[Morphy]

Originally Posted by Johnny

It does not help him.[Bob]

It's amazing how Bob Enyart can be so bright as far as economics is concerned and how terribly wrong and UNFAIR if it is about evolution...

[Bob Enyart]

Dear Morphy and Johnny,

Morphy, of course you reinforce my argument that evolutionists are so desperate for examples of evolution, that they point to diseases caused by mutation as excellent examples of Darwinism, as when you wrote, “sickle cell anemia is an excellent example” of “evolution… creat[ing] new abilities.” When you use common genetic terms that are nonetheless unfamiliar to most readers, they may be impressed by your detailed account of sickle cell mutation, and think that somewhere hidden in the apoptosis, uracils and codons lies a defense of your assertion that sickle cell mutation is really an information increase and a change toward improvement in the human genome. Creationists don’t deny mutations. We don’t deny genetic recombinations, insertions, deletions, transpositions, substitutions, etc. We don’t deny that when such mutations occur, they can CHANGE the phenotype (tires to crescents). We argue evolution requires billions of instances of genetic information INCREASE and IMPROVEMENT and we crack up when evolutionists endlessly parade examples of mutation-caused disease as excellent examples of evolution. HIV uses CCR5 (Cysteine-cystenie chemokine receptor 5) as a vector, and mutation CCR5-delta32 (deletion of 32 sequential base-pairs) makes CCR5 unavailable to HIV, thus providing immunity to AIDS, etc. But the gene that codes for CCR5 seems to be redundant, so that other genes replace its function, giving another example of a breakdown with a fortuitous consequence (like the house fire which burst a water pipe which put out the fire). Scientists have documented about 10,000 disease-causing mutations, but none involving increased genetic information. And it’s not true that insertions, substitutions, transpositions, etc., that break functionality are an increase in the genome, that’s something you’re just going to have to come to terms with.


By the way, I have carefully read a book, Not By Chance, by Dr. Lee Spetner, who has a place in the history of genetics for being the first to publish the mutation rates of various organisms. He explains with fascinating detail the mutation/disease process (what has been learned so far). The book is a tutorial on genetic processes, demonstrating that random mutations could not conceivably improve the operation of wildly complicated, complex interconnected systems.

-Bob Enyart

[Stratnerd]

We argue evolution requires billions of instances

Why?

of genetic information INCREASE

How are you defining information and what would be an acceptable example of increasing genetic information?

[Johnny]

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

Scientists have documented about 10,000 disease-causing mutations, but none involving increased genetic information. And it’s not true that insertions, substitutions, transpositions, etc., that break functionality are an increase in the genome, that’s something you’re just going to have to come to terms with.

Bob, you need to define what an increase in genetic information constitutes. Looking at any point mutation, how can we tell if the information has increased or decreased in the genome? So I ask you, if you are going to post again, please elaborate on what set of criteria I can apply to any mutation to see if the information has increased or decreased.

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

and think that somewhere hidden in the apoptosis, uracils and codons lies a defense of your assertion that sickle cell mutation is really an information increase and a change toward improvement in the human genome.

It's really simple, actually. The HbS allele confers malarial resistence to erythrocytes, thus providing a survival advantage for the population which carries the allele which would not normally exist if the population did not carry the allele. In short, more people survive to the age of reproduction with the HbS allele than would without it--even if we assume that one out of every four live births has sickle cell disease. That is evolution. Evolution is not about "an increase in information". It's about reproductive advantage. An allele which reproduces itself more often than another allele will find its frequency in a population increased as a function of time. Evolution. This business about increasing information or loss of information is just creationist fodder--which we will see when you define an "increase in information".

[Bob Enyart]

Originally Posted by Johnny

Evolution is not about "an increase in information".

Johnny, I accept your surrender.

-Bob Enyart

2013 UPDATE: One of the world's leading evolutionary microbiologists, Franklin Harold, admits in 2001 that, "We must concede there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." This update was also posted at the RSR show summary from back when Johnny called in, at http://kgov.com/bad-legs-before-good-wings. -BE

[Bob Enyart]

Morphy, now we're awaiting your undoing. ...

Please feel free to answer my reply above. Or would you like me to defend my Evolve program as a tool which effectively refutes Darwinian naturalism?

Let me know, -Bob Enyart

ps. Johnny, if you fully retract the claim you just made, I will stop quoting you in my signature. -BE

[Jukia]

Originally Posted by Johnny

Bob, you need to define what an increase in genetic information constitutes. Looking at any point mutation, how can we tell if the information has increased or decreased in the genome? So I ask you, if you are going to post again, please elaborate on what set of criteria I can apply to any mutation to see if the information has increased or decreased.

".

Pastor Bob, can you respond to this? Or is this another manganese nodule thread wherein you silently disappear after it seems you are simply wrong? Thanks.

[bob b]

Originally Posted by Morphy_

It's amazing how Bob Enyart can be so bright as far as economics is concerned and how terribly wrong and UNFAIR if it is about evolution...

It is amazing to me how evolutionists can believe that a genetic disease illustrates an evolutionary process that could cause a transformation known loosely as "molecules to man".

[Jukia]

Originally Posted by bob b

It is amazing to me how evolutionists can believe that a genetic disease illustrates an evolutionary process that could cause a transformation known loosely as "molecules to man".

A continuing argument from incredulity from bob b.

[Johnny]

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

ps. Johnny, if you fully retract the claim you just made, I will stop quoting you in my signature. -BE

Quote me if you like. I stand 100% by my statement.

Your failure to provide any criteria by which to identify increases or decreases in genetic information did not go unnoticed.

[Jukia]

"Information" is that latest buzz word of ID/creationism. Methinks most of those who use it do so only because it makes them sound intelligent. Still waiting for a response from Pastor Bob.

[bob b]

Originally Posted by Jukia

A continuing argument from incredulity from bob b.

Another strange human who thinks that genetic diseases are the "proof" that all life descended from a single primitive replicating molecule.

"Evolution comes in many strange [dis]guises".

[bob b]

Originally Posted by Jukia

"Information" is that latest buzz word of ID/creationism. Methinks most of those who use it do so only because it makes them sound intelligent. Still waiting for a response from Pastor Bob.

Most biology books which mention the human cell marvel at the amount of information it contains.

Unless one assumes that the first primitive protocell contained this same amount of information then it would appear logical that somewhere along the line, assuming macroevolution is true, that information somehow was added to the earliest genomes to accumulate to the amount that is there in today's human genomes.

But then logic is not the strong suit for many evolutionist "campfollowers".

[Morphy]

Wow, at least! Dear Bob,

First of all, thanks for your response, nice to talk to somebody I listen to almost everyday. My IP appears on your website on a regular basis Had I an opportunity to live in America I would call you but since I don't the Internet has to suffice...

Anyhow, to the point:

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

Morphy, of course you reinforce my argument that evolutionists are so desperate for examples of evolution, that they point to diseases caused by mutation as excellent examples of Darwinism, as when you wrote, “sickle cell anemia is an excellent example” of “evolution… creat[ing] new abilities.”

If you give me detailed genetic codes of all human ancestors from the first alive, primitive prehistoric cell to the human genome I won't resort to diseases. It's easy to back up evolution with genetic diseases since their inheritance, behaviour of the specific gene in general gene pool and molecular mutations are well known.

Similarly, if we were discussing car engines I would not talk about Chevy's but about European; not because Chevy produces less or more complicated, just because I would know more about European models.

Since I'm a doctor it's easy for me to discuss genetic diseases. Was I a molecular biologist I would give you different examples.

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

When you use common genetic terms that are nonetheless unfamiliar to most readers, they may be impressed by your detailed account of sickle cell mutation, and think that somewhere hidden in the apoptosis, uracils and codons lies a defense of your assertion that sickle cell mutation is really an information increase and a change toward improvement in the human genome.

I'm sorry if my language was too difficult for most readers, but one CANNOT talk about genetics without having at least basic knowledge of the issue. Similarly, one cannot discuss the Bible without having read it, am I right?

You're a pastor thus I don't expect you to know all the particulars of DNA, replication, coding of information and so on, but the language I use is as familiar for me as the Bible is for you. But if you talk about genetics in your shows you must know at least basics.

Sickle cell gene is an increase of information. Without it human gene pool would be smaller. Just like the Internet - there is a lot of junk stuff but it IS information wheter you appreciate it or not.

Sickle cell gene is an improvement of the human genome in malaria plagued areas. The problem with creationists is you, guys, always seek purpose. But there is really no purpose in DNA mutations. They happen all the time without any master idea; if they are not repaired and they give any advantage to the genome they stay in gene pool. If they don't - they either disappear or are very rare. Moreover, I don't know detailed statistics (probably nobody knows...), but positive mutations are extremely rare, like 1:1.000.000? Or maybe even rarer.

The sickle cell anemia gene is an improvement in Africa, where malaria is a problem. If it wasn't - it would be as uncommon as it is in Europe.

It's just like rain tires and slicks. If a road is dry and you get rain tires - it is not an improvement at all. But if the road is wet, rain tires are significant improvement. Right or wrong?

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

Creationists don’t deny mutations. We don’t deny genetic recombinations, insertions, deletions, transpositions, substitutions, etc. We don’t deny that when such mutations occur, they can CHANGE the phenotype (tires to crescents).

If you add that there is natural selection - then it is enough to prove there is evolution.

Obviously, it is not a proof a man evolved from a single cell, but it is suffice to prove evolution takes place.

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

We argue evolution requires billions of instances of genetic information INCREASE and IMPROVEMENT

Well, if a red blood cell is malaria resistant what is it if not improvement???

If there is a new gene in a gene pool what is it if not information increase???

Billions, you say. An average bacterium can multiple in 20 minutes. If you give them food, how long will that take when there is billion billion billion bacteria? A year? Or less? If there is a mathematician, please - count how much will that take.

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

and we crack up when evolutionists endlessly parade examples of mutation-caused disease as excellent examples of evolution. HIV uses CCR5 (Cysteine-cystenie chemokine receptor 5) as a vector, and mutation CCR5-delta32 (deletion of 32 sequential base-pairs) makes CCR5 unavailable to HIV, thus providing immunity to AIDS, etc. But the gene that codes for CCR5 seems to be redundant, so that other genes replace its function, giving another example of a breakdown with a fortuitous consequence (like the house fire which burst a water pipe which put out the fire). Scientists have documented about 10,000 disease-causing mutations, but none involving increased genetic information.

Wow, at least language I like

Let me ask my question one more time:

If there is a new gene in gene pool, what is it if not increase of genetic information, what is it?

Logic says: there can be decrease, steady state and increase. There is no other option.

If you have let's say 100 genes, and there is one more, brand new, due to spontanic mutation, has the amount of information, according to Bob Enyart:
a) increased;
b) decreased;
c) remained the same?

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

And it’s not true that insertions, substitutions, transpositions, etc., that break functionality are an increase in the genome, that’s something you’re just going to have to come to terms with.
[/font][/color]

Well, how about genes which cause some bacteria to be antibiotic-resistant? The genes are not responsible for any diseases yet they give an excellent, NEW ability for bacteria: they are resistant to human killing potential.

If a bacterium becomes resistant to an antibiotic and is not 'ill' (it can multiply at the same rate as others) what is it if not a new ability? What is it if not an increase of information? What is it if not an improvement?

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

[color=black][font=Helvetica]
By the way, I have carefully read a book, Not By Chance, by Dr. Lee Spetner, who has a place in the history of genetics for being the first to publish the mutation rates of various organisms. He explains with fascinating detail the mutation/disease process (what has been learned so far). The book is a tutorial on genetic processes, demonstrating that random mutations could not conceivably improve the operation of wildly complicated, complex interconnected systems.
-Bob Enyart

Why didn't you back up your arguments with dr Lee's?

[Morphy]

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

Morphy, now we're awaiting your undoing. ...

Please feel free to answer my reply above. Or would you like me to defend my Evolve program as a tool which effectively refutes Darwinian naturalism?

Let me know, -Bob Enyart

ps. Johnny, if you fully retract the claim you just made, I will stop quoting you in my signature. -BE

Sure, with pleasure, but tomorrow.

It's 0:20 AM right now and my wife just came a minute ago demanding me to go to bed, however silly it may sound

You know it is not a good idea to quarrel with a wife about such issues

Till tomorrow.