Jose Fly
New member
So you're never going to answer those two simple questions, but you also lack the guts to admit it. Understood.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
So you're never going to answer those two simple questions, but you also lack the guts to admit it. Understood.
Right Divider
Body part
Creationists have NO problems with divergence from the originally created kinds. The variability was already in the genes. Natural selection always works with what is ALREADY there.
What we have a problem with is the idea that life originated by chance from non-life and that all creatures share a single common ancestor.
So rant all that you want. It does not bother me.
gcthomas
New member
And undeniably, mutations add to that variability present in the gene pool. So natural selection can work with that too.
Jose Fly
New member
It's quite telling that you see me asking you two simple questions as "ranting". It's equally telling how you absolutely refuse to answer those questions.
Such is the nature of creationism.
Thanks for your time.
Right Divider
Body part
Mutations do not have an ability to create new information. That is scientifically proven. Mutations always, without exception, work on what already exists.
Jose Fly
New member
Gee, how many times have we seen this go-round?
Creationist asserts "no new genetic information".
Someone asks "What is genetic information and how are you measuring it?"
Creationist dodges, evades, and completely refuses to answer.
How about you change that RD? How about you actually say what "genetic information" is, and explain how you're measuring it?
gcthomas
New member
What definition of information are you using here? Under any scientific definition I knoww of, mutations can increase the amount of information and change the information that is there. (If you are not sure, try looking up Shannon Entropy, bits or nats, and see if that is what you mean.)
No. It really isn't. This has been discussed over and over, and it is getting silly now.
Here is an example. Consider this length of DNA code (using Shannon's language, but other definitions produce similar results:
TAGCCTGCCTTA
How much info does it have? Each letter has four options, so two 'bits' of information (you have to ask two questions to get the answer: (1) is it either a G or C? No. (2) Is it an A? No. Then is is a T. More answers required, more information.)
12 letters, so 12 x 2 bits = 24 bits of information.
OK, lets have a point mutation. The code changes to TAGCCTGACTTA. How much info des this have? The same amount of information, 24 bits, but different information.
So now we have a duplication mutation, leaving TAGCCTGACTTATAGCCTGACTTA. This has 25 bits of information (24 questions to determine the first 12 letters, then one more question to ask 'is it duplicated?')
Now another point mutation:TAGCATGACTTATAGCCTGACTTA. How much information? Rather more than 25, because the simple 'is it duplicated?' question won't completely specify the seqence. You'd probably have to go back to the '2 bits per letter' calculation, meaning 2 x 24 = 48 bits of information.
There you have it: a point mutation can change the information to produce different amino acids when translated, while transposition or duplication can dramatically increase the amount of information.
Yes, they must work on whatever genome there is there already, but they are not restricted to the pre-existing information. New information can be produced trivially.
ThisIsMyUserName
New member
Can we replace "fitness" with "survivability" then?
You asked how to measure it, I've explained, and now you just say it's meaningless numbers.
So how would you quantify your concept of "integrity" then?
What makes you think today's population cannot produce an even greater variety tomorrow?
I still cannot really grasp what you mean by "integrity".
Right Divider
Body part
So you really do not know that DNA is all about the information contained therein? And this information is vast.
Where did the original information contained in DNA come from? The tooth fairy?
Right Divider
Body part
Your understanding of information theory is in need of some serious work.
I guess that you think that AA has twice as much information as A and that AAAAAAAAAA has 10 times as much information as A.
Right Divider
Body part
Since [MENTION=15991]Jose Fly[/MENTION] does not know that genetics is all about information, he is clueless regarding any discuss of this fact.
gcthomas
New member
You seem to have missed the part where I showed that doubling a sequence adds just one 'bit' of information.
And you failed to be specific about your scientific definition of information or show where my example was wrong in your mind or why you concluded the 'science' proved that mutations can't increase information.
If you were just hopefully bluffing, then say so and we can just move on.
ThisIsMyUserName
New member
Wonderful. So you do accept evolution then!
What are we fighting about?
Evolution says NOTHING about the origin of life. Furthermore it's perfectly possible that not all animals share the exact same common ancestor.
What say you .... ?
Jose Fly
New member
Keep dodging. The last thing you want to do is actually engage in a good-faith discussion.
Right Divider
Body part
I don't have a personal definition, I just believe what scientists say.
Where then was no life, there was no information. Now there are vast amounts of it. That would be called an information increase.
Right Divider
Body part
That is EXACTLY what creationists have been saying all along.
This all depends on which version of "evolution" we are talking about. Once AGAIN, creationists have no problem with real science.
Right Divider
Body part
I don't have to play the game by your rules.
Tell us what scientists say about calculating genetic information in a population of living things. How do your "scientists" say it's done?
Jose Fly
New member
It's soooooo revealing that you see answering a basic question and explaining yourself as a set of "rules" that you have no intention of abiding by.
I predicted that you'd never say what "genetic information" is or how you're measuring it, and you've shown that I was correct.
Such is the nature of creationism.