file system and the reformatting application, reformatting usually does not actually overwrite any data. It usually just throws away (and then rebuilds) the file system index so whatever was on the disk can no longer be easily found.

Even if a reformat were to overwrite the actual data on disk, forensic methods can often be used to detect enough traces of the original magnetic signal to recover it.

Technically, you're absolutely right. I just said "reformat" rather than "reformat and then fill up the entire drive with new data" for the sake of convenience of the analogy.

 

[dannyshenanigan]

I thought this article would be highly appropriate in this thread.
Mathematicians have just come up with a new model that strongly supports evolution.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-mathematics-plenty-evolution.html

Herbert Wilf, Penn’s Thomas A. Scott Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, and Warren Ewens, emeritus professor of biology, say their model directly challenges the long-standing contention among some doubters that evolution couldn't have happened because the small changes in species outlined by the theory simply would have taken too much time to be completed.

Their works shows that, under a very reasonable model of mutations and natural selection, the time required to evolve a very complex organism is vastly smaller than might be presumed. As a result, the idea that evolution would require "too much time" to be true is proved false.

Wilf and Ewens’ model is described in the paper "There's Plenty of Time for Evolution," which will appear in an upcoming issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

According to Wilf, the understanding of evolution reached in the paper can best be illustrated by thinking about the two different ways a hacker might try to break into a computer. continued...

 

[Arakhor]

All right, Magicfan, even assuming that you're absolutely correct and that all mutations are unquestionably bad, how does that provide evidence for creationism?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Because then thee only known alternative, evolution, would be false.

 

[PeteAtoms]

Because then thee only known alternative, evolution, would be false.

That in no way speaks to the validity of creationism.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Or the alternative is still unknown. That would at least be a more intellectually honest way of looking at it.

 

[PeteAtoms]

Because then thee only known alternative, evolution, would be false.

Please reflect on the statement you just made and read about false dilemmas.

 

[Arakhor]

Because then thee only known alternative, evolution, would be false.

How exactly does that work again? Evolution is not an alternative to creationism; it's an entirely separate process.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Not to mention that there are mountains of evidence in favor of evolution which have surfaced in this very thread. Just admit that the only case for faith is faith alone. It is not supported by anything naturalistic.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I can move any mountain


Link to video.

 

[negZero]

@Dom for the hundredth time where is my miracle that science can't explain away?