Loss of information in the genome dishonestly passed off as the fish to man version of evolution
gabriel
molecular decay? That's a loss of information in the genome.
Their version of evolution states new information is created in
the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
possible via physical mutations). More dishonest (or ignorance)
passed off as supporting their beliefs in an unobservable,
untestable, unverifiable fish to man version of evolution.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090904071650.htm
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/09/12/news-to-note-09122009#two
Tooth loss and molecular decay purportedly prove Charles Darwin
right. Does that mean brushing twice a day keeps evolution away?
In a study heralded as providing "support" for Darwin's ideas,
biologists at the University of California-Riverside set out to
show that some mammals without tooth enamel or any teeth at all
retained the enamelin gene (a gene involved in enamel
production), though likely showing molecular decay. The reason
for this hypothesis? Fossils of some toothless mammals (e.g.,
baleen whales) reveal that they once had teeth, and mammals with
teeth lacking enamel (e.g., sloths) once had enamel.
Not surprisingly, the group found exactly this. With the help of
modern gene sequencing, the researchers discovered mutations in
the enamelin gene "that disrupt how the enamelin protein is
coded, resulting in obliteration of the genetic blueprint for the
enamelin protein."
According to the report, this vindicates Darwin because
[t]he fossil record demonstrates that the first mammals had teeth
with enamel. Mammals without enamel therefore must have descended
from mammals with enamel-covered teeth.
If that seems underwhelming, perhaps you would be more persuaded
by Professor Mark Springer (head of the study), who informs any
doubters that
[i]n our research we clearly see the parallel evolution of enamel
loss in the fossil record and the molecular decay of the enamelin
gene into a pseudogene in representatives of four different
orders of mammals that have lost enamel.
The results of this study show quite clearly the effects of
different starting assumptions. The Bible tells us-long before
this research or Darwin arrived on the scene-that the Curse
(Genesis 3) impacted every living thing when God removed some of
His sustaining power. This is most evident through the mutational
decay of the genome, which often causes various disorders.
It's no surprise, then, that mammalian genes have lost function
over time. These creatures were designed for a much different
world than the one after the Fall, but God gave them enough
variability to survive-even with genetic entropy.
What we see from this evidence is that the mammals in this study
were created with the information for teeth and enamel. Through
mutations, these genes lost function, and some of the animals
lost teeth. Far from lending credence to Darwinism, this research
reveals how impossible molecules-to-man evolution really is.
Mammals likely lost the ability to form teeth and enamel because
of genetic degradation-the mammals, however, have always been
mammals.
==================================================
Molecular Decay Of Enamel-specific Gene In Toothless Mammals
Supports Theory Of Evolution
ScienceDaily (Sep. 7, 2009) - Biologists at the University of
California, Riverside report new evidence for evolutionary change
recorded in both the fossil record and the genomes (or genetic
blueprints) of living organisms, providing fresh support for
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
The researchers were able to correlate the progressive loss of
enamel in the fossil record with a simultaneous molecular decay
of a gene, called the enamelin gene, that is involved in enamel
formation in mammals.
Enamel is the hardest substance in the vertebrate body, and most
mammals have teeth capped with it.
Examples exist, however, of mammals without mineralized teeth
(e.g., baleen whales, anteaters, pangolins) and of mammals with
teeth that lack enamel (e.g., sloths, aardvarks, and pygmy sperm
whales). Further, the fossil record documents when enamel was
lost in these lineages.
"The fossil record is almost entirely limited to hard tissues
such as bones and teeth," said Mark Springer, a professor of
biology, who led the study. "Given this limitation, there are
very few opportunities to examine the co-evolution of genes in
the genome of living organisms and morphological features
preserved in the fossil record."
In 2007, Springer, along with Robert Meredith and John Gatesy in
the Department of Biology at UC Riverside, initiated a study of
enamelless mammals in which the researchers focused on the
enamelin gene. They predicted that these species would have
copies of the gene that codes for the tooth-specific enamelin
protein, but this gene would show evidence of molecular decay in
these species.
"Mammals without enamel are descended from ancestral forms that
had teeth with enamel," Springer said. "We predicted that
enamel-specific genes such as enamelin would show evidence in
living organisms of molecular decay because these genes are
vestigial and no longer necessary for survival."
Now his lab has found evidence of such molecular "cavities" in
the genomes of living organisms. Using modern gene sequencing
technology, Meredith discovered mutations in the enamelin gene
that disrupt how the enamelin protein is coded, resulting in
obliteration of the genetic blueprint for the enamelin protein.
Results of the study appear in the Sept. 4 issue of the
open-access journal PLoS Genetics.
Darwin argued that all organisms are descended from one or a few
organisms and that natural selection drives evolutionary change.
The fossil record demonstrates that the first mammals had teeth
with enamel. Mammals without enamel therefore must have descended
from mammals with enamel-covered teeth.
"We could therefore predict that nonfunctional vestiges of the
genes that code for enamel should be found in mammals that lack
enamel," Springer said. "When we made our predictions, however,
we did not have sequences for the enamelin gene in toothless and
enamelless mammals. Since then my lab worked on obtaining these
sequences so we could test our prediction."
Previous studies in evolutionary biology have provided only
limited evidence linking morphological degeneration in the fossil
record to molecular decay in the genome. The study led by
Springer takes advantage of the hardness of enamel and teeth to
provide more robust evidence for the linkage.
"The molecular counterpart to vestigial organs is pseudogenes
that are descended from formerly functional genes," Springer
explained. "In our research we clearly see the parallel evolution
of enamel loss in the fossil record and the molecular decay of
the enamelin gene into a pseudogene in representatives of four
different orders of mammals that have lost enamel."
Broadly, the research involved the following steps: First,
Meredith collected the DNA sequences for the enamelin gene in
different mammals. Next, the researchers analyzed sequences using
a variety of molecular evolutionary methods, including new
approaches developed by Springer's group. Finally, the group used
the results of their analyses to test previous hypotheses and
generate new ones.
"Currently, we are actively engaged in deciphering the
evolutionary history of other genes that are involved in enamel
formation," Springer said.
Authors of the study are Springer; Meredith, a postdoctoral
scholar in Springer's lab; Gatesy, an associate professor of
biology; William Murphy of Texas A&M University; and Oliver Ryder
of the San Diego Zoo's Institute for Conservation Research,
Calif. Meredith, the first author of the research paper,
performed all the lab work and, under guidance from Springer and
Gatesy, ran most of the computer analyses.
The research was supported in part by an Assembling the Tree of
Life grant to Springer and Gatesy from the National Science
Foundation.
Bob LeChevalier
>Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
>molecular decay? That's a loss of information in the genome.
>Their version of evolution states new information is created in
>the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
>possible via physical mutations).
Only for someone clueless about the concept of "information" being
used, like you.
Otherwise, a mutation BY DEFINITION introduces new information.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
VoiceOfReason
gabriel wrote:
> Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
> molecular decay? That's a loss of information in the genome.
> Their version of evolution states new information is created in
> the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
> possible via physical mutations).
Read up on Huntington's Disease. New information (mutation) in the
genome results in the disease.
> More dishonest (or ignorance)
> passed off as supporting their beliefs in an unobservable,
> untestable, unverifiable fish to man version of evolution.
>
> www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090904071650.htm
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/09/12/news-to-note-09122009#two
Answers in Genesis perpetuates ignorance.
Rusty Sites
> Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
> molecular decay? That's a loss of information in the genome.
> Their version of evolution states new information is created in
> the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
> possible via physical mutations).
Evolutionary biologists don't really talk much about information.
Defining information in this context, which you never do, would be very
difficult and not really useful. Bogus arguments about information are
introduced by evolution deniers as a convoluted and ill-formed case
against the possibility of evolution. Showing that new genes are
possible is quite easy. Mutations are observed to happen. If they
happen in the right sequence they will produce a new useful gene. You
seem to be saying that, because in some cases evolution involved new
"information", it says "information" can't be lost. This is simply
dishonesty on your part. New genes form and old ones get lost through
decay. There is no contradiction. Observations of molecular decay such
as those made in this article are not new. The ice fish which has a
nonfunctional hemoglobin gene is a famous example.
> More dishonest (or ignorance)
> passed off as supporting their beliefs in an unobservable,
> untestable, unverifiable fish to man version of evolution.
You claim that evolution is unobservable, untestable, and unverifiable
but you have said that theories of the life cycles of stars are
testable, verifiable, and observable. Nobody has ever seen stars
progress from one stage to another (except for supernova explosions)
because these changes take millions or billions of years. Explain what
makes stellar evolution observable, testable, and verifiable while
biological evolution is not. I think you have no idea what you are
talking about and are just blowing smoke. You just don't have an ax to
grind with respect to stellar evolution.
>
> www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090904071650.htm
>
> www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/09/12/news-to-note-09122009#two
>
Dan Listermann
"Rusty Sites" <Spame...@spamex.com> wrote in message
news:JZOdnd74Ea0JgyzX...@supernews.com...
> You claim that evolution is unobservable, untestable, and unverifiable but
> you have said that theories of the life cycles of stars are testable,
> verifiable, and observable. Nobody has ever seen stars progress from one
> stage to another (except for supernova explosions) because these changes
> take millions or billions of years. Explain what makes stellar evolution
> observable, testable, and verifiable while biological evolution is not. I
> think you have no idea what you are talking about and are just blowing
> smoke. You just don't have an ax to grind with respect to stellar
> evolution.
>
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
: >molecular decay? That's a loss of information in the genome.
: >Their version of evolution states new information is created in
: >the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
: >possible via physical mutations).
:
: Only for someone clueless about the concept of "information" being
: used, like you.
:
: Otherwise, a mutation BY DEFINITION introduces new information.
Please cite a scientific reference, quoting the part that
indicates a mutation creates brand new information, rather than
more accurately corrupting what was already there.
:
: lojbab
gabriel
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
:
:
: gabriel wrote:
: > Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
: > molecular decay? That's a loss of information in the genome.
: > Their version of evolution states new information is created in
: > the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
: > possible via physical mutations).
:
: Read up on Huntington's Disease. New information (mutation) in the
: genome results in the disease.
I've never seen such claims about that disease. Please cite
scientific proof that new information is created, rather than
information that was already there gets corrupted. And please
quote the relevant sentences. Thank you.
:
: > More dishonest (or ignorance)
gabriel
<Spame...@spamex.com> wrote:
: gabriel wrote:
: > Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
: > molecular decay? That's a loss of information in the genome.
: > Their version of evolution states new information is created in
: > the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
: > possible via physical mutations).
:
: Evolutionary biologists don't really talk much about information.
: Defining information in this context, which you never do, would be very
: difficult and not really useful.
Actually it is critically useful - it's information, and the
ability for that information to be decoded and acted upon, that
directs the construction of a living animal. Quite complex and
intelligent information to say the least.
: Bogus arguments about information are
: introduced by evolution deniers as a convoluted and ill-formed case
: against the possibility of evolution.
Or perhaps it's bogus arguments against the undeniable logic of
what meaningfully encoded information logically proves by
creation deniers as a convoluted and ill-formed case against the
possibility of creation.
: Showing that new genes are
: possible is quite easy. Mutations are observed to happen.
Bold claim. Now please cite scientific proof (and quote the
relevant passages) that mutations have created brand new
information in the genome, rather than what they really do:
corrupt the information that was already there.
: If they
: >
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:25:23 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
>: >molecular decay? That's a loss of information in the genome.
>: >Their version of evolution states new information is created in
>: >the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
>: >possible via physical mutations).
>:
>: Only for someone clueless about the concept of "information" being
>: used, like you.
>:
>: Otherwise, a mutation BY DEFINITION introduces new information.
>
>Please cite a scientific reference, quoting the part that
>indicates a mutation creates brand new information, rather than
>more accurately corrupting what was already there.
Please show us how you can tell the difference between "new information"
and "corrupting". You must understand, though, that DNA and genes are
not information in the sense that you appear to think it is.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:45:24 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
><papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
>:
>:
>: gabriel wrote:
>: > Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
>: > molecular decay? That's a loss of information in the genome.
>: > Their version of evolution states new information is created in
>: > the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
>: > possible via physical mutations).
>:
>: Read up on Huntington's Disease. New information (mutation) in the
>: genome results in the disease.
>
>I've never seen such claims about that disease. Please cite
>scientific proof that new information is created, rather than
>information that was already there gets corrupted. And please
>quote the relevant sentences. Thank you.
Read the Wikipedia entry. It is informative and written at a level
accessible to non-scientists:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntington%27s_disease>. No, I am not
going to pick out just one sentence for you to misunderstand. If you
can't be bothered to read a short article about it, you are
demonstrating that you don't give a damn about your bogus argument.
If you bothered to learn anything about science, you wouldn't be asking
for 'scientific proofs' all the time. They don't exist in a rigorous
sense. Scientists gather evidence. Please learn the difference.
You still haven't explained triticale to me. Why is that?
>: > More dishonest (or ignorance)
>: > passed off as supporting their beliefs in an unobservable,
>: > untestable, unverifiable fish to man version of evolution.
>: >
>: > www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090904071650.htm
>: >
>: > www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/09/12/news-to-note-09122009#two
>:
>: Answers in Genesis perpetuates ignorance.
That is why Gabriel worships it. Ignorance is Gabe's god.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:21:20 -0700, Rusty Sites
><Spame...@spamex.com> wrote:
>
>: gabriel wrote:
>: > Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
>: > molecular decay? That's a loss of information in the genome.
>: > Their version of evolution states new information is created in
>: > the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
>: > possible via physical mutations).
>:
>: Evolutionary biologists don't really talk much about information.
>: Defining information in this context, which you never do, would be very
>: difficult and not really useful.
>
>Actually it is critically useful - it's information, and the
>ability for that information to be decoded and acted upon, that
>directs the construction of a living animal. Quite complex and
>intelligent information to say the least.
You are still confusing yourself with your analogy. There is complexity,
but there is not a shred of evidence that intelligence had anything to
do with genes. You know that, yet you tell us that falsehood anyway. Why
do you insist on repeating falsehoods?
>: Bogus arguments about information are
>: introduced by evolution deniers as a convoluted and ill-formed case
>: against the possibility of evolution.
>
>Or perhaps it's bogus arguments against the undeniable logic of
>what meaningfully encoded information logically proves by
>creation deniers as a convoluted and ill-formed case against the
>possibility of creation.
But it isn't encoded information. You need to learn something about
genese before you repeat more false claims.
>: Showing that new genes are
>: possible is quite easy. Mutations are observed to happen.
>
>Bold claim. Now please cite scientific proof (and quote the
>relevant passages) that mutations have created brand new
>information in the genome, rather than what they really do:
>corrupt the information that was already there.
You really don't know what you are talking about. You don't have to
prove your proud ignorance in every post.
By the way, when will you explain triticale using your bogus,
unscientific arguments?
VoiceOfReason
gabriel wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:45:24 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
> <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :
> : gabriel wrote:
> : > Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
> : > molecular decay? That's a loss of information in the genome.
> : > Their version of evolution states new information is created in
> : > the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
> : > possible via physical mutations).
> :
> : Read up on Huntington's Disease. New information (mutation) in the
> : genome results in the disease.
>
> I've never seen such claims about that disease. Please cite
> scientific proof that new information is created, rather than
> information that was already there gets corrupted. And please
> quote the relevant sentences. Thank you.
Such is the dishonesty of creationists. ANY mutation works on
existing DNA. That's how it works. A mutation to a gene causes the
body to develop Huntington's disease. The body didn't "know" how to
do that before the mutation, so yes, there is new information in the
gene.
AusShane
I don't think you know what you mean when you infer 'information' in
the genome. This is a very misleading use of the word....
Bob LeChevalier
>: Otherwise, a mutation BY DEFINITION introduces new information.
>
>Please cite a scientific reference, quoting the part that
>indicates a mutation creates brand new information, rather than
>more accurately corrupting what was already there.
Scientific references don't discuss "creation" or "corruption" of
information, since it is a creationist red herring.
Scientific references don't discuss the flying spaghetti monster,
either.
Bob LeChevalier
>Actually it is critically useful - it's information, and the
>ability for that information to be decoded and acted upon, that
>directs the construction of a living animal. Quite complex and
>intelligent information to say the least.
Information is not intelligent.
>: Showing that new genes are
>: possible is quite easy. Mutations are observed to happen.
>
>Bold claim. Now please cite scientific proof (and quote the
>relevant passages) that mutations have created brand new
>information in the genome, rather than what they really do:
>corrupt the information that was already there.
Mutation in the genome means that at least one different base pair
exists where it did not exist before. Since triplets of base pairs in
parts of the DNA encode amino acids, a mutation leads to the formation
of at least one different amino acid. This in turn leads to a
different protein. Since a protein is still formed, it is not a
"corruption". Since the protein is different, it is "new
information". Source: any textbook on genetics.
AusShane
> gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Actually it is critically useful - it's information, and the
> >ability for that information to be decoded and acted upon, that
> >directs the construction of a living animal. Quite complex and
> >intelligent information to say the least.
>
Information is not intelligent.
Quite right Bob information is not intelligent, and you cannot infer
intelligence from the existence of the organised, complex structures
that gabriel mislabels as 'information'.
gabriel
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
:
:
: gabriel wrote:
: > On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:45:24 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
Disease is the *corruption* of DNA (hence the word mutation) -
breaking it as it were information that was *already there* so
that things do not function as they were designed to do - hence
you get diseases and worse - not the creation of new information
which you incorrectly claim, and still cannot back up when asked.
Take care.
Devils Advocaat
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:45:24 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
>
>
> :
> :: gabriel wrote:
>
> : > Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
> : > molecular decay? That's a loss of information in the genome.
> : > Their version of evolution states new information is created in
> : > the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
> : > possible via physical mutations).
> :
> : Read up on Huntington's Disease. New information (mutation) in the
> : genome results in the disease.
>
> I've never seen such claims about that disease. Please cite
> scientific proof that new information is created, rather than
> information that was already there gets corrupted. And please
> quote the relevant sentences. Thank you.
Perhaps you need to clarify what you mean by "new information", and
while you are at it, what evidence do you have that supports your
contention that a single human cell contains more information than the
entire Encyclopedia Britannica?
>
> :
AusShane
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:18:28 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
>
>
> :
> :: gabriel wrote:
>
> : > On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:45:24 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason: > <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>
> : >
> : > :
> : > :
> : > : gabriel wrote:
> : > : > Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
> : > : > molecular decay? That's a loss of information in the genome.
> : > : > Their version of evolution states new information is created in
> : > : > the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
> : > : > possible via physical mutations).
> : > :
> : > : Read up on Huntington's Disease. New information (mutation) in the
> : > : genome results in the disease.
> : >
> : > I've never seen such claims about that disease. Please cite
> : > scientific proof that new information is created, rather than
> : > information that was already there gets corrupted. And please
> : > quote the relevant sentences. Thank you.
> :
> : Such is the dishonesty of creationists. ANY mutation works on
> : existing DNA. That's how it works. A mutation to a gene causes the
> : body to develop Huntington's disease. The body didn't "know" how to
> : do that before the mutation, so yes, there is new information in the
> : gene.
>
> Disease is the *corruption* of DNA (hence the word mutation) -
> breaking it as it were information that was *already there* so
> that things do not function as they were designed to do - hence
> you get diseases and worse - not the creation of new information
> which you incorrectly claim, and still cannot back up when asked.
>
> Take care.
You are still not clear on what you mean by information. Nor how you
can infer intelligent input by what you mislabel as information
VoiceOfReason
Of course there's new information. Again, the example of Huntington's
Disease.
The mutation in the affected gene causes the body to produce the
huntingtin protein, which causes the damage of Huntington's Disease.
The cell didn't produce the protein before; now it does. The cell is
doing something new because of the new information coded into the
mutated gene.
As far as "it's only rearranged," consider another simple example,
three words: "Dog bites man." The sentence contains information. If
it's rearranged into "Man bites dog," the same words are there, but
the information has changed. Hence, new information is created simply
by rearranging the sequence.
If you do not understand these simple examples, then it's time to do a
little research on information theory.
VoiceOfReason
Take the example of "old information" as the letters of the alphabet.
Rearrange some and duplicate others until you have a Shakespearean
sonnet. Obviously there's new information. Just as obviously,
creationists will deny it.
Devils Advocaat
> Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
> molecular decay?
You have a problem with a loss of structures as evidence of evolution?
> That's a loss of information in the genome.
Why is that a problem for you?
> Their version of evolution states new information is created in
> the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
> possible via physical mutations).
Which "they" are you referring to?
What do you mean by "new information"?
Are you suggesting that there are mutations that are not physical?
> More dishonest (or ignorance)
> passed off as supporting their beliefs in an unobservable,
> untestable, unverifiable fish to man version of evolution.
>
Why do you insist that evolution cannot be observed, tested or
verified?
Does this mean you reject anything that cannot be observed, tested or
verified?
AusShane
information from an intelligent source....
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: Otherwise, a mutation BY DEFINITION introduces new information.
: >
: >Please cite a scientific reference, quoting the part that
: >indicates a mutation creates brand new information, rather than
: >more accurately corrupting what was already there.
:
: Scientific references don't discuss "creation" or "corruption" of
: information, since it is a creationist red herring.
:
: Scientific references don't discuss the flying spaghetti monster,
: either.
You said:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:25:23 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
: >molecular decay? That's a loss of information in the genome.
: >Their version of evolution states new information is created in
: >the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
: >possible via physical mutations).
:
: Only for someone clueless about the concept of "information" being
: used, like you.
:
: Otherwise, a mutation BY DEFINITION introduces new information.
Please cite a scientific reference, quoting the part that backs
up what you claim: that a mutation creates/intruduces, whatever
you want to call making new information, rather than more
accurately corrupting the information that was already there.
:
: lojbab
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:46:51 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
triticale
gabriel
<qua...@live.com> wrote:
Not at all - it fits the definition perfectly. Information: a
collection of data - similar to computers: processed data - and
this data is meaningfully decoded and acted upon to do what the
information indicates should be done. More complex (and
miraculous) than any computer and computer program ever designed
and built.
But people don't object when we call a program and the data it
works on meaningfully encoded "information" - because there's
nothing uncomfortable about that truth. But when we bring up the
truth that it means life was clearly designed, the discomfort of
even the possibility of the truth of God and being accountable
for our actions, leads people to start making silly claims such
data is no longer information. =(
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 01:49:47 -0700 (PDT), AusShane
><qua...@live.com> wrote:
...
>: I don't think you know what you mean when you infer 'information' in
>: the genome. This is a very misleading use of the word....
>
>Not at all - it fits the definition perfectly. Information: a
>collection of data - similar to computers: processed data - and
>this data is meaningfully decoded and acted upon to do what the
>information indicates should be done. More complex (and
>miraculous) than any computer and computer program ever designed
>and built.
>
>But people don't object when we call a program and the data it
>works on meaningfully encoded "information" - because there's
>nothing uncomfortable about that truth. But when we bring up the
>truth that it means life was clearly designed, the discomfort of
>even the possibility of the truth of God and being accountable
>for our actions, leads people to start making silly claims such
>data is no longer information. =(
You've done a fine job of demonstrating that you have no idea what you
are talking about.
AusShane
works on meaningfully encoded "information" - because there's
nothing uncomfortable about that truth. But when we bring up the
truth that it means life was clearly designed, the discomfort of
even the possibility of the truth of God and being accountable
for our actions, leads people to start making silly claims such
I think your fallacy lies in your interpretation of 'meaningfully
encoded'. The only 'meaning' that can be inferred from the complex and
organised structure of the genome is the simple fact that it encodes
for proteins. Any change in that structure would sometimes encode for
a protein that the original genome did not. In other words the new
structure has no more 'meaning' than a historical perspective of how
it changed. Your analogy of information in the genome being akin to
someone typing a letter is specious logic. There are multiple examples
in nature of complex organised structured 'information' that exist
from purely naturalistic sources.
Cory Albrecht
> Please cite a scientific reference, quoting the part that backs
> up what you claim: that a mutation creates/intruduces, whatever
> you want to call making new information, rather than more
> accurately corrupting the information that was already there.
Polyploid mutations in plants. How come you never respond to that, Gabriel?
Also, can you please say how you distinguish between "corruption of
information" and "addition of new information" when a mutation happens.
Bob LeChevalier
"corruption" = "new information".
Cory Albrecht
> gabriel wrote, on 09-10-03 04:13 PM:
>> Please cite a scientific reference, quoting the part that backs
>> up what you claim: that a mutation creates/intruduces, whatever
>> you want to call making new information, rather than more
>> accurately corrupting the information that was already there.
>
> Polyploid mutations in plants. How come you never respond to that, Gabriel?
Well, Gabriel? Why is it that you never respond to the answer of
polyploid mutations when you ask that question?
> Also, can you please say how you distinguish between "corruption of
> information" and "addition of new information" when a mutation happens.
And why is it that you never answer this one, either?
AusShane
Hmm he's gone quiet again - questions too hard
gabriel
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
:
:
: gabriel wrote:
: > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:18:28 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
A disease is not new information - it's corruption of information
that was already there. To claim it's creating new information is
like saying when a hard-drive with "War and Peace" gets
corrupted, new chapters get written (beneficial information). Or
like saying the chapters that get corrupted change what the story
says in the chapter (beneficial information). What really happens
is the story becomes unreadable in those spots - loss of
information - never creation of new beneficial information,
unless you want to call unreadable characters or nonsensical
stringing together of random letters in such a case "new,
beneficial information," which is exactly what evolutionists try
to do in the case of mutated genes.
Please cite scientific papers, quoting relevant parts, that prove
mutations generate new beneficial information rather than merely
corrupted what information is already there, showing it's really
information loss.
:
: The mutation in the affected gene causes the body to produce the
: huntingtin protein,
Not true - the hunting tin gene, as it's called, provides the
genetic information for the hunting tin protein that is *already
being produced* that has an unknown role in nerve cells, this
protein being called "hunting tin." These proteins being produced
before there's any mutation, having some sort of job to do with
nerve cells.
: which causes the damage of Huntington's Disease.
: The cell didn't produce the protein before; now it does.
Not true - The mutation of the hunting tin gene information
causes the hunting protein that was already being produced to now
not function properly for nerve cells, as it was not created
properly, and now that protein will instead cause gradual damage
to specific parts of the brain - this is the disease: mutation of
the gene information changes the hunting tin proteins that were
already being produced to now cause damage to the brain.
Again: mutations corrupting information, therefore corruption of
the proteins already being created, not creating new information.
: The cell is
: doing something new because of the new information coded into the
: mutated gene.
The cell is not doing something new - it's now damaging the brain
because it's faulty / broken / diseased due to the mutation.
Hardly the creation of new, beneficial information required for
the belief of evolutionism (the fish to man version of
evolution).
The cell is broken because of the mutation, producing damage.
What you believe is mutation generates new, beneficial
information, of which you still haven't cited a single scientific
test that proves this happens, only another case that proves it
doesn't.
:
: As far as "it's only rearranged," consider another simple example,
: three words: "Dog bites man." The sentence contains information. If
: it's rearranged into "Man bites dog," the same words are there, but
: the information has changed. Hence, new information is created simply
: by rearranging the sequence.
Faulty example - see correct example above on corruption of War
and Peace.
:
: If you do not understand these simple examples, then it's time to do a
: little research on information theory.
Please research Huntington's Disease - you clearly had no idea
hunting tin proteins were always being created with an actual job
to do - they only become damaging to the brain when they are
mutated do to the corruption of information.
gabriel
<qua...@live.com> wrote:
Most likely if bits on a computer hard drive being called
information (information that is meaningfully decoded and acted
upon just like DNA) would imply the possible existence of God
(which of course in the case of a computer it doesn't - it only
proves the existence of intelligent human beings), God-rejecters
would probably be here saying "what do you mean by information"
and "you are mislabeling it as information".
Does a computer program qualify as information? Of course - it is
information meaningfully decoded and acted upon (and it's also no
threat to the need to reject God, so that truth is easy to
admit). In like manner, DNA is information that is meaningfully
decoded and acted upon to create the complexities of life, all to
the glory of God.
When a computer program gets corrupted, does it damage the
ability for it to be meaningfully decoded to do what it was
designed to do? Of course. In like manner, when DNA is corrupted
via mutations, the ability for it to be meaningfully decoded to
do what it was designed to do is also damaged.
In the meantime, if you wish to claim it's not information,
please prove that it's not even though it clearly has a role like
any other information.
Cory Albrecht
> A disease is not new information - it's corruption of information
> that was already there. To claim it's creating new information is
> like saying when a hard-drive with "War and Peace" gets
Please show how you objectively differentiate between "corruption of
information" and "new information" in the genome.
> corrupted, new chapters get written (beneficial information). Or
> like saying the chapters that get corrupted change what the story
> says in the chapter (beneficial information). What really happens
> is the story becomes unreadable in those spots - loss of
> information - never creation of new beneficial information,
> unless you want to call unreadable characters or nonsensical
> stringing together of random letters in such a case "new,
> beneficial information," which is exactly what evolutionists try
> to do in the case of mutated genes.
>
> Please cite scientific papers, quoting relevant parts, that prove
> mutations generate new beneficial information rather than merely
> corrupted what information is already there, showing it's really
> information loss.
E. coli evolving the ability to metabolize citrate.
AusShane
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:57:06 -0700 (PDT), AusShane
>
Your fallacy exists in your inference that the genetic code is somehow
so ordered and complex that it must have been written by some cosmic
encoder. The 'information' you wrongly allude to is physical
structure. The only information the genome contains is the pattern of
base pairs that encode for protein. Sometimes when the genome mutates
the rearrangement encodes for a different protein. This can be
beneficial to the organism as the variation sometimes gives it a
reproductive advantage. Again the only information is a chronological
record of the changes. Try reading Lenskis work with E Coli - It
really does explain all this beautifully. What you are trying to prove
is that there is a meaning behind the complexity and an intent behind
the physical structure - other than to encode for proteins.
As for seeking any 'intelligence' behind your argument from
incredulity here are two examples of complex and ordered information
from a totally natural source.
The spectrum of light that radiates from the sun displays a complex
informational structure. It is specific in that the wavelengths relate
to the temperature of the processes whereby that light was radiated.
It also contains complex information (dark lines) at specific
intervals called fraunhofer lines. These lines relate to very specific
energies at which the light was absorbed via photoelectric processes.
Those energies relate to specific binding energies of the various
electron shells of the elements with which the light interacted, ie
helium hydrogen calcium etc. From this information we can deduce the
elements of which the sun is made. This information is specific,
ordered and complex, yet it originates via a completely naturalistic
non intelligent process.
Before mankind evolved all that mass of complex coded information did
was warm rocks and power plants. By analysing the spectrum human
intelligence was able to deduce specific information regarding solar
processes and structure. By your analogy the sun must be therefore
intelligent and trying to send us a message.
The radio wave emissions from pulsars are also non random patterns of
'information' In fact when they were first discovered there was
speculation that they were signals from intelligent beings - the
emissions are that accurate. But of course they are not, just another
example of nature.
VoiceOfReason
One of the definitions of "new" is: "of recent origin, production,
purchase, etc.; having but lately come or been brought into being: a
new book."
So again, your claim is nonsense. The body's cells are performing an
action that they were not performing before. Hence, new information.
> To claim it's creating new information is
> like saying when a hard-drive with "War and Peace" gets
> corrupted, new chapters get written (beneficial information). Or
> like saying the chapters that get corrupted change what the story
> says in the chapter (beneficial information). What really happens
> is the story becomes unreadable in those spots - loss of
> information - never creation of new beneficial information,
> unless you want to call unreadable characters or nonsensical
> stringing together of random letters in such a case "new,
> beneficial information," which is exactly what evolutionists try
> to do in the case of mutated genes.
>
> Please cite scientific papers, quoting relevant parts, that prove
> mutations generate new beneficial information rather than merely
> corrupted what information is already there, showing it's really
> information loss.
Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
Beneficial Mutation–Selection Balance and the Effect of Linkage on
Positive Selection
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/176/3/1759
I eagerly await your predictable denial of well-documented facts.
> :
> : The mutation in the affected gene causes the body to produce the
> : huntingtin protein,
>
> Not true - the hunting tin gene, as it's called, provides the
> genetic information for the hunting tin protein that is *already
> being produced* that has an unknown role in nerve cells, this
> protein being called "hunting tin." These proteins being produced
> before there's any mutation, having some sort of job to do with
> nerve cells.
Yes, I simplified the details behind Huntington's disease in the
(apparently vain) hope that you would grasp the concept. I stand
corrected.
> : which causes the damage of Huntington's Disease.
> : The cell didn't produce the protein before; now it does.
>
> Not true - The mutation of the hunting tin gene information
> causes the hunting protein that was already being produced to now
> not function properly for nerve cells, as it was not created
> properly, and now that protein will instead cause gradual damage
> to specific parts of the brain - this is the disease: mutation of
> the gene information changes the hunting tin proteins that were
> already being produced to now cause damage to the brain.
>
> Again: mutations corrupting information, therefore corruption of
> the proteins already being created, not creating new information.
Again, we see a new function, thus new information.
> : The cell is
> : doing something new because of the new information coded into the
> : mutated gene.
>
> The cell is not doing something new - it's now damaging the brain
> because it's faulty / broken / diseased due to the mutation.
> Hardly the creation of new, beneficial information required for
> the belief of evolutionism (the fish to man version of
> evolution).
>
> The cell is broken because of the mutation, producing damage.
> What you believe is mutation generates new, beneficial
> information, of which you still haven't cited a single scientific
> test that proves this happens, only another case that proves it
> doesn't.
See above.
> : As far as "it's only rearranged," consider another simple example,
> : three words: "Dog bites man." The sentence contains information. If
> : it's rearranged into "Man bites dog," the same words are there, but
> : the information has changed. Hence, new information is created simply
> : by rearranging the sequence.
>
> Faulty example - see correct example above on corruption of War
> and Peace.
>
> :
> : If you do not understand these simple examples, then it's time to do a
> : little research on information theory.
>
> Please research Huntington's Disease - you clearly had no idea
> hunting tin proteins were always being created with an actual job
> to do - they only become damaging to the brain when they are
> mutated do to the corruption of information.
The body's cells are performing an action that they were not
performing before. Hence, new information. It can't be any more
obvious.
You can go about making up your own personal definitions for "new" and
"information" to suit your own agenda all you want. None of that
changes the fact that we directly observe evolution in action, and
that we beneficial mutations are observed.
Wave your hands all you want, but reality doesn't care.
Bob LeChevalier
>: You are still not clear on what you mean by information. Nor how you
>: can infer intelligent input by what you mislabel as information
>
>Most likely if bits on a computer hard drive being called
>information (information that is meaningfully decoded and acted
>upon just like DNA)
Information is information, regardless of whether something is done
with it.
"Meaning" is an attribute of the decoder, not of the information.
You undoubtedly find greater meaning in the Bible than a nonbeliever
does, yet it is the same Bible with the same amount of information (or
lack thereof).
>would imply the possible existence of God
Not especially
>(which of course in the case of a computer it doesn't - it only
>proves the existence of intelligent human beings)
No, it doesn't.
>When a computer program gets corrupted, does it damage the
>ability for it to be meaningfully decoded to do what it was
>designed to do? Of course. In like manner, when DNA is corrupted
>via mutations, the ability for it to be meaningfully decoded to
>do what it was designed to do is also damaged.
Assuming your conclusion again.
DNA wasn't "designed" to do anything. And mutations don't generally
damage the ability to be decoded. They provide a different decoding,
which will still be used to produce *something*. That which is
produced is not necessarily damaged, either.
>In the meantime, if you wish to claim it's not information,
>please prove that it's not even though it clearly has a role like
>any other information.
The question is not whether it is "information". The question is how
you are determining the QUANTITY of information in a Britannica and in
a genome, so as to compare that quantity. That in turn depends on
your definition of "information". Scientific definitions of
"information" measure it in "bits", in which case comparing the amount
when stored on a disk is quite relevant. If you have a different
definition, provide it. Otherwise, admit that you are the clueless
loser we already recognize you to be.
Bob LeChevalier
>: > Disease is the *corruption* of DNA (hence the word mutation) -
>: > breaking it as it were information that was *already there* so
>: > that things do not function as they were designed to do - hence
>: > you get diseases and worse - not the creation of new information
>: > which you incorrectly claim, and still cannot back up when asked.
>: >
>: > Take care.
>:
>: Of course there's new information. Again, the example of Huntington's
>: Disease.
>
>A disease is not new information - it's corruption of information
>that was already there. To claim it's creating new information is
>like saying when a hard-drive with "War and Peace" gets
>corrupted, new chapters get written (beneficial information). Or
>like saying the chapters that get corrupted change what the story
>says in the chapter (beneficial information). What really happens
>is the story becomes unreadable in those spots - loss of
>information - never creation of new beneficial information,
>unless you want to call unreadable characters or nonsensical
>stringing together of random letters in such a case "new,
>beneficial information," which is exactly what evolutionists try
>to do in the case of mutated genes.
In the genome, a mutation does NOT lead to the information being
unreadable. There is no loss of information, and a mutation MAY lead
to new beneficial information.
gabriel
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: On 16 Sep, 00:47, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
: > molecular decay?
:
: You have a problem with a loss of structures as evidence of evolution?
As evidence of evolutionism (the fish to man version of
evolution), yes, which requires the gain of new information, not
the loss and corruption of information that was already there.
Please show that new information is not needed to evolve from
populations of fish over generations into hippos, giraffes,
eagles and human beings.
:
: > That's a loss of information in the genome.
:
: Why is that a problem for you?
See above.
:
: > Their version of evolution states new information is created in
: > the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
: > possible via physical mutations).
:
: Which "they" are you referring to?
Evolutionists - the ones that believe populations of fish can
(and did) evolve into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings.
:
: What do you mean by "new information"?
What do you mean by populations of fish evolving over generations
in to giraffes, eagles, hippos and human beings? Where'd all the
information in the genome of fish come from to do this? That's
what's meant by "new information".
:
: Are you suggesting that there are mutations that are not physical?
DNA is not physical? Mutations in DNA do not cause physical
mutations that weaken the animal in question?
:
: > More dishonest (or ignorance)
: > passed off as supporting their beliefs in an unobservable,
: > untestable, unverifiable fish to man version of evolution.
: >
: Why do you insist that evolution cannot be observed, tested or
: verified?
By all means show an observation of evolutionism in action (not
the belief it happens when looking at fossils and dead bones).
For example, that populations of [flies] produce, over
generations, animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all.
And you can replace [fruit flies] with any animal alive.
The fact is, actual science DISPROVES evolutionism - it's
repeatedly observable, testable AND verifiable that populations
of [flies] only ever produce, over generations, more [flies], and
never animals that are not [flies], no matter how many
generations go by, no matter how much they adapt and evolve. This
is true for every animal known to man in the entire recorded
history of the human race. So actual science completely falsifies
evolutionism (the fish to man version of evolution) until they
can show otherwise with their own observations and
tests/verifications of it actually happening.
:
: Does this mean you reject anything that cannot be observed, tested or
: verified?
No, it means anything that cannot be observed, tested or verified
cannot qualify as science by definition. You're aware of this
fact whenever anyone tried to point to evidence of God "Show me
an observation or test/verification of God creating anything" -
bingo. But suddenly evolutionists forget what the definition of
science is when pointing to their own beliefs in evolutionism
that are also not observable, not testable/verifiable - and they
hope no one else notices.
gabriel
<qua...@live.com> wrote:
: Still waiting to hear how you can claim the structure of the genome is
: information from an intelligent source....
The structure of the genome is meaningfully decoded and acted
upon to build organisms. In like manner a computer program is
meaningfully decoded and acted upon to generate results.
gabriel
<qua...@live.com> wrote:
: 'But people don't object when we call a program and the data it
: works on meaningfully encoded "information" - because there's
: nothing uncomfortable about that truth. But when we bring up the
: truth that it means life was clearly designed, the discomfort of
: even the possibility of the truth of God and being accountable
: for our actions, leads people to start making silly claims such
: data is no longer information. =( '
:
: I think your fallacy lies in your interpretation of 'meaningfully
: encoded'. The only 'meaning' that can be inferred from the complex and
: organised structure of the genome is the simple fact that it encodes
: for proteins.
I think your fallacy lies in you acting like the information in
the genome is not meaningfully acted upon. If this were true,
then, for example, we wouldn't be giving birth to just human
beings every time life is conceived inside a woman's womb.
: Any change in that structure would sometimes encode for
: a protein that the original genome did not.
That's called mutation, and a mutation leads to different,
unintended, and destructive results in what gets built.
: In other words the new
: structure has no more 'meaning' than a historical perspective of how
: it changed.
Wrong - this new, corrupted information is now not able to be
properly decoded to do it's job, and destructive proteins and
worse result. It's still information.
: Your analogy of information in the genome being akin to
: someone typing a letter is specious logic.
I never mentioned typing. Your claim that I did is straw man
fallacy. I'm talking about the information itself, no matter how
it got there.
: There are multiple examples
: in nature of complex organised structured 'information' that exist
: from purely naturalistic sources.
So now you want to call other structures in nature "information"
but not the DNA that's clearly decoded and acted upon to produce
very specific results? Your fallacy is in changing the definition
of "information" every time you use it to fit your current need.
Devils Advocaat
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:43:58 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
>
> : On 16 Sep, 00:47, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
> : > molecular decay?
> :
> : You have a problem with a loss of structures as evidence of evolution?
>
> As evidence of evolutionism (the fish to man version of
> evolution), yes, which requires the gain of new information, not
> the loss and corruption of information that was already there.
>
> Please show that new information is not needed to evolve from
> populations of fish over generations into hippos, giraffes,
> eagles and human beings.
Where did you get the idea that evolution cannot include the loss of
structures or genetic information?
>
> :
> : > That's a loss of information in the genome.
> :
> : Why is that a problem for you?
>
> See above.
See above.
>
> :
> : > Their version of evolution states new information is created in
> : > the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
> : > possible via physical mutations).
> :
> : Which "they" are you referring to?
>
> Evolutionists - the ones that believe populations of fish can
> (and did) evolve into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings.
>
> :
> : What do you mean by "new information"?
>
> What do you mean by populations of fish evolving over generations
> in to giraffes, eagles, hippos and human beings? Where'd all the
> information in the genome of fish come from to do this? That's
> what's meant by "new information".
>
> :
> : Are you suggesting that there are mutations that are not physical?
>
> DNA is not physical? Mutations in DNA do not cause physical
> mutations that weaken the animal in question?
To refer you back to your previous posting "(which has never been
shown to be possible via physical mutations)".
It was this comment of yours that prompted me to ask you the question
above.
>
> :
> : > More dishonest (or ignorance)
> : > passed off as supporting their beliefs in an unobservable,
> : > untestable, unverifiable fish to man version of evolution.
> : >
> : Why do you insist that evolution cannot be observed, tested or
> : verified?
>
> By all means show an observation of evolutionism in action (not
> the belief it happens when looking at fossils and dead bones).
> For example, that populations of [flies] produce, over
> generations, animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all.
> And you can replace [fruit flies] with any animal alive.
Examples of speciation that have been observed have been posted in
this newsgroup and in talk.origins too, perhaps you have simply not
bothered to examine them.
By the way dismissing a particular line of evidence, such as the
fossil record, doesn't prove that it doesn't support evolutionary
theory.
>
> The fact is, actual science DISPROVES evolutionism - it's
> repeatedly observable, testable AND verifiable that populations
> of [flies] only ever produce, over generations, more [flies], and
> never animals that are not [flies], no matter how many
> generations go by, no matter how much they adapt and evolve. This
> is true for every animal known to man in the entire recorded
> history of the human race. So actual science completely falsifies
> evolutionism (the fish to man version of evolution) until they
> can show otherwise with their own observations and
> tests/verifications of it actually happening.
Okay if you are so sure that "actual science" disproves the theory of
evolution, then you present the evidence here for everyone to see.
But I guess that wont happen as there is no such evidence.
>
> :
> : Does this mean you reject anything that cannot be observed, tested or
> : verified?
>
> No, it means anything that cannot be observed, tested or verified
> cannot qualify as science by definition. You're aware of this
> fact whenever anyone tried to point to evidence of God "Show me
> an observation or test/verification of God creating anything" -
> bingo. But suddenly evolutionists forget what the definition of
> science is when pointing to their own beliefs in evolutionism
> that are also not observable, not testable/verifiable - and they
> hope no one else notices.
Seems to me you have some studying to do on what lines of evidence are
available that support the theory of evolution.
May I suggest that you take some time out to read sources other than
those that oppose it.
Ron Dean
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:48:34 -0400, gabriel
> <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>> <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>>
>> :
>> :
>> : > Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
>> : > Their version of evolution states new information is created in
>> : > the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
>> : > possible via physical mutations).
>> :
>> : genome results in the disease.
>>
>> I've never seen such claims about that disease. Please cite
>> scientific proof that new information is created, rather than
>> information that was already there gets corrupted. And please
>> quote the relevant sentences. Thank you.
>
> accessible to non-scientists:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntington%27s_disease>. No, I am not
> going to pick out just one sentence for you to misunderstand. If you
> can't be bothered to read a short article about it, you are
> demonstrating that you don't give a damn about your bogus argument.
>
I read this. I not sure as to how this article supports your claim.
Repeated counts of existing information does not constitute
new information any more than repeated copies of the Wikipedia article
increases information. Which I did when I printed this article.
>
> If you bothered to learn anything about science, you wouldn't be asking
> for 'scientific proofs' all the time. They don't exist in a rigorous
> sense. Scientists gather evidence. Please learn the difference.
>
> You still haven't explained triticale to me. Why is that?
>
>> : > More dishonest (or ignorance)
>> : > passed off as supporting their beliefs in an unobservable,
>> : > untestable, unverifiable fish to man version of evolution.
>> : >
>> : >
>> : > www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/09/12/news-to-note-09122009#two
>> :
>> : Answers in Genesis perpetuates ignorance.
>
> That is why Gabriel worships it. Ignorance is Gabe's god.
Ron Dean
>
> gabriel wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:45:24 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
>> <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>>
>> :
>> :
>> : gabriel wrote:
>> : > Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
>> : > molecular decay? That's a loss of information in the genome.
>> : > Their version of evolution states new information is created in
>> : > the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
>> : > possible via physical mutations).
>> :
>> : Read up on Huntington's Disease. New information (mutation) in the
>> : genome results in the disease.
>>
>> I've never seen such claims about that disease. Please cite
>> scientific proof that new information is created, rather than
>> information that was already there gets corrupted. And please
>> quote the relevant sentences. Thank you.
>
> existing DNA. That's how it works. A mutation to a gene causes the
> body to develop Huntington's disease. The body didn't "know" how to
> do that before the mutation, so yes, there is new information in the
> gene.
>
in all mammals). Are you saying that repeating the same information
increases total information? I do not understand. this.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 20:10:52 -0700 (PDT), AusShane
><qua...@live.com> wrote:
>
>: Still waiting to hear how you can claim the structure of the genome is
>: information from an intelligent source....
>
>The structure of the genome is meaningfully decoded and acted
>upon to build organisms.
Sometimes, but what happens is controlled by the chemical environment.
>In like manner a computer program is
>meaningfully decoded and acted upon to generate results.
We already know that genes change over time. Self-modifying code is not
really like the changes in the genome.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:43:58 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
><mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>: On 16 Sep, 00:47, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: > Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
>: > molecular decay?
>:
>: You have a problem with a loss of structures as evidence of evolution?
>
>As evidence of evolutionism (the fish to man version of
>evolution),
SNIP
Gabriel, you deserve nothing but mockery and ridicule until you bother
to learn what evolution is and how the theory of evolution explains it
today. You continue to repeat your strawman version that we are heartily
sick of. Why can't you stop lying? What will it take to get you to tell
the truth?
--
Here is what Jesus said would happen to those who are intentionally
ignorant:
"Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten
talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an
abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from
him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where
there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Ron Dean
is caused by excessively repeating gene counts.
Bob LeChevalier
>> Read the Wikipedia entry. It is informative and written at a level
>> accessible to non-scientists:
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntington%27s_disease>. No, I am not
>> going to pick out just one sentence for you to misunderstand. If you
>> can't be bothered to read a short article about it, you are
>> demonstrating that you don't give a damn about your bogus argument.
> >
>I read this. I not sure as to how this article supports your claim.
>Repeated counts of existing information does not constitute
>new information
Wrong.
The genome consists of a string of precisely 4 kinds of building
blocks. Using your reasoning, once all 4 building blocks are present,
everything else is not "new information".
Unfortunately for your argument, any change in order or quantity of
even one base pair is "new" information.
Similarly, all text is a combination of a somewhat larger set of
characters, spaces, and punctuation marks.
In the following, I repeat one of the above sentences, adding a second
occurrence of one word. The information in the new sentence is
different (if somewhat less sensible):
Unfortunately for your argument, any change in argument order or
quantity of even one base pair is "new" information.
There are numerous examples where adding or moving or deleting one
word in a sentence changes the information content therein
considerably. The genome is even more robust in this manner as most
any combination of 3 base-pairs codes for some amino acid, making it
far easier to add, move, or change one or more such base-pairs and
still have something meaningful.
Bob LeChevalier
>The disease is caused by repeating the _count_ of the HTT gene, (found
>in all mammals). Are you saying that repeating the same information
>increases total information?
It changes the information.
Take another example of the same thing, which just earned three people
a Nobel. Telomeres consist of numerous repetitions of the same
sequence. Under certain circumstances, one of these repetitions is
lost. When all of them are lost, the cell dies. Thus the number
repetitions encode the programmed lifetime of the cell, and a change
in the number is a change in the programmed lifetime of the cell. That
is a change in information by any standard.
AusShane
>
> : There are multiple examples
> : in nature of complex organised structured 'information' that exist
> : from purely naturalistic sources.
>
> So now you want to call other structures in nature "information"
> but not the DNA that's clearly decoded and acted upon to produce
> very specific results? Your fallacy is in changing the definition
> of "information" every time you use it to fit your current need.
The quotes "information" are used to define YOUR meanings and
inference not mine. We are all fully aware of the work of Dembski and
how he is trying to infer Intelligent Design from the concept of
"information" in the genome. You think we don't know where al this
rambling is going? Most of here are also aware of how easily that
whole stupid concept has been destroyed. This is old news.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
I certainly would never play three-card monte with Mr. Dembski, he is
far too experienced as a con man for me to trust him with anything.
Juan M
this children's poem:
Thoughts on Talkers
Some people talk in a telephone
And some people talk in a hall;
Some people talk in a whisper,
And some people talk in a drawl;
And some people talk-and talk-and-
talk-and-talk-and-talk
And never say anything at all.
Walter R. Brooks
Bob LeChevalier
>: Any change in that structure would sometimes encode for
>: a protein that the original genome did not.
>
>That's called mutation, and a mutation leads to different,
yes
>unintended,
That is YOUR fallacy. There is no "intention" involved. EVERYTHING
in genetics is "unintended".
>and destructive
False. Most mutations are not "destructive" or even harmful. This is
a good thing, since the average human being experiences multiple
mutations in his/her genome every year. Only rarely do these
mutations even have a noticeable effect.
>: In other words the new
>: structure has no more 'meaning' than a historical perspective of how
>: it changed.
>
>Wrong - this new, corrupted
"corrupted" is not a meaningful word.
>information is now not able to be properly decoded
Of course it can be properly decoded. It will be DIFFERENTLY decoded,
but who are YOU to say that there is anything "improper" about it. As
I said, every human being deals with dozens of mutations in their
lives, and this is NORMAL, not "improper".
>to do it's job, and destructive proteins and worse result.
Sometimes, and sometimes the proteins work just fine, and sometimes
they might even work better in certain environments.
>It's still information.
Yes, and since it is different from the old information, it is new
information.
>: There are multiple examples
>: in nature of complex organised structured 'information' that exist
>: from purely naturalistic sources.
>
>So now you want to call other structures in nature "information"
>but not the DNA that's clearly decoded and acted upon to produce
>very specific results? Your fallacy is in changing the definition
>of "information" every time you use it to fit your current need.
You have yet to produce a coherent definition of "information", which
is really rather irrelevant to the subject of evolution, no matter
what definition you use.
AusShane
forgive me if I state the bleedin' obvious and feel free to point out
any facts I have misinterpreted..
"> More dishonest (or ignorance)
: > passed off as supporting their beliefs in an unobservable,
: > untestable, unverifiable fish to man version of evolution. "
I've seen you pass off this hoary old phrase multiple times. The first
point to make is that evolution does not state that fish evolved into
men. The theory of evolution is very clear modern fish and modern
humans are related in the sense that sometime in the distant past we
shared common ancestors. Do we have a complete physical and genetic
record of that speciaition over the past few millenia? Not that I am
aware of (anyone feel free to refute this) - and of course you are
sure of otherwise you wouldn't state it as a core argument.
The point is do we need that unbroken physical record? The answer is
no. The theory of evolution has been substantiated from such a wealth
of facts from all branches of science that we can be sure beyond a
reasonable doubt that the above phenomenon occurred. It has been
clearly stated that we barely need the fossil record at all to prove
the theory, its a nice to have not must have. And the wealth of
evidence has been pointed out to you many times before by far more
capable people than me.
I have also seen you try and use the same logic to validate your
contention that the creation event occurred. The point at which your
argument falls down is that you have no other supporting evidence to
make a reasonable supposition for that unobserved claim, while The
Theory of Evolution does. If perhaps you could get god to drop by and
recreate the universe in miniature in a laboratory or you could
demonstrate the equations for the unified field or fine structure
constant in the bible the hypothesis might be more tenable (The number
of the beast is 136 not 666). But we do not. Instead we come back to
the familiar circular reasoning quote mining, illogical grasp of the
science etc.
Bob LeChevalier
>Mutations in DNA do not cause physical
>mutations that weaken the animal in question?
Usually they don't.
>By all means show an observation of evolutionism in action (not
>the belief it happens when looking at fossils and dead bones).
>For example, that populations of [flies] produce, over
>generations, animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all.
>And you can replace [fruit flies] with any animal alive.
Many times answered.
>The fact is, actual science DISPROVES evolutionism - it's
>repeatedly observable, testable AND verifiable that populations
>of [flies] only ever produce, over generations, more [flies],
Evolution doesn't claim otherwise.
>: Does this mean you reject anything that cannot be observed, tested or
>: verified?
>
>No, it means anything that cannot be observed, tested or verified
>cannot qualify as science by definition.
Science's definition of those three words differs from yours.
You're aware of this
>fact whenever anyone tried to point to evidence of God "Show me
>an observation or test/verification of God creating anything" -
>bingo. But suddenly evolutionists forget what the definition of
>science is when pointing to their own beliefs in evolutionism
>that are also not observable, not testable/verifiable - and they
>hope no one else notices.
Evolution leads to testable predictions, which have been verified..
God leads to no useful science.
Ron Dean
> Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Read the Wikipedia entry. It is informative and written at a level
>>> accessible to non-scientists:
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntington%27s_disease>. No, I am not
>>> going to pick out just one sentence for you to misunderstand. If you
>>> can't be bothered to read a short article about it, you are
>>> demonstrating that you don't give a damn about your bogus argument.
>>>
>> I read this. I not sure as to how this article supports your claim.
>> Repeated counts of existing information does not constitute
>> new information
>
> Wrong.
>
> The genome consists of a string of precisely 4 kinds of building
> blocks. Using your reasoning, once all 4 building blocks are present,
> everything else is not "new information".
>
sets of three called the codon. There are 64 possible combinations,
4x4x4 - each codon expressing for a specific protein, with some minor
variations. This is analogous to our alphabet. It is the order of the
codons and how they are expressed that contains information.
>
> Unfortunately for your argument, any change in order or quantity of
> even one base pair is "new" information.
>
it is the excessive number of counts that causes the disease.
>
> Similarly, all text is a combination of a somewhat larger set of
> characters, spaces, and punctuation marks.
>
>
> In the following, I repeat one of the above sentences, adding a second
> occurrence of one word. The information in the new sentence is
> different (if somewhat less sensible):
> Unfortunately for your argument, any change in argument order or
> quantity of even one base pair is "new" information.
>
HTT gene; just extra counts of the gene.
Ron Dean
> Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The disease is caused by repeating the _count_ of the HTT gene, (found
>> in all mammals). Are you saying that repeating the same information
>> increases total information?
>
> It changes the information.
>
> Take another example of the same thing, which just earned three people
> a Nobel. Telomeres consist of numerous repetitions of the same
> sequence. Under certain circumstances, one of these repetitions is
> lost.
>
cells this can only occur about 50 times, called the Hayflack limit,
then the cell is incapable of further reproduction and dies. This is
the price we pay for becoming multicelluar organisms.
When all of them are lost, the cell dies. Thus the number
> repetitions encode the programmed lifetime of the cell, and a change
> in the number is a change in the programmed lifetime of the cell. That
> is a change in information by any standard.
>
True, but it is cellular aging. This is another extremely interesting
subject. There is research into the causes of this. Each of us has two
kinds of cells: soma and germ cells. It is the soma cells that age and
die. The germ cells are passed on to succeeding generations and do not
age.
Pastor Dave
<qua...@live.com> spake thusly:
>I've seen you pass off this hoary old phrase multiple times. The first
>point to make is that evolution does not state that fish evolved into
>men.
Yea, it does. It is what you believe. And what
I have seen many times, is evolutionists not
'fessing up to the fact that they believe that
it happened.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The most important things in your home are the people.
Devils Advocaat
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:44:06 -0700 (PDT), AusShane
>
> >I've seen you pass off this hoary old phrase multiple times. The first
> >point to make is that evolution does not state that fish evolved into
> >men.
>
> Yea, it does. It is what you believe. And what
> I have seen many times, is evolutionists not
> 'fessing up to the fact that they believe that
> it happened.
If the theory of evolution actually states that fish evolved into men,
then I am sure you will have no trouble providing a citation to a
reputable publication or website that will verify that this is what
the theory of evolution actually says. :)
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:44:06 -0700 (PDT), AusShane
><qua...@live.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>>I've seen you pass off this hoary old phrase multiple times. The first
>>point to make is that evolution does not state that fish evolved into
>>men.
>
>Yea, it does. It is what you believe. And what
>I have seen many times, is evolutionists not
>'fessing up to the fact that they believe that
>it happened.
You really are in no position to tell folks who understand science what
scientists have discovered. You have a consistent commitment to
ignorance, foolishness and dishonesty. Why you think that your immoral
teachings would be considered by anyone is beyond me.
The discoveries about common ancestry tell us that we share a common
ancestry with fish, but not that any fish that you have ever seen is the
common ancestor. As long as you refuse to learn anything about science,
you need to keep quiet so you don't offer another falsehood supposedly
justified by your religion. You teach falsehoods. Learn something about
science and then get back to us.
Ron Dean
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:44:06 -0700 (PDT), AusShane
> <qua...@live.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>> I've seen you pass off this hoary old phrase multiple times. The first
>> point to make is that evolution does not state that fish evolved into
>> men.
>
> Yea, it does. It is what you believe. And what
> I have seen many times, is evolutionists not
> 'fessing up to the fact that they believe that
> it happened.
>
common ancestor through many successive forms fish being
just one in the series through which vertebrates descended.
But there is a long chain of ancesters between fish and homo
sapiens according to evolutionary claims.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:46:51 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: >
: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: >: Otherwise, a mutation BY DEFINITION introduces new information.
: >: >
: >: >Please cite a scientific reference, quoting the part that
: >: >indicates a mutation creates brand new information, rather than
: >: >more accurately corrupting what was already there.
: >:
: >: Scientific references don't discuss "creation" or "corruption" of
: >: information, since it is a creationist red herring.
: >:
: >: Scientific references don't discuss the flying spaghetti monster,
: >: either.
: >
: >You said:
: >On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:25:23 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
: ><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: >
: >: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >: >Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
: >: >molecular decay? That's a loss of information in the genome.
: >: >Their version of evolution states new information is created in
: >: >the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
: >: >possible via physical mutations).
: >:
: >: Only for someone clueless about the concept of "information" being
: >: used, like you.
: >:
: >: Otherwise, a mutation BY DEFINITION introduces new information.
: >
: >Please cite a scientific reference, quoting the part that backs
: >up what you claim: that a mutation creates/intruduces, whatever
: >you want to call making new information, rather than more
: >accurately corrupting the information that was already there.
:
: "corruption" = "new information".
Yes, I know you believe this - please cite a scientific
reference, quoting the part that backs up this claim of yours.
:
: lojbab
gabriel
<coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: gabriel wrote, on 09-10-03 04:13 PM:
: > Please cite a scientific reference, quoting the part that backs
: > up what you claim: that a mutation creates/intruduces, whatever
: > you want to call making new information, rather than more
: > accurately corrupting the information that was already there.
:
: Polyploid mutations in plants. How come you never respond to that, Gabriel?
:
: Also, can you please say how you distinguish between "corruption of
: information" and "addition of new information" when a mutation happens.
You didn't cite the scientific reference, quoting the parts that
back up your claim.
Second of all, your example is about plants, not animals and the
genome. I'm waiting for a scientific reference that mutations
create/introduce new information, rather than corrupting and
making somewhat useless information that was already there.
gabriel
wrote:
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I follow what you wrote. I was asking for
someone to cite a scientific reference, quoting the part that
backs up what they claim: that a mutation creates/introduces, or
whatever you want to call making new information, rather than
more accurately corrupting and making somewhat useless the
information that was already there.
: >
: >
: > :
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 04:26:45 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
You are the one who made random claims that had nothing to do with
science. It's not our duty to disabuse you of every erroneous concept
you have taught yourself.
Stop being so proud of your ignorance. All variances in a gene are
variances, calling them "new information" does not affect that, nor does
it affect what effect they have.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:12:20 -0400, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com>
Scientists don't generally talk about "new information" that is a scam
of the anti-science creationists in trying to explain why their
erroneous doctrine isn't any worse than what scientists have discovered.
Any gene that is different than the predecessor genes adds to the genome
if such a gene has never occured before.
Bob LeChevalier
>Yes, I know you believe this - please cite a scientific
>reference, quoting the part that backs up this claim of yours.
Please cite a peer-reviewed scientific reference that talks about
"corruption of information" as if it were something meaningful.
Ron Dean
repeats of the HTT gene. This was seen as evidence of an addition
to the information stored. I question whether or not additional copies
of the same information constitutes new information, in the same manner
as repeat copying a page from a text book fails to increase information,
regardless of how many times copy is repeated. But I can see how
excessive repeats of the data offers additional raw material
(opportunities) for mutation and natural selection to come into play.
But why does natural selection not act to eliminate this from the gene
pool. In theory it should, but in reality it does not.
Cory Albrecht
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 23:21:37 -0400, Cory Albrecht
> <coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> : gabriel wrote, on 09-10-03 04:13 PM:
> :> Please cite a scientific reference, quoting the part that backs
> :> up what you claim: that a mutation creates/intruduces, whatever
> :> you want to call making new information, rather than more
> :> accurately corrupting the information that was already there.
> :
> : Polyploid mutations in plants. How come you never respond to that, Gabriel?
> :
> : Also, can you please say how you distinguish between "corruption of
> : information" and "addition of new information" when a mutation happens.
You forgot to anwer this question. Why is that, Gabriel?
>
> You didn't cite the scientific reference, quoting the parts that
> back up your claim.
What, you think polyploid Mutations never happen? But OK, I'll give you
some cites though you hypocritically never the favour when it is asked
of you.
POLYPLOID MUTATIONS I N CREPIS. TRIPLOID AND PENTAPLOID MUTANTS OF
CREPIS CAPILLARIS, M. NAVASHIN, Timiriazev Federal Institute of
Scientific Research, Moscow, Russia, Received May 4, 1925
<http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/10/6/583.pdf>
"PATHWAYS, MECHANISMS, AND RATES OF POLYPLOID FORMATION IN FLOWERING PLANTS"
<http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.467>
Polyploid mutations are not an unknown thing, Gabriel.
<http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=polyploid+mutations&btnG=Search>
BTW, did younotice the date of that first one?
And, my favourite one, just from the title alone:
A Model for Divergent, Allopatric Speciation of Polyploid Pteridophytes
Resulting from Silencing of Duplicate-Gene Expression, by Charles R.
Werth and Michael D. Windham © 1991 The University of Chicago Press.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/2462378>
And this abstract of this one, too, is telling,
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9525(03)00015-5>
Understanding mechanisms of novel gene expression in polyploids
"Polyploidy has long been recognized as a prominent force shaping the
evolution of eukaryotes, especially flowering plants. New phenotypes
often arise with polyploid formation and can contribute to the success
of polyploids in nature or their selection for use in agriculture.
Although the causes of novel variation in polyploids are not well
understood, they could involve changes in gene expression through
increased variation in dosage-regulated gene expression, altered
regulatory interactions, and rapid genetic and epigenetic changes. New
research approaches are being used to study these mechanisms and the
results should provide a more complete understanding of polyploidy."
Check and mate, Gabriel.
>
> Second of all, your example is about plants, not animals and the
Goalpost shifting, you hypocrite!
> genome. I'm waiting for a scientific reference that mutations
> create/introduce new information, rather than corrupting and
> making somewhat useless information that was already there.
Why did you forget to answer the question on how does one distinguish
whether a mutation adds new "information" or corrupts existing
"information" in the genome? It is well nigh impossible to give you the
type of information you ask for if you do not define your terms or how
you do your objective measurements.
But then, I'm guessing that's *exactly* why you have yet to say how one
tells the difference between corruption and addition - so that nobody
can possibly answer your demand.
Cory Albrecht
Why should he, when you've never said how one objectively determines
whether a mutation in the genome is "corruption of old information" or
"addition of new information"?
I suspect that you're avoiding providing such a method so you can
continue to play you dishonest little game.
Cory Albrecht
> On 11 Oct, 15:36, Pastor Dave<ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:44:06 -0700 (PDT), AusShane
>> <quar...@live.com> spake thusly:
>>
>>> I've seen you pass off this hoary old phrase multiple times. The first
>>> point to make is that evolution does not state that fish evolved into
>>> men.
>>
>> Yea, it does. It is what you believe. And what
>> I have seen many times, is evolutionists not
>> 'fessing up to the fact that they believe that
>> it happened.
>
> If the theory of evolution actually states that fish evolved into men,
> then I am sure you will have no trouble providing a citation to a
> reputable publication or website that will verify that this is what
> the theory of evolution actually says. :)
Some people consider terms like "ape" or "fish" can only refer to modern
day organisms. These people say things like "the last common ancestor of
chimpanzees and humans was an ape-like animal."
Other people (and this is the group I am in) allow past organisms to be
is no diffincluded in groups like "fish" or "ape" when a) they exhibit
the commonly accepted characteristics that would place a modern animal
in the named group and/or b) the past organism's descendants are only
part of the named group of modern organisms.
As an example of b) take Last Common Ancestor to all of tribe Hominini.
Because gorillas are an out-group of Hominini but are also considered
apes, therefore the LCA of humans and chimps must also be an ape.
Much of this difference between a) and b) is just semantics and
creationists Pastor Dave or Gabriel dishonestly use this semantic
difference to try and make hay even though there is no disagreement on
the facts and cladistics between the a)s and the b)s, merely terminology.
gabriel
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: On 10 Oct, 12:38, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:43:58 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
: >
: > <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: >
: > : On 16 Sep, 00:47, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : > Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
: > : > molecular decay?
: > :
: > : You have a problem with a loss of structures as evidence of evolution?
: >
: > As evidence of evolutionism (the fish to man version of
: > evolution), yes, which requires the gain of new information, not
: > the loss and corruption of information that was already there.
: >
: > Please show that new information is not needed to evolve from
: > populations of fish over generations into hippos, giraffes,
: > eagles and human beings.
:
: Where did you get the idea that evolution cannot include the loss of
: structures or genetic information?
Quote where I said there's no such thing as the _loss_ of
information in the genome. You're now making things up.
So are you now trying to claim the genome of fish had all the
information in their already to eventually evolve into human
beings untold millions of years later? If so, where'd all that
information and instructions come from?
: >
: > :
: > : > That's a loss of information in the genome.
: > :
: > : Why is that a problem for you?
: >
: > See above.
:
: See above.
: >
: > :
: > : > Their version of evolution states new information is created in
: > : > the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
: > : > possible via physical mutations).
: > :
: > : Which "they" are you referring to?
: >
: > Evolutionists - the ones that believe populations of fish can
: > (and did) evolve into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings.
: >
: > :
: > : What do you mean by "new information"?
: >
: > What do you mean by populations of fish evolving over generations
: > in to giraffes, eagles, hippos and human beings? Where'd all the
: > information in the genome of fish come from to do this? That's
: > what's meant by "new information".
: >
: > :
: > : Are you suggesting that there are mutations that are not physical?
: >
: > DNA is not physical? Mutations in DNA do not cause physical
: > mutations that weaken the animal in question?
:
: To refer you back to your previous posting "(which has never been
: shown to be possible via physical mutations)".
:
: It was this comment of yours that prompted me to ask you the question
: above.
: >
: > :
: > : > More dishonest (or ignorance)
: > : > passed off as supporting their beliefs in an unobservable,
: > : > untestable, unverifiable fish to man version of evolution.
: > : >
: > : Why do you insist that evolution cannot be observed, tested or
: > : verified?
: >
: > By all means show an observation of evolutionism in action (not
: > the belief it happens when looking at fossils and dead bones).
: > For example, that populations of [flies] produce, over
: > generations, animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all.
: > And you can replace [fruit flies] with any animal alive.
:
: Examples of speciation that have been observed have been posted in
: this newsgroup and in talk.origins too, perhaps you have simply not
: bothered to examine them.
Speciation: populations of [flies] producing, over generations,
animals that are a new species of [flies], but _still [flies]_.
And never animals that are no longer [flies] at all, which is
what evolutionists believe can (and did) happen.
It's either ignorance or dishonesty to claim that's the same
thing as populations of [flies] producing, over generations,
animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all.
So please show a single observation of the fish to man version of
evolution - because they only show [flies] producing a new
species of [flies] over many generations, then either ignorantly
or dishonestly add the belief this proves fish can evolve, over
generations, into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings. If
you have such an observation and/or test/verification to back up
this belief, by all means please show it - the fact is not one
"scientist" can.
:
: By the way dismissing a particular line of evidence, such as the
: fossil record, doesn't prove that it doesn't support evolutionary
: theory.
: >
: > The fact is, actual science DISPROVES evolutionism - it's
: > repeatedly observable, testable AND verifiable that populations
: > of [flies] only ever produce, over generations, more [flies], and
: > never animals that are not [flies], no matter how many
: > generations go by, no matter how much they adapt and evolve. This
: > is true for every animal known to man in the entire recorded
: > history of the human race. So actual science completely falsifies
: > evolutionism (the fish to man version of evolution) until they
: > can show otherwise with their own observations and
: > tests/verifications of it actually happening.
:
: Okay if you are so sure that "actual science" disproves the theory of
: evolution, then you present the evidence here for everyone to see.
:
: But I guess that wont happen as there is no such evidence.
: >
: > :
: > : Does this mean you reject anything that cannot be observed, tested or
: > : verified?
: >
: > No, it means anything that cannot be observed, tested or verified
: > cannot qualify as science by definition. You're aware of this
: > fact whenever anyone tried to point to evidence of God "Show me
: > an observation or test/verification of God creating anything" -
: > bingo. But suddenly evolutionists forget what the definition of
: > science is when pointing to their own beliefs in evolutionism
: > that are also not observable, not testable/verifiable - and they
: > hope no one else notices.
:
: Seems to me you have some studying to do on what lines of evidence are
: available that support the theory of evolution.
:
: May I suggest that you take some time out to read sources other than
: those that oppose it.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >Mutations in DNA do not cause physical
: >mutations that weaken the animal in question?
:
: Usually they don't.
:
: >By all means show an observation of evolutionism in action (not
: >the belief it happens when looking at fossils and dead bones).
: >For example, that populations of [flies] produce, over
: >generations, animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all.
: >And you can replace [fruit flies] with any animal alive.
:
: Many times answered.
Notice how often some evolutionists will just say it's been
shown, but never show it. Hopefully lurkers will learn from the
utter dishonesty that is really behind the fish to man version of
evolution. =(
:
: >The fact is, actual science DISPROVES evolutionism - it's
gabriel
:
: >
: > : There are multiple examples
Please show how it's supposedly been destroyed.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:08:27 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
><mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>: On 10 Oct, 12:38, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:43:58 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>: >
>: > <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>: >
>: > : On 16 Sep, 00:47, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: > : > Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
>: > : > molecular decay?
>: > :
>: > : You have a problem with a loss of structures as evidence of evolution?
>: >
>: > As evidence of evolutionism (the fish to man version of
>: > evolution), yes, which requires the gain of new information, not
>: > the loss and corruption of information that was already there.
>: >
>: > Please show that new information is not needed to evolve from
>: > populations of fish over generations into hippos, giraffes,
>: > eagles and human beings.
>:
>: Where did you get the idea that evolution cannot include the loss of
>: structures or genetic information?
>
>Quote where I said there's no such thing as the _loss_ of
>information in the genome. You're now making things up.
Please show us how the anti-science creationists' use of 'information'
is a useful analytical tool for genetic analysis.
...
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:31:47 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >Mutations in DNA do not cause physical
>: >mutations that weaken the animal in question?
>:
>: Usually they don't.
>:
>: >By all means show an observation of evolutionism in action (not
>: >the belief it happens when looking at fossils and dead bones).
>: >For example, that populations of [flies] produce, over
>: >generations, animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all.
>: >And you can replace [fruit flies] with any animal alive.
>:
>: Many times answered.
>
>Notice how often some evolutionists will just say it's been
>shown, but never show it.
Go watch some cellular reproduction. Cells do not reproduce perfectly.
That is evolution and the foundation of what we have seen come from
evolution.
> Hopefully lurkers will learn from the
>utter dishonesty that is really behind the fish to man version of
>evolution. =(
You know you are a liar. Why would any lurkers believe the lies you
spout?
...
Tim Miller
Why? So you can ignore it again?
What's the point?
Bob LeChevalier
>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:31:47 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: >Mutations in DNA do not cause physical
>: >mutations that weaken the animal in question?
>:
>: Usually they don't.
>:
>: >By all means show an observation of evolutionism in action (not
>: >the belief it happens when looking at fossils and dead bones).
>: >For example, that populations of [flies] produce, over
>: >generations, animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all.
>: >And you can replace [fruit flies] with any animal alive.
>:
>: Many times answered.
>
>Notice how often some evolutionists will just say it's been
>shown, but never show it.
I did show it. I referenced the three FAQs, each of which has several
examples which can be substituted for your brackets above, where the
"after" is a different species than the "before" and therefore
"clearly no longer" the same species.
gabriel
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
:
:
: gabriel wrote:
: > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:04:24 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
: > <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
: >
: > :
: > :
: > : gabriel wrote:
: > : > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:18:28 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
: > : > <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > :
: > : > :
: > : > : gabriel wrote:
: > : > : > On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:45:24 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
: > : > : > <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
: > : > : >
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : gabriel wrote:
: > : > : > : > Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
: > : > : > : > molecular decay? That's a loss of information in the genome.
: > : > : > : > Their version of evolution states new information is created in
: > : > : > : > the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
: > : > : > : > possible via physical mutations).
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : Read up on Huntington's Disease. New information (mutation) in the
: > : > : > : genome results in the disease.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > I've never seen such claims about that disease. Please cite
: > : > : > scientific proof that new information is created, rather than
: > : > : > information that was already there gets corrupted. And please
: > : > : > quote the relevant sentences. Thank you.
: > : > :
: > : > : Such is the dishonesty of creationists. ANY mutation works on
: > : > : existing DNA. That's how it works. A mutation to a gene causes the
: > : > : body to develop Huntington's disease. The body didn't "know" how to
: > : > : do that before the mutation, so yes, there is new information in the
: > : > : gene.
: > : >
: > : > Disease is the *corruption* of DNA (hence the word mutation) -
: > : > breaking it as it were information that was *already there* so
: > : > that things do not function as they were designed to do - hence
: > : > you get diseases and worse - not the creation of new information
: > : > which you incorrectly claim, and still cannot back up when asked.
: > : >
: > : > Take care.
: > :
: > : Of course there's new information. Again, the example of Huntington's
: > : Disease.
: >
: > A disease is not new information - it's corruption of information
: > that was already there.
:
: One of the definitions of "new" is: "of recent origin, production,
: purchase, etc.; having but lately come or been brought into being: a
: new book."
:
: So again, your claim is nonsense. The body's cells are performing an
: action that they were not performing before. Hence, new information.
:
: > To claim it's creating new information is
: > like saying when a hard-drive with "War and Peace" gets
: > corrupted, new chapters get written (beneficial information). Or
: > like saying the chapters that get corrupted change what the story
: > says in the chapter (beneficial information). What really happens
: > is the story becomes unreadable in those spots - loss of
: > information - never creation of new beneficial information,
: > unless you want to call unreadable characters or nonsensical
: > stringing together of random letters in such a case "new,
: > beneficial information," which is exactly what evolutionists try
: > to do in the case of mutated genes.
: >
: > Please cite scientific papers, quoting relevant parts, that prove
: > mutations generate new beneficial information rather than merely
: > corrupted what information is already there, showing it's really
: > information loss.
:
: Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection:
: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
Here's a quote from the very first example on this site:
=== start ===
1.) Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli.
A single clone of E. coli was cultured at 37 C (that is 37
degrees Celsius) for 2000 generations. A single clone was then
extracted from this population and divided into replicates that
were then cultured at either 32 C , 37 C, or 42 C for a total of
another 2000 generations. Adaptation of the new lines was
periodically measured by competing these selection lines against
the ancestor population. By the end of the experiment, the lines
cultured at 32 C were shown to be 10% fitter that the ancestor
population (at 32 C), and the line cultured at 42 C was shown to
be 20% more fit than the ancestor population. The replicate line
that was cultured at 37 C showed little improvement over the
ancestral line.
Bennett, A.F., Lenski, R.E., & Mittler, J.E. (1992). Evolutionary
adaptation to temperature I. Fitness responses of Escherichia
coli to changes in its thermal environment. Evolution, 46:16-30.
=== end ===
Please point out exactly where brand new information was created
that was not in the genome in the past via recessive genes.
:
: Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans:
: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
:
: Beneficial Mutation�Selection Balance and the Effect of Linkage on
: Positive Selection
: http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/176/3/1759
:
: I eagerly await your predictable denial of well-documented facts.
:
: > :
: > : The mutation in the affected gene causes the body to produce the
: > : huntingtin protein,
: >
: > Not true - the hunting tin gene, as it's called, provides the
: > genetic information for the hunting tin protein that is *already
: > being produced* that has an unknown role in nerve cells, this
: > protein being called "hunting tin." These proteins being produced
: > before there's any mutation, having some sort of job to do with
: > nerve cells.
:
: Yes, I simplified the details behind Huntington's disease in the
: (apparently vain) hope that you would grasp the concept. I stand
: corrected.
:
: > : which causes the damage of Huntington's Disease.
: > : The cell didn't produce the protein before; now it does.
: >
: > Not true - The mutation of the hunting tin gene information
: > causes the hunting protein that was already being produced to now
: > not function properly for nerve cells, as it was not created
: > properly, and now that protein will instead cause gradual damage
: > to specific parts of the brain - this is the disease: mutation of
: > the gene information changes the hunting tin proteins that were
: > already being produced to now cause damage to the brain.
: >
: > Again: mutations corrupting information, therefore corruption of
: > the proteins already being created, not creating new information.
:
: Again, we see a new function, thus new information.
:
: > : The cell is
: > : doing something new because of the new information coded into the
: > : mutated gene.
: >
: > The cell is not doing something new - it's now damaging the brain
: > because it's faulty / broken / diseased due to the mutation.
: > Hardly the creation of new, beneficial information required for
: > the belief of evolutionism (the fish to man version of
: > evolution).
: >
: > The cell is broken because of the mutation, producing damage.
: > What you believe is mutation generates new, beneficial
: > information, of which you still haven't cited a single scientific
: > test that proves this happens, only another case that proves it
: > doesn't.
:
: See above.
:
: > : As far as "it's only rearranged," consider another simple example,
: > : three words: "Dog bites man." The sentence contains information. If
: > : it's rearranged into "Man bites dog," the same words are there, but
: > : the information has changed. Hence, new information is created simply
: > : by rearranging the sequence.
: >
: > Faulty example - see correct example above on corruption of War
: > and Peace.
: >
: > :
: > : If you do not understand these simple examples, then it's time to do a
: > : little research on information theory.
: >
: > Please research Huntington's Disease - you clearly had no idea
: > hunting tin proteins were always being created with an actual job
: > to do - they only become damaging to the brain when they are
: > mutated do to the corruption of information.
:
: The body's cells are performing an action that they were not
: performing before. Hence, new information. It can't be any more
: obvious.
:
: You can go about making up your own personal definitions for "new" and
: "information" to suit your own agenda all you want. None of that
: changes the fact that we directly observe evolution in action, and
: that we beneficial mutations are observed.
:
: Wave your hands all you want, but reality doesn't care.
gabriel
<qua...@live.com> wrote:
: On Oct 9, 9:54�am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:57:06 -0700 (PDT), AusShane
: >
: > <quar...@live.com> wrote:
: >
: > : On Sep 30, 8:44�pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > : > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:18:28 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
: > : >: > <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
: >
: > : >
: > : > :
: > : > :: gabriel wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : > On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:45:24 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason: > <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : gabriel wrote:
: > : > : > : > Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
: > : > : > : > molecular decay? That's a loss of information in the genome.
: > : > : > : > Their version of evolution states new information is created in
: > : > : > : > the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
: > : > : > : > possible via physical mutations).
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : Read up on Huntington's Disease. �New information (mutation) in the
: > : > : > : genome results in the disease.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > I've never seen such claims about that disease. Please cite
: > : > : > scientific proof that new information is created, rather than
: > : > : > information that was already there gets corrupted. And please
: > : > : > quote the relevant sentences. Thank you.
: > : > :
: > : > : Such is the dishonesty of creationists. �ANY mutation works on
: > : > : existing DNA. �That's how it works. �A mutation to a gene causes the
: > : > : body to develop Huntington's disease. �The body didn't "know" how to
: > : > : do that before the mutation, so yes, there is new information in the
: > : > : gene.
: > : >
: > : > Disease is the *corruption* of DNA (hence the word mutation) -
: > : > breaking it as it were information that was *already there* so
: > : > that things do not function as they were designed to do - hence
: > : > you get diseases and worse - not the creation of new information
: > : > which you incorrectly claim, and still cannot back up when asked.
: > : >
: > : > Take care.
: > :
: > : You are still not clear on what you mean by information. Nor how you
: > : can infer intelligent input by what you mislabel as information
: >
: > Most likely if bits on a computer hard drive being called
: > information (information that is meaningfully decoded and acted
: > upon just like DNA) would imply the possible existence of God
: > (which of course in the case of a computer it doesn't - it only
: > proves the existence of intelligent human beings), God-rejecters
: > would probably be here saying "what do you mean by information"
: > and "you are mislabeling it as information".
: >
: > Does a computer program qualify as information? Of course - it is
: > information meaningfully decoded and acted upon (and it's also no
: > threat to the need to reject God, so that truth is easy to
: > admit). In like manner, DNA is information that is meaningfully
: > decoded and acted upon to create the complexities of life, all to
: > the glory of God.
: >
: > When a computer program gets corrupted, does it damage the
: > ability for it to be meaningfully decoded to do what it was
: > designed to do? Of course. In like manner, when DNA is corrupted
: > via mutations, the ability for it to be meaningfully decoded to
: > do what it was designed to do is also damaged.
: >
: > In the meantime, if you wish to claim it's not information,
: > please prove that it's not even though it clearly has a role like
: > any other information.
:
: Your fallacy exists in your inference that the genetic code is somehow
: so ordered and complex that it must have been written by some cosmic
: encoder.
DNA is made up of instructions so complex and miraculous that it
directs cells how to build a living being and all its organs,
including the brain, eyes, ears, the heart, lungs and more. If
you want to pretend that's not ordered and complex information
and an ordered and complex process, you make it clear truth is
not what you're after.
Meanwhile a mere computer and computer program is a joke by
comparison, but suddenly those same people would not deny logic
to admit a computer and a computer program are not just evidence,
but proof of intelligent design.
But of course there's no threat to personal accountability for my
lifetime of actions when admitting the obvious about a simplistic
computer and computer program. But when faced with the obvious
consequences of admitting the truth of the amazing order and
complexity of DNA and how it achieves biological miracles, and
how that clearly points to a creator that we just might be
accountable to, some people insist on remaining in the dark - as
if doing so can be used as an excuse on the day of judgment "Well
how was I supposed to know!? I was told we evolved from
populations of fish over generations!"
John 3:19-21 KJV
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the
world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their
deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither
cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds
may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Matthew 10:25-26 KJV
25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and
the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the
house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his
household?
26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that
shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
Proverbs 14:12 KJV
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end
thereof are the ways of death.
: The 'information' you wrongly allude to is physical
: structure. The only information the genome contains is the pattern of
: base pairs that encode for protein. Sometimes when the genome mutates
: the rearrangement encodes for a different protein. This can be
: beneficial to the organism as the variation sometimes gives it a
: reproductive advantage. Again the only information is a chronological
: record of the changes. Try reading Lenskis work with E Coli - It
: really does explain all this beautifully. What you are trying to prove
: is that there is a meaning behind the complexity and an intent behind
: the physical structure - other than to encode for proteins.
:
: As for seeking any 'intelligence' behind your argument from
: incredulity here are two examples of complex and ordered information
: from a totally natural source.
:
: The spectrum of light that radiates from the sun displays a complex
: informational structure.
You want to downplay DNA as being information, and then you try
to act like spectrum of light is a *complex* informational
structure by comparison?!
I can only implore you to consider why you act like instructions
in the DNA that pull off the near biological miracles of
building a brain, eyes, ears, heart, lungs, cardiovascular
system, digestive system, nerves, pain and the ability to feel
it, teeth, noses and smelling, skin, blood, fingernails, ability
to sexually reproduce, and countless other things, all created by
instructions in the DNA(!!), are barely information according to
you, but then mere light waves are called complex informational
structure, according to you. Please ask yourself why you're
clearly trying to pretend something so simplistic as light waves
*when compared to the miraculous biological feats DNA performs*,
why suddenly you want to pretend light waves are complex
informational structures by comparison.
All of that is not only evidence of God - it's flat out PROOF of
God when we allow ourselves to think about it, deny it as we may
try.
Romans 1:17-25 KJV
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith
to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the
truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them;
for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are
without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as
God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image
made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted
beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the
lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between
themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and
served the creature [creation] more than the Creator, who is
blessed for ever. Amen.
: It is specific in that the wavelengths relate
: to the temperature of the processes whereby that light was radiated.
: It also contains complex information (dark lines) at specific
: intervals called fraunhofer lines. These lines relate to very specific
: energies at which the light was absorbed via photoelectric processes.
: Those energies relate to specific binding energies of the various
: electron shells of the elements with which the light interacted, ie
: helium hydrogen calcium etc. From this information we can deduce the
: elements of which the sun is made. This information is specific,
: ordered and complex, yet it originates via a completely naturalistic
: non intelligent process.
:
: Before mankind evolved all that mass of complex coded information did
: was warm rocks and power plants. By analysing the spectrum human
: intelligence was able to deduce specific information regarding solar
: processes and structure. By your analogy the sun must be therefore
: intelligent and trying to send us a message.
:
: The radio wave emissions from pulsars are also non random patterns of
: 'information' In fact when they were first discovered there was
: speculation that they were signals from intelligent beings - the
: emissions are that accurate. But of course they are not, just another
: example of nature.
gabriel
<qua...@live.com> wrote:
: Im a bit of a newbie here so I hope everyone (Prof Reality? ) will
: forgive me if I state the bleedin' obvious and feel free to point out
: any facts I have misinterpreted..
:
: "> More dishonest (or ignorance)
: : > passed off as supporting their beliefs in an unobservable,
: : > untestable, unverifiable fish to man version of evolution. "
:
: I've seen you pass off this hoary old phrase multiple times. The first
: point to make is that evolution does not state that fish evolved into
: men.
They state that our ancestors once upon a time were fish. So once
upon a time there where populations of fish that evolved, over
generations, eventually, into human beings we see today.
: The theory of evolution is very clear modern fish and modern
: humans are related in the sense that sometime in the distant past we
: shared common ancestors.
Correct- that they both evolved from populations of fish - fish
that supposedly lived millions of years ago.
: Do we have a complete physical and genetic
: record of that speciaition over the past few millenia? Not that I am
: aware of (anyone feel free to refute this) -
Speciation: only ever populations of [flies] producing, over
generations, more [flies], even if they are a slightly different
species of [flies]. And never animals that are no longer [flies]
at all. A fact no matter what animal you replace with [flies] in
the entire recorded history of the human race.
So what IS actual science has disproved the fish to man version
of evolution, no matter what they believe dead bones and fossils
mean to them (and what they want it to mean to everyone else).
Such beliefs fail to qualify as actual science. Science is a
great thing - evolutionism (the fish to man version of evolution)
fails miserably to qualify as science.
Want to prove otherwise? Show a single observation of populations
of [flies] producing, over generations, animals that are clearly
no longer [flies] at all. (Much like hippos, giraffes, eagles and
human beings are clearly no longer any kind of fish at all, even
though we all supposedly came from fish-like ancestors). And you
can replace [flies] with any animal live. Not one such
observation and/or test/verification to back up that belief.
: and of course you are
: sure of otherwise you wouldn't state it as a core argument.
: The point is do we need that unbroken physical record? The answer is
: no. The theory of evolution has been substantiated from such a wealth
: of facts from all branches of science that we can be sure beyond a
: reasonable doubt that the above phenomenon occurred.
All branches of science? Now you're being not being truthful.
Just because one branch of science claims the earth is millions
or billions of years old, it doesn't mean this makes evolution
fact.
In the meantime, not a single observation nor test nor
verification backing up the belief of evolutionism - no matter
how many reasons you bring to the table as to why you have faith
in those beliefs.
: It has been
: clearly stated that we barely need the fossil record at all to prove
: the theory, its a nice to have not must have.
Actually, the fossil record does not support evolutionism. Only
what they _belief_ these dead bones and fossils means to them is
what supports evolutionism - and of course the beliefs themselves
remain unobservable, untestable and unverifiable.
: And the wealth of
: evidence has been pointed out to you many times before by far more
: capable people than me.
Not evidence - what they _believe_ the evidence means to them,
and what they want it to mean to everyone else. Huge difference.
Meanwhile the fact remains their belief is not observable, not
testable and not verifiable. Not science by definition.
: I have also seen you try and use the same logic to validate your
: contention that the creation event occurred. The point at which your
: argument falls down is that you have no other supporting evidence to
: make a reasonable supposition for that unobserved claim, while The
: Theory of Evolution does.
The fish to man version of evolution (evolutionism for short -
the belief that populations of fish produced, over generations,
hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings) is not science.
Intelligent design is also not science. Neither is any other
origins theory. Why? Because none of them are observable or
testable/verifiable.
Evolutionists will make claims about the fossil record supporting
evolution. No, it's only their BELIEFS of what those fossils and
dead bones means to them (and what they want it to mean to
everyone else) that "supports" evolution. The beliefs themselves
remain unobservable and un-testable/un-verifiable!
Evolutionists will claim that their beliefs lead to predictions
as proof it's science. So using that new definition of science
(that any prediction made by a belief automatically qualifies
said belief as science), creation by God qualifies as science as
it leads to more accurate predictions as seen in homology, DNA
similarity, the Cambrian Explosion, DNA being meaningfully
encoded information and the ability for it to be meaningfully
decoded and acted upon, and more. But of course evolutionists
will then return to the actual truth of what science really is
and refute that notion with "Show a single observation or
test/verification of God creating anything." Bingo.
The observable, testable and verifiable truth that populations of
[flies] only ever produce, over generations, more [flies] even if
they are in rare cases a slightly different species of [flies]
(but still [flies]!), which we call Speciation, remains intact
and is a far cry from what evolutionists believe: that
populations of [flies] will produce, over generations, animals
that are clearly no longer [flies] at all! (Same holds true no
matter what animal you replace with [flies] in the previous
sentence). Much like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings
are clearly no longer fish at all, even though they believe all
of those things and most everything else evolved from populations
of fish and worse over generations once upon a time.
But in the end, although no origin scientific claim really can
qualify as science (and it's either ignorance or outright
dishonesty to claim it is), it's logically undeniable we were
created. Just like a building is proof of a builder, more so if
it's a building that's so advanced in its design it can adapt to
its environment, remove dirt particles on a continuous basis, and
even produce more buildings just like itself over time. Not to
mention computer and computer programs are proof of a designer -
just like DNA, which is encoded instructions and the ability for
those instructions to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon in
near miraculous ways. The only faith part: was it the God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the heavenly Father of our Lord and
Savior, Jesus Christ? Or was it aliens? From a faith standpoint
on either choice, the choice is obvious.
: If perhaps you could get god to drop by and
: recreate the universe in miniature in a laboratory
Finally you remember what science is: only that which is
observable, testable and verifiable. Bingo. Creation by God is
not science. For the exact same reason, neither is any origin
belief, including evolutionism and the big bang. However, it's
still logically undeniable we were created, even if you want to
believe it was an advanced alien civilization that did it.
: or you could
: demonstrate the equations for the unified field or fine structure
: constant in the bible the hypothesis might be more tenable (The number
: of the beast is 136 not 666). But we do not. Instead we come back to
: the familiar circular reasoning quote mining, illogical grasp of the
: science etc.
Free Lunch
gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> showing his arrogance, repeated a
pile of lies in <d2g1f5tj5tem18974...@4ax.com>:
...
>: Your fallacy exists in your inference that the genetic code is somehow
>: so ordered and complex that it must have been written by some cosmic
>: encoder.
>
>DNA is made up of instructions so complex and miraculous that it
>directs cells how to build a living being and all its organs,
>including the brain, eyes, ears, the heart, lungs and more. If
>you want to pretend that's not ordered and complex information
>and an ordered and complex process, you make it clear truth is
>not what you're after.
Havew you considered learning science from scientists rather than
enemies of science who teach misleading claims because they want you to
keep sending them money to sell their lies to others? Genes are not
computer programs.
...
Stop hiding behind the Bible. You know you have nothing there that you
can defend.
VoiceOfReason
Curious how you avoided the next paragraph that showed exactly that.
"Chlamydomonas is a unicellular green algae capable of photosynthesis
in light, but also somewhat capable of growth in the dark by using
acetate as a carbon source. Graham Bell cultured several clonal lines
of Chlamydomonas in the dark for several hundred generations. Some of
the lines grew well in the dark, but other lines were almost unable to
grow at all. The poor growth lines improved throughout the course of
the experiment until by 600 generations they were well adapted to
growth in the dark. This experiment showed that new, beneficial
mutations are capable of quickly (in hundreds of generations) adapting
an organism that almost required light for survival to growth in the
complete absence of light."
Thank you for confirming my prediction: "I eagerly await your
predictable denial of well-documented facts."
<...>
Juan M
Wasn't he Secretary of State under GW Bush?
I think his complete name was E. Coli Bowel.
"VoiceOfReason" <papa...@cybertown.com> wrote in message
news:c01d0eeb-aa0c-4f30...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
AusShane
weigh evidence. It has to run on absolutes ie the way you keep trying
to work the words faith and belief into the argument as if they were
somehow relevant to the evidence we present. The fact that somehow the
evidence and facts and the research and all the other methods used
here to prove the case can be simply dismissed by saying that we have
the wrong beliefs. In essence the only two arguments you have ever
presented here are the stock standards.
I cant believe it could happen any other way.
It is so complex I cant imagine it happening any other way.
You then try and support this with previously debunked approaches or
outright untruths. Behe and Dembski cannot support the claims you make
- how can you???
We do not need to show a direct line from fish to man to know what is
going on, we never have and will never need to. You cannot seem to
comprehend how theories are tested nor evidence weighed, nor how the
theory came to be accepted against all the other models and continues
to stand up and grow stronger every day.
Every word you write just speaks of fear and denial not rationalism -
You really have nothing new to offer any debate
Devils Advocaat
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:08:27 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
>
> : On 10 Oct, 12:38, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:43:58 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
> : >: > <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : >
> : > : On 16 Sep, 00:47, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : > : > Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
> : > : > molecular decay?
> : > :
> : > : You have a problem with a loss of structures as evidence of evolution?
> : >
> : > As evidence of evolutionism (the fish to man version of
> : > evolution), yes, which requires the gain of new information, not
> : > the loss and corruption of information that was already there.
> : >
> : > Please show that new information is not needed to evolve from
> : > populations of fish over generations into hippos, giraffes,
> : > eagles and human beings.
> :
> : Where did you get the idea that evolution cannot include the loss of
> : structures or genetic information?
>
> Quote where I said there's no such thing as the _loss_ of
> information in the genome. You're now making things up.
Is your memory that short? In your previous post you insisted that
evolution requires the gain of new information, not the loss and
corruption of information that was already there. This implies that
you expect evolution cannot include the loss of structures or genetic
information, and if that was not your intended meaning then perhaps
you should phrase your statements more carefully.
>
> So are you now trying to claim the genome of fish had all the
> information in their already to eventually evolve into human
> beings untold millions of years later? If so, where'd all that
> information and instructions come from?
I made so such claim at any point, perhaps it is you that is making
things up.
So you choose to ignore all the other evidence from the fossil record
that show the progression of one form into a completely different
form, which is supported by evidence from embryological studies, to
focus on what you see as an example which you can claim is not
evidence.
The very fact that a population of one species can give rise to new
species that cannot interbreed with the original is an example of
evolution happening in a time span short enough for a human being to
observe it.
This link provides the progression from reptile to mammal as evidenced
in the fossil record,
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC215.html
Additional links, references and some recommended reading can be found
at the bottom of that page.
>
> :
If you are so certain that evolution has not and cannot happen as
postulated, then it is really down to you to present reasoned argument
along with supporting evidence.
But you doing so is as unlikely as Ray Martinez presenting evidence to
support his assertion that new species emerge as a result of "creation
ex materia (from a clay-like ground)".
Juan M
Any data that does not jibe with their preconceived beliefs, prejudices or
superstitions is automatically rejected.
gabriel
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
: "corruption" = "new information".
:
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >Yes, I know you believe this - please cite a scientific
: >reference, quoting the part that backs up this claim of yours.
:
: Please cite a peer-reviewed scientific reference that talks about
: "corruption of information" as if it were something meaningful.
As I thought, you don't have any science to back up your claim.
gabriel
<coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: gabriel wrote, on 09-10-11 02:18 PM:
Question is about animals, not what you believe about plants.
:
: >
: > Second of all, your example is about plants, not animals and the
:
: Goalpost shifting, you hypocrite!
If you want to believe human beings are plants, that's your right
- science disagrees with you.
:
: > genome. I'm waiting for a scientific reference that mutations
: > create/introduce new information, rather than corrupting and
: > making somewhat useless information that was already there.
:
: Why did you forget to answer the question on how does one distinguish
: whether a mutation adds new "information" or corrupts existing
: "information" in the genome?
So in other words, you want to act like all the information ever
needed was placed into the original life forms, and no new
information was ever added over those supposed hundreds of
millions of years?
: It is well nigh impossible to give you the
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:45:45 -0400, Cory Albrecht
Animals and plants are all life and have the same genetic system.
>: > Second of all, your example is about plants, not animals and the
>:
>: Goalpost shifting, you hypocrite!
>
>If you want to believe human beings are plants, that's your right
>- science disagrees with you.
Your dishonesty turns you into a parody of yourself. Lucky for you, the
God you mock with your false preaching does not exist.
>
>:
>: > genome. I'm waiting for a scientific reference that mutations
>: > create/introduce new information, rather than corrupting and
>: > making somewhat useless information that was already there.
>:
>: Why did you forget to answer the question on how does one distinguish
>: whether a mutation adds new "information" or corrupts existing
>: "information" in the genome?
>
>So in other words, you want to act like all the information ever
>needed was placed into the original life forms, and no new
>information was ever added over those supposed hundreds of
>millions of years?
You are so profoundly dishonest, I cannot understand how you can face
yourself in the mirror every day. Stop misrepresenting what scientists
have discovered and stop misrepresenting what people have explained to
you.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:23:06 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
It's your claim that you have no support for. Can't you even follow your
own argument? You have an invention about information that is
unsubstantiated by any evidence.
Cory Albrecht
Animals and plants use the same genetic systems, you hypocritical,
dishonest goalpost shifter.
>
> :
> :>
> :> Second of all, your example is about plants, not animals and the
> :
> : Goalpost shifting, you hypocrite!
>
> If you want to believe human beings are plants, that's your right
> - science disagrees with you.
Animals and plants use the same genetic systems, you hypocritical,
dishonest goalpost shifter.
>
> :
> :> genome. I'm waiting for a scientific reference that mutations
> :> create/introduce new information, rather than corrupting and
> :> making somewhat useless information that was already there.
> :
> : Why did you forget to answer the question on how does one distinguish
> : whether a mutation adds new "information" or corrupts existing
> : "information" in the genome?
>
> So in other words, you want to act like all the information ever
> needed was placed into the original life forms, and no new
> information was ever added over those supposed hundreds of
> millions of years?
Where did I say any of that? Any particular reason you are
misrepresenting my question and placing words in my mouth?
Why do you keep avoiding answering the question of how does one tell
whether a mutation adds new formation or corrupts old information?
>
> : It is well nigh impossible to give you the
> : type of information you ask for if you do not define your terms or how
> : you do your objective measurements.
> :
> : But then, I'm guessing that's *exactly* why you have yet to say how one
> : tells the difference between corruption and addition - so that nobody
> : can possibly answer your demand.
I see that my guess was shown to be true.
You make me ashamed to call myself a Christian and be associated with
you and your dishonesty.
AusShane
> :> create/introduce new information, rather than corrupting and
Is that all you need? Easy.
There is an elegant experiment performed by Lenski now over 20 years
in progress showing how a population of E Coli bacteria mutated and
developed the ability to process citrate as a food.
Their ancestors didn't have the ability to do that.
He even showed which generation mutated and how it happened.
Is that enough proof???
And it is a very famous and well documented experiment that most of
the people here would know about. With your interest in this subject I
am surprised you didn't.
Cory Albrecht
Oh, he does. When the whole "Andy Schafly embarrassing himself" brouhaha
erupted, Lenski's experiment and results were very heavily discussed
here in alt.talk.creationism.
Gabriel knows - I just doubt that he'll admit to it and that he'll do
anything he can to avoid discussing it.
gabriel
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
No, you just got done saying I said there's NO SUCH THING as a
loss of information. What you quoted is me saying loss of
information is not what's needed for the fish to man version of
evolution to take place: evolving from mere single-celled
organisms over generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles and
human beings.
: and if that was not your intended meaning then perhaps
: you should phrase your statements more carefully.
I don't see how it could have been made any clearer. Perhaps you
should ask if that's what I meant before acting like it was an
then writing numerous paragraphs about something I never said.
: >
: > So are you now trying to claim the genome of fish had all the
: > information in their already to eventually evolve into human
: > beings untold millions of years later? If so, where'd all that
: > information and instructions come from?
:
: I made so such claim at any point, perhaps it is you that is making
: things up.
Notice the phrase that starts the question I said: "So ARE you.."
and the question mark that came after it - it was clearly a
question, and now you're acting like I'm CLAIMING you stated it?!
It seems your only goal is to obfuscate the truth rather than
discovering it. Take care.
: >
: > : >
: > : > :
: > : > : > That's a loss of information in the genome.
Devils Advocaat
> On 26 Sep, 04:48, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:45:24 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
>
>
> > :
> > :: gabriel wrote:
>
> > : > Darwinian (Fish to man) evolution now leads to loss of teeth and
> > : > Their version of evolution states new information is created in
> > : > the genome by mutations (which has never been shown to be
> > : > possible via physical mutations).
> > :
> > : genome results in the disease.
>
> > I've never seen such claims about that disease. Please cite
> > scientific proof that new information is created, rather than
> > information that was already there gets corrupted. And please
> > quote the relevant sentences. Thank you.
>
> while you are at it, what evidence do you have that supports your
> contention that a single human cell contains more information than the
> entire Encyclopedia Britannica?
>
And yet again gabriel is unable to support his/her claims with any
form of evidence.
Why is that I wonder?
>
>
>
> > :
> > : > More dishonest (or ignorance)
> > : > passed off as supporting their beliefs in an unobservable,
> > : > untestable, unverifiable fish to man version of evolution.
> > : >
> > : >www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090904071650.htm
> > : >
> > : >www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/09/12/news-to-note-09122009#two
> > :
> > : Answers in Genesis perpetuates ignorance.
gabriel
<papa...@cybertown.com> wrote:
:
:
: gabriel wrote:
: > On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 06:41:39 -0700 (PDT), VoiceOfReason
Notice you failed to address what I said. The very first
"example" is nothing of the kind. The next paragraph is the
*second* example.
But let's start with the supposed "first example": please point
out exactly where brand new information was created that was not
in the genome in the past via recessive genes.
:
: "Chlamydomonas is a unicellular green algae capable of photosynthesis
: in light, but also somewhat capable of growth in the dark by using
: acetate as a carbon source. Graham Bell cultured several clonal lines
: of Chlamydomonas in the dark for several hundred generations. Some of
: the lines grew well in the dark, but other lines were almost unable to
: grow at all. The poor growth lines improved throughout the course of
: the experiment until by 600 generations they were well adapted to
: growth in the dark. This experiment showed that new, beneficial
: mutations are capable of quickly (in hundreds of generations) adapting
: an organism that almost required light for survival to growth in the
: complete absence of light."
And as for the second example that you now skip to in avoidance
of the first example being nothing of the kind: please point out
exactly where *brand new information* was created in the genome
that was not in the genome in the past via recessive genes. The
only thing you showed is Chlamydomonas "adapting to growth in the
dark." No mention or proof whatsoever of new information being
created in the genome that was proven to not be there before in
recessive form.
:
: Thank you for confirming my prediction: "I eagerly await your
gabriel
<qua...@live.com> wrote:
: " genome. I'm waiting for a scientific reference that mutations
: > :> create/introduce new information, rather than corrupting and
: > :> making somewhat useless information that was already there. "
:
: Is that all you need? Easy.
:
: There is an elegant experiment performed by Lenski now over 20 years
: in progress showing how a population of E Coli bacteria mutated and
: developed the ability to process citrate as a food.
:
: Their ancestors didn't have the ability to do that.
Does this prove the generation of brand new information in the
genome? No. Prove that information was never in the genome for
the entire existence of bacteria (for example, not even hidden
via recessive genes).
:
: He even showed which generation mutated and how it happened.
:
: Is that enough proof???
No, claiming they mutated did not show proof new information was
created in the genome.
And while you're at it, please cite scientific resources online
and quote the relevant passages that point this out, rather than
just us taking your word for it what's in there. Thank you.
:
: And it is a very famous and well documented experiment that most of
Devils Advocaat
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:13:45 -0800 (PST), AusShane
>
For gabriel's enlightenment, here is an introduction to the E. Coli
experiment in question, which has links to other sources about the
subject matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
<quote>
Wild type E. coli cannot transport citrate across the cell membrane to
the cell interior (where it could be incorporated into the citric acid
cycle) when oxygen is present. The consequent lack of growth on
citrate under oxic conditions is considered a defining characteristic
of the species that has been a valuable means of differentiating E.
coli from pathogenic Salmonella. Around generation 33,127, the
experimenters noticed a dramatically expanded population-size in one
of the samples; they found that there were clones in this population
that could grow on the citrate included in the growth medium to permit
iron acquisition. Examination of samples of the population frozen at
earlier time points led to the discovery that a citrate-using variant
had evolved in the population at some point between generations 31,000
and 31,500. They used a number of genetic markers unique to this
population to exclude the possibility that the citrate-using E. coli
were contaminants. They also found that the ability to use citrate
could spontaneously re-evolve in populations of genetically pure
clones isolated from earlier time points in the population's history.
Such re-evolution of citrate utilization was never observed in clones
isolated from before generation 20,000.
</quote>