Dinosaur with feathers and scales?

[Wormwood]

River,

To answer your question, I do know a little bit about DNA and genetic information. I have been in school for a long time and most of it had little or nothing to do with biology, astronomy or geology. It is not my area of specialty. However, I do study on my own such subjects....and to answer your question, much of my information has come from reading and watching debates and discussions over these topics. I prefer this method because I can listen directly to the horse's mouth on each side. I am not simply accepting creationist arguments as you errantly have proposed many times.

I understand that DNA "information" can be difficult to assess. However, as you know, the number of nucleotides has nothing to do with the complexity of the information. Essentially, every organism is made of seven types of cell functions. The DNA sets the sequence for these functions in the development of the organism. Cells replicate, migrate, die, etc. in specific patterns and processes as lined out by the DNA. Thus the information in DNA is incredibly complex and specific.

The point here is that we have no recorded instance of DNA "evolving" in a species that gives new information to the cells which then form dramatically new appendages, eyes, feathers, breathing modes and so forth that give the creature an advantage over others. We may have DNA migrating to increase resistances in bacteria or viruses, but we do not have the actual coded information in the DNA reconstituting itself to allow a creature that was previously unfit for water being a water dwelling creature. I find it to be an incredible and fanciful leap to suggest that because bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics through natural selection or through migrated DNA that this somehow, sprinkled with millions of years turned cows into whales. If you want to believe that, then that is your prerogative. However, that has never been verified and there is simply no evidence of DNA in a cell undergoing such a transformation in a species to enable it to take on entirely new capabilities and features for better survival....not to mention the fact that this not only would have to happen...but it would have to happen frequently in order for such a trait to actually be passed on to offspring who can then perpetuate that new feature or ability (certainly there would have to be many more times that this happened but got swallowed up by the norm and wasn't able to perpetuate itself).

The reality is, creatures as we know it throughout the world are incredibly designed to inhabit their environment. Fossils show no record of slow gradual changes that you suggest happened over millions of years via your petri dish explanation. Punctuated equilibrium is the other option and there has been no example of DNA suddenly taking on radical transformations via beneficial mutations or whatever to create such sudden and radical changes to allow for such incredible shifts to allow for a land dwelling mammal to become a sea dwelling creature. You have your petri dish of bacteria and a lot of imagination...and claim that those who do not buy your theories are not scientific or are ignorant. I disagree.

 

[River Jordan]

Uppsala,

You're right. I have absolutely no point to make to you, and I have no idea what the point of your participation in this thread is. Again, thanks for your input.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Feathers are of such non-endurable material that they singe quickly when put to a flame...

And we're supposed to believe they were fossilized?

And then putting this forward as "proof" of evolution goes right over the edge. The materalists are so desperate to cover for their embarrassing lack of transitional forms that they'll clutch at any straw, this thread being a lucid example of this.

 

[River Jordan]

To answer your question, I do know a little bit about DNA and genetic information. I have been in school for a long time and most of it had little or nothing to do with biology, astronomy or geology. It is not my area of specialty. However, I do study on my own such subjects....and to answer your question, much of my information has come from reading and watching debates and discussions over these topics. I prefer this method because I can listen directly to the horse's mouth on each side. I am not simply accepting creationist arguments as you errantly have proposed many times.

So to be clear, you came about this "no new genetic information" argument by watching debates in online forums?

I understand that DNA "information" can be difficult to assess. However, as you know, the number of nucleotides has nothing to do with the complexity of the information. Essentially, every organism is made of seven types of cell functions. The DNA sets the sequence for these functions in the development of the organism. Cells replicate, migrate, die, etc. in specific patterns and processes as lined out by the DNA. Thus the information in DNA is incredibly complex and specific.

That's all well and good, but you still have not given a definition of "genetic information" or a means by which it can be measured. Without that, the "no new genetic information" argument is completely meaningless.

The point here is that we have no recorded instance of DNA "evolving" in a species that gives new information to the cells which then form dramatically new appendages, eyes, feathers, breathing modes and so forth that give the creature an advantage over others.

But how can you say that if 1) you can't say what "genetic information" is, 2) given two genomes you can't say which has more "genetic information", and 3) you've never actually looked to see what has been published in the scientific literature?

Do you see how from my perspective, this is incredibly silly? I would think before anyone would go around arguing "no new genetic information" they'd at least be able to say what "genetic information" is and say how it should be measured.

We may have DNA migrating to increase resistances in bacteria or viruses, but we do not have the actual coded information in the DNA reconstituting itself to allow a creature that was previously unfit for water being a water dwelling creature. I find it to be an incredible and fanciful leap to suggest that because bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics through natural selection or through migrated DNA that this somehow, sprinkled with millions of years turned cows into whales.

So do I. Perhaps you'd be better served learning about biology from actual biologists and/or biology courses rather than lurking around internet arguments.

If you want to believe that, then that is your prerogative. However, that has never been verified and there is simply no evidence of DNA in a cell undergoing such a transformation in a species to enable it to take on entirely new capabilities and features for better survival....not to mention the fact that this not only would have to happen...but it would have to happen frequently in order for such a trait to actually be passed on to offspring who can then perpetuate that new feature or ability (certainly there would have to be many more times that this happened but got swallowed up by the norm and wasn't able to perpetuate itself).

If you're interested, go to the thread I started a while ago where I provide examples of the observed evolution of new traits, abilities, and genetic sequences. There you'll see published examples of exactly what you're saying can't happen. At least a few of those examples specifically have a starting population and an evolved population, where the evolved population has new traits and genetic sequences that weren't there in the starting population. So is that "new genetic information"? If it's not new, where was it before? If it's not "genetic information", what is "genetic information"?

The reality is, creatures as we know it throughout the world are incredibly designed to inhabit their environment.

Does that include all the nasty pathogens, parasites, and pestilence that cause untold suffering? All of those things are also very complex. Do you believe God deliberately designed them that way?

Fossils show no record of slow gradual changes that you suggest happened over millions of years via your petri dish explanation.

How do you know? Have you studied patterns in the fossil record? The world's paleontologists very strongly disagree with you, so why should anyone take your assertions over their expert opinions? If we were in court, do you think you would be called as an expert witness to testify about the fossil record?

And the fact is, you're just wrong. Would you like me to post examples of gradual evolution observed in the fossil record? Would that make any difference to you and cause you to stop making such a ludicrously wrong argument?

Punctuated equilibrium is the other option and there has been no example of DNA suddenly taking on radical transformations via beneficial mutations or whatever to create such sudden and radical changes to allow for such incredible shifts to allow for a land dwelling mammal to become a sea dwelling creature. You have your petri dish of bacteria and a lot of imagination...and claim that those who do not buy your theories are not scientific or are ignorant. I disagree.

You know, it's funny how you claim to have learned about this subject by watching online debates, but somehow you've only managed to pick up the most ridiculous of creationist arguments and not one bit of the actual science seems to have sunk in. Why is that? Why do you have such a cartoonish version of evolutionary biology?

It makes me wonder what you think about the people who work in these scientific fields. Do you think they're all incredibly stupid and horrible at their jobs, or do you think they're all intentionally pulling the wool over everyone's eyes? I mean, wouldn't it have to be one or the other?

Feathers are of such non-endurable material that they singe quickly when put to a flame...

And we're supposed to believe they were fossilized?

Have you actually read the paper about this specimen, or any of the other feathered dinosaur specimens?

And then putting this forward as "proof" of evolution goes right over the edge. The materalists are so desperate to cover for their embarrassing lack of transitional forms that they'll clutch at any straw, this thread being a lucid example of this.

What do you think a "transitional form" between reptiles and birds should look like?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

All dinosaurs had feathers and spoke Portuguese.

 

[Wormwood]

River,

I love how you ignore my questions while continually thrusting your own. Now it seems your aim is to discredit me because my educational background in this field is not up to your requirements. How convenient. Of course, if I did have a Ph.D in the field as many I have cited in our conversations, you would quickly label me as a "creationist" and therefore discredit me as well. Why don't you answer the questions and deal with the issues at hand rather than trying to find reasons why you don't have to answer them or that my background prohibits me from discussing the issue?

I have not said all of my study in this area is limited to online debates. However, I find them insightful because I am able to learn from the leading evolutionists who are PhD's in molecular biology, evolutionary development, geology, etc. and hear straight from them why they hold their views based on their own specialties in the field. I am able to hear them establish their views and case for Darwinian evolution while responding to questions from those who are also PhDs that disagree with them (I have named a few of these individuals..that you quickly discount for some reason or another...again, very convenient).

So, thus far in our conversation on this issue, your responses look like this....
You don't know enough about DNA to talk about what constitutes increased information.
Your education shows you don't know enough to have a conversation or ask questions about it.
You cant quote PhDs who disagree with me because they are creationists and therefore are excused from serious consideration.
You cant quote PhDs who are evolutionists that disagree with me because these quotes often are cited by creationists and therefore are excused from serious consideration.
You cant listen to debates for information from evolutionists because, while they are PhDs that agree with me, its not a classroom setting for a degree so it doesn't count as real information.

So, basically your response to every question and challenge I have posed to you is an arrogant way of suggesting that I cannot intelligibly engage in the conversation. Thus, my only option is to take your word for it as a more enlightened and educated individual or, get a graduate level education on the field of your choice (although I suppose if I did this and still disagreed with you, then you would question the soundness of the institution I chose).

In any event, this type of grandstanding and arrogant chest-beating on your end is tiresome. I have never engaged in theological discussions with you and claimed that you must meet some level of educational scrutiny before your opinion or understanding holds any merit or value. If your ultimate position is that the only people who can converse with you on the subject are those who hold particular degrees from certain institutions, then you should say that up front and save everyone a lot of time and stop pretending like you have answers.

In reference to your evolutionary proofs, I thought the most significant one was the E-Coli strains where approximately 50,000 generations have been produced and evaluated for evolutionary change. This topic has been covered and published by many different people, some of which do not agree with you that the results here give any credence to Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Im sure they are all ignorant and brainwashed, but heres for your reading enjoyment anyway.

http://biologos.org/blog/behe-lenski-and-the-edge-of-evolution-part-1

 

[River Jordan]

I love how you ignore my questions while continually thrusting your own.

Um.....what? :huh:

The last post of yours I responded to (#61) doesn't have a single question in it. You do realize that a question is signified by the presence of a question mark, don't you?

Meanwhile, I have asked you one very fundamental, basic, and important question (as signified by a question mark) that even after I predicted you wouldn't answer, you still haven't answered! I'm guessing you know what that question is. Here's a subtle hint....what is "genetic information"?

I mean...the hypocrisy you're displaying here is just hard to fathom.

Now it seems your aim is to discredit me because my educational background in this field is not up to your requirements. How convenient. Of course, if I did have a Ph.D in the field as many I have cited in our conversations, you would quickly label me as a "creationist" and therefore discredit me as well. Why don't you answer the questions and deal with the issues at hand rather than trying to find reasons why you don't have to answer them or that my background prohibits me from discussing the issue?

You're dodging the entire point. You're making some pretty bold claims here..."no new genetic information" and "no gradual transitions in the fossil record". Why do you think it's so unreasonable to ask someone who makes such claims that fly directly against what the experts in those fields say, "How do you know"?

I think it's very revealing that after you prop yourself up as an expert in paleontology (enough to declare what is or isn't found in the fossil record), you take "How do you know" as an attempt to discredit you. The only reason you would take it that way is if your true answer is "I don't know...it's just something I read on the internet". I mean, what exactly do you expect when you make such grandiose claims about science? You expect everyone to be like, "Oh, well that's true then since Wormwood at Christianityboard.com said so"?

If you don't really know what is or isn't in the fossil record, or what has or hasn't been observed in the lab, just be honest and say so. Why is that not an option for you? Why do you feel so compelled to try and pretend to be an expert?

I have not said all of my study in this area is limited to online debates. However, I find them insightful because I am able to learn from the leading evolutionists who are PhD's in molecular biology, evolutionary development, geology, etc. and hear straight from them why they hold their views based on their own specialties in the field. I am able to hear them establish their views and case for Darwinian evolution while responding to questions from those who are also PhDs that disagree with them (I have named a few of these individuals..that you quickly discount for some reason or another...again, very convenient).

Then why do you carry around such a cartoonish version of evolutionary biology? Why does it seem like almost nothing from the "evolution side" has sunk in at all?

So, thus far in our conversation on this issue, your responses look like this....
You don't know enough about DNA to talk about what constitutes increased information.
Your education shows you don't know enough to have a conversation or ask questions about it.
You cant quote PhDs who disagree with me because they are creationists and therefore are excused from serious consideration.
You cant quote PhDs who are evolutionists that disagree with me because these quotes often are cited by creationists and therefore are excused from serious consideration.
You cant listen to debates for information from evolutionists because, while they are PhDs that agree with me, its not a classroom setting for a degree so it doesn't count as real information.

I've not said a single one of those things. Not one. Are these ridiculous straw men a diversion away from the fact that you can't even say what "genetic information" is?

So, basically your response to every question and challenge I have posed to you is an arrogant way of suggesting that I cannot intelligibly engage in the conversation. Thus, my only option is to take your word for it as a more enlightened and educated individual or, get a graduate level education on the field of your choice (although I suppose if I did this and still disagreed with you, then you would question the soundness of the institution I chose).

Again, all I've done is ask you "How do you know" after you make very bold claims about the state of different fields of science. Again, the fact that you take it as such a terrible thing for me to do says a lot about how you approach this issue.

In any event, this type of grandstanding and arrogant chest-beating on your end is tiresome. I have never engaged in theological discussions with you and claimed that you must meet some level of educational scrutiny before your opinion or understanding holds any merit or value.

And I've not done that to you either.

I think maybe you've been so immersed in creationism that you don't appreciate the gravity of some of the things you say. You saying "there are no gradual transitions in the fossil record" is the equivalent of me saying "There is nothing in the Old Testament about a Messiah". Being someone who knows the Bible, your first reaction would be "Huh? Have you even read the Old Testament", right? Well, by the same token, when you tell me "evolution has never produced new genetic information", being someone who knows genetics my first reaction is "Huh? Have you even looked to see if that's true?"

Now in the first scenario, how would it look if after you asked me if I'd ever read the OT I answered "Oh, so you're saying I can't even talk to you about the Bible unless I have a PhD"? Guess what? That's exactly how you're coming across to me,

In reference to your evolutionary proofs, I thought the most significant one was the E-Coli strains where approximately 50,000 generations have been produced and evaluated for evolutionary change. This topic has been covered and published by many different people, some of which do not agree with you that the results here give any credence to Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Im sure they are all ignorant and brainwashed, but heres for your reading enjoyment anyway.

http://biologos.org/blog/behe-lenski-and-the-edge-of-evolution-part-1

Um...did you just google that and post it without reading the whole thing? The end of the article states...

"Fortunately for us, the Lenski lab kept watching, and working diligently to understand the changes that led to the Cit+ development. As we will examine tomorrow in Part 2 of this series, what they have discovered does not square easily with Behe’s ideas. Indeed, a careful analysis of their findings and Behe’s key arguments in The Edge of Evolution is in order, and that’s what we’ll do in tomorrow’s post."

And in Part 2, they summarize Lenski's subsequent work where they identified the specific mutational steps that led to the new trait, thereby negating Behe's previous arguments. And as the article notes, Behe did not respond. The only response from the creationists was to redefine "innovation" to mean "appears out of nowhere", which is extremely ridiculous since no evolutionary biologist argues that entire new traits just pop into existence out of thin air.

Also, did you read the other articles I linked to? Do you have any specific comments on them and specifically whether or not they constitute the evolution of "new genetic information"?

 

[Wormwood]

Um.....what? :huh:

The last post of yours I responded to (#61) doesn't have a single question in it. You do realize that a question is signified by the presence of a question mark, don't you?

I have been continually asking you for information about what validates your evolutionary view based on your petri dish example of bacteria growing resistant to antibiotics. There have been no records showing bacteria (after 50,000 generations) becoming anything but bacteria. Moreover, natural selection does not create new species. Seeing a pile or red and black ants and killing all the red ones with a hammer is not an example of Darwinian evolution. I have been regularly referring to these concepts that you ignore either by way of question or suggestion that your "evidence" is not characteristic of your theory. You continually fail to address how bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics via natural selection and transferred existing genetic material is proof that cows can become whales...given an additional hundred million years. Do you see the question and challenge I am posing here to your view?

Meanwhile, I have asked you one very fundamental, basic, and important question (as signified by a question mark) that even after I predicted you wouldn't answer, you still haven't answered! I'm guessing you know what that question is. Here's a subtle hint....what is "genetic information"?

I mean...the hypocrisy you're displaying here is just hard to fathom.

I did answer this question. Perhaps not to your liking. Genetic information is the information held within the DNA that dictates cellular functions that hold the particular genes or "instructions" for producing a particular organism. Do you not recall me writing this? I kinda wrote a big thing about DNA, genes, the Human Genome Project and so forth as it related to information that acted as the blueprints for developing an organism. This is kinda the definition of "genetic information." Maybe you should review our conversation before suggesting I am being hypocritical.

I think it's very revealing that after you prop yourself up as an expert in paleontology (enough to declare what is or isn't found in the fossil record), you take "How do you know" as an attempt to discredit you.

First, I never propped myself up as "an expert in paleontology." Apparently I need to dig the bones out of the ground myself before I am permitted an opinion on the discussions that have been going on for decades.
Stop rewriting our discussion and patronizing me. You know exactly what you are doing and now you are trying to pretend I am overreacting when I call you on it. Allow me to refresh your memory from your last post:

So to be clear, you came about this "no new genetic information" argument by watching debates in online forums?
Perhaps you'd be better served learning about biology from actual biologists and/or biology courses rather than lurking around internet arguments.
If we were in court, do you think you would be called as an expert witness to testify about the fossil record?

So add that to the incredibly patronizing and arrogant tone in your responses and it comes across pretty much how you intend it: I have no right to say anything on this issue..and if I disagree with your professors (regardless of whether or not I cite other PhDs) then Im a fool and think I am smarter than all these scientists. There is clearly only one side of this coin in your mind and only one voice on all these matters. Quit talking about "all the scientists," "experts" and "actual biology" and give me some responses to my inquiries. You are doing a lot of chest pounding have yet to post anything of substance except a few articles that have varying views about how the results can be interpreted.

I've not said a single one of those things. Not one.

You most certainly have either implied them or said them directly. As shown above, you make it clear that I should take "actual biology classes" (which I have done, mind you). When I quoted poeple like Behe and others you say, "What scientific work have they been doing lately? If he is really a scientist, why is he just touring around churches giving lectures rather than doing science?" When I quote a PhD that disagrees with you, you say, "Where did you get that quote? Did you get that from a creationist site? Creationists are liars..." And clearly you are implying that my sources of information are far inferior to yours... "So let me get this straight....you are getting your information from online forums?" You can pretend all you want here, but your rhetoric is long on arrogance and short on substance. I believe that if someone really is knowledgeable on a subject, then they can speak plainly about it. If they aren't, they resort to posting links and lifting up all the "scholars" that all agree (which is ridiculous...I don't think I have every met two scholars who agreed on everything).

You saying "there are no gradual transitions in the fossil record" is the equivalent of me saying "There is nothing in the Old Testament about a Messiah". Being someone who knows the Bible, your first reaction would be "Huh? Have you even read the Old Testament", right?

Actually, I like this illustration of yours. No, I would not answer you in that way. What I would do is walk through passages of the OT, historical references as to how Jews understood passages as well as how the NT uses passages in the OT in order to show you why I believe the OT does speak about the Messiah. I would not say, "So where did you go to theology school?" "Are you saying all the scholars are stupid?" "Why don't you give me a detailed working definition of what Messiah is in the NT."
Do you see the difference here? I would show you why I believe what I believe based on what I see (in as humble of way as I know how). I would not make you feel like an idiot for disagreeing with me and suggest that you are simply a brain-dead follower of a group of people who lie for a living (creation scientists). Now maybe I have read the OT hundreds of times and have taken multiple classes on the OT. Shoot...maybe I have a doctorate in OT studies. I wouldn't point to my degree and say, "Well, I have a degree on the matter, and you have only read it once through. And while you may be quoting other people with doctorates in the OT, these guys are buffoons and if you really knew the OT like me, you would never cite them." Big difference in approaches here..which leads me to think that either you do not really know as much as you project, or you don't want to lower yourself enough to talk with a "creationist" who is too ignorant to converse with on the topic.

"Fortunately for us, the Lenski lab kept watching, and working diligently to understand the changes that led to the Cit+ development. As we will examine tomorrow in Part 2 of this series, what they have discovered does not square easily with Behe’s ideas. Indeed, a careful analysis of their findings and Behe’s key arguments in The Edge of Evolution is in order, and that’s what we’ll do in tomorrow’s post."

And in Part 2, they summarize Lenski's subsequent work where they identified the specific mutational steps that led to the new trait, thereby negating Behe's previous arguments. And as the article notes, Behe did not respond. The only response from the creationists was to redefine "innovation" to mean "appears out of nowhere", which is extremely ridiculous since no evolutionary biologist argues that entire new traits just pop into existence out of thin air.

Yes, I purposefully cited a source that I knew you would agree with. Otherwise, the source is just gets dismissed as "creationist propaganda." My point in citing it is that there are scholars here processing through the information and who are coming to different conclusions about the results. If you like, I can post some creationist cites on this research that show why they disagree with the conclusions of the author of this website. I suppose this will not be of any value to you.

I have not looked at all your links, just a couple that I wanted to look at in more depth. I am already a bit behind on my work and have tried to fit in a little reading in this area in my downtime. Perhaps later.

 

[River Jordan]

I have been continually asking you for information about what validates your evolutionary view based on your petri dish example of bacteria growing resistant to antibiotics. There have been no records showing bacteria (after 50,000 generations) becoming anything but bacteria.

Then you have completely and utterly misunderstood the context of this entire discussion.

You originally claimed "Modern medicine is not based on this theory of mutating DNA which leads to greater complexity". I refuted that assertion by noting that a significant part of modern medicine relates to how viruses are evolving around vaccines, and bacteria are evolving around antibiotics. You also claimed "There is no scientific observation of a species receiving additional information in their DNA that permitted new abilities by way of natural selection or mutation". I attempted to address that by asking "What is genetic information" (which you still haven't answered) and providing an example of a basic experiment whereby a population evolves a new trait and genetic sequence that wasn't there before.

I did not offer those examples as an attempt to explain how bacteria become something other than bacteria. They are simply direct rebuttals to the specific and erroneous arguments you posted. So either you are guilty of moving the goalposts, or are fundamentally mistaken about our entire discussion.

Moreover, natural selection does not create new species.

*sigh*

And am I supposed to just accept that as fact? It is so because you say it is?

But in line with your stated preference that I not ask you such horrific questions.,..to put it bluntly, you're wrong. You're extremely wrong.

The paper Ecological Speciation in South Atlantic Island Finches describes how selective pressures have led to reproductive isolation in two populations of finches, thereby qualifying to be an example of evolution of new species via natural selection.

You continually fail to address how bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics via natural selection and transferred existing genetic material is proof that cows can become whales...given an additional hundred million years. Do you see the question and challenge I am posing here to your view?

See above. You're either moving the goalposts or completely misunderstanding the point.

I did answer this question. Perhaps not to your liking. Genetic information is the information held within the DNA that dictates cellular functions that hold the particular genes or "instructions" for producing a particular organism.

Seriously? That's your definition of "genetic information"...genetic information is the information in DNA? Come on. If you expect me to take this seriously, you're going to have put some actual thought into this.

What you posted above is in no way a definition of "genetic information". It's laughably circular and provides no means at all for us to tell if one genome has more, less, or the same amount of "genetic information" than any other.

So again...we have two genomes, one from the individual at the start of an experiment (parental strain) and one from the end of the experiment (evolved strain). Their genomes are different. How do we tell which has more "genetic information"?

First, I never propped myself up as "an expert in paleontology."

Then on what basis can you declare that there are no gradual transitions in the fossil record? I really need you to answer this question.

So add that to the incredibly patronizing and arrogant tone in your responses and it comes across pretty much how you intend it: I have no right to say anything on this issue..and if I disagree with your professors (regardless of whether or not I cite other PhDs) then Im a fool and think I am smarter than all these scientists.

No, asking you "how do you know that" is not the same as "you have no right to say anything".

Quit talking about "all the scientists," "experts" and "actual biology" and give me some responses to my inquiries. You are doing a lot of chest pounding have yet to post anything of substance except a few articles that have varying views about how the results can be interpreted.

Ok, fine. If you want me to deal with you like we deal with each other in the world of science, we can do that. But don't get upset when I'm much, much, much more blunt than I have been to this point. Up til now I've been mostly interested in why you keep making such ridiculous and childish anti-science arguments. It's been my experience that trying to debate science with creationists is pointless, because their approach to science is about the same as Christian Scientists' approach to modern medicine...it's wrong, no matter what...period. As I noted earlier, it's obvious that you didn't come to your creationist position after thoroughly studying science and objectively reaching the conclusion that creationism is a better fit. So there must be something else going on, and I suspect it has a lot to do with your religious beliefs and some other non-science related factors. But you clearly don't want to go there. Fair enough.

Your argument that we've never seen "new genetic information" come about is completely and utterly wrong. By any means you care to name, the evolution of novel genetic sequences is as common as rain. One common event is a nucleotide insertion. Since nucleotides are read in sets of threes, the insertion of a nucleotide shifts that pattern and changes the subsequent protein product. This is called a frameshift. So are such events "new genetic information"? If they're not "new", where were they before? If they're not "genetic information", what is "genetic information"?

One of the papers I provided earlier describes "The restriction enzyme XhoI digests chromosome IV on either side of HXT6 and HXT7, producing a 10-kb fragment containing both of these genes. We confirmed that more than three regions of 5.2 kb each were inserted in the HXT6/HXT7 gene region by detecting an increase in size from 10 kb to greater than 26 kb of this XhoI fragment in the evolved strain". They describe how these sequences in the evolved strain are responsible for the increased metabolic efficiency that they observed to evolve.

Now if this "genetic information" was already present, then what accounts for the new trait?

I can provide a lot more examples if you'd like, but the fact remains the same...you are very wrong.

Now, on to "gradual transitions" in the fossil record. Again, your claim that they are never found in the fossil record is wrong. One of the best examples comes from the fossil record of the foraminifera. The scientists describe what they found...

"It's all here--a virtually complete evolutionary record," says Arnold. "There are other good examples, but this is by far the best. We're seeing the whole picture of how this group of organisms has changed throughout most of its existence on Earth."

As he speaks, Arnold shows a series of microphotographs, depicting the evolutionary change wrought on a single foram species. "This is the same organism, as it existed through 500,000 years," he says. "We've got hundreds of examples like this, complete life and evolutionary histories for dozens of species."

About 330 species of living and extinct planktonic forams have been classified so far. After thorough examinations of marine sediments collected from around the world, micropaleontologists now suspect these are just about all the free-floating forams that ever existed.

Darwin termed the process gradualism, a theory that invokes the slow accumulation of small evolutionary changes over a large period of time, as a result of the pressures of natural selection. What Arnold and Parker found is almost a textbook example of gradualism at work.

We've literally seen hundreds of speciation events," syas Arnold. "This allows us to check for patterns, to determine what exactly is going on. We can quickly tell whether something is a recurring phenomenon--a pattern--or whether it's just an anomally.

The record reveals a robust, highly branched evolutionary tree, complete with Darwin's predicted "dead ends"--varieties that lead nowhere--and a profusion of variability in sizes and body shapes. Transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendents. In short, the finding upholds Darwin's lifelong conviction that "nature does not proceed in leaps," but rather is a system prepetually unfolding in extreme slow motion."

So far, essentially every argument you've made against evolutionary biology is wrong.

Yes, I purposefully cited a source that I knew you would agree with. Otherwise, the source is just gets dismissed as "creationist propaganda." My point in citing it is that there are scholars here processing through the information and who are coming to different conclusions about the results.

Gee...that's it? "I can find some people with degrees who come to different conclusions"? So what? I can find people with degrees who think the sun orbits the earth. Do you find that compelling? Probably not, because at least on that issue you're thinking rationally. But when it comes to evolutionary biology, "there are scholars who disagree" suddenly becomes extremely important! Why? Well, you don't want to go there, do you?

 

[aspen]

i have an example. over the last 10,000 years, dogs have acquired the ability to understand when humans point to an object. The development of this trait has been sped up by domestication, but it is present in all dogs when they are puupies - it is not learned.

 

[shturt678s]

Thank you folks for caring so much!

I had a long but good day, and I have to admit I had to reread scrutinizing a lot more than I normally have to at my lower paygrade, p. 3 of this thread. I know way less than brother Wormwood, however I had a chance to walk a few steps in your shoes and thank you for giving me that opportunity.... a good thing. Only a head's up, at my lower paygrade our Lord doesn't expect that much out of me, however going to let you dig a hole a little deeper then going to respond...another good thing just saying little ol' me subscribing.

Old Jack cannot wait my brother, ie, will be a walk in the park for you.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Uppsala,


You're right. I have absolutely no point to make to you, and I have no idea what the point of your participation in this thread is. Again, thanks for your input.

Thought so.. because that's what you usually do.

You try the same old tiresome tricks and tactics every time. Initially you try to meet the arguments waged against your wishy-washy worldview, thinking that you know so much that you are somehow equipped to do so. You fail. After that you stoop to missrepresenting what your opponents are saying, and then make out that you are TOTALLY ASTONISHED!!!?????????? (take note of all the question marks!) that they could be so stupid as to question scientific consensus, which should be gobbled up as facts, a phenomenon that you repeatedly call "throwing rocks at scientists". You fail. Then you try to play some kind of immature pretending game where you simply claim that you have addressed whatever has been challenge of you. You fail. And finally you just try to completely derail the discussion by suggesting that, short of being a paleontologist, a geneticist, a geologist .. or anyone else who is supposed to be an expert in things they cannot observe or test, everyone else should just shut up.

Why don't you just write a big disclaimer in all the threads you create saying that "unless the participant is a scientist working directly in the field in question they have no right to express themselves.." (all the while under the guise that you are promoting some kind of "discussion"). Yeah sure... :lol:

 

[shturt678s]

Thank you RJ for starting this thread and caring!

I had to place a lower paygrade summary in my mind as I also was an evolutionist in my teens before I met the Godman Jesus...didn't want to be deceived again in any way shape or form regarding this issue. Your welcome to try and shoot holes in it keeping to forum rules of course.

"Plumes evolved," and other evolution fallacies: Variation within species...yes, however strict limits (microevolution does occur) to variations that do not occur. Evolution says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles to name a few. Macroevolution (big changes) doesn't happen.

I was unable to find fault with Wormwood's and other's views not that I'm any authority.

Old Jack waiting where I'm in error?

 

[Wormwood]

You originally claimed "Modern medicine is not based on this theory of mutating DNA which leads to greater complexity". I refuted that assertion by noting that a significant part of modern medicine relates to how viruses are evolving around vaccines, and bacteria are evolving around antibiotics.

Yes, and I refuted your claim by saying that the changes in viruses and bacteria are not proof of Darwinian evolution. The changes that are seen here represent populations that are adapting to their environment for survival and not transitions from one type of organism to another. I get the whole notion that this IS evolution on a small scale for the evolutionary biologist. What I am saying is that creationists see this same information and argue that this is a honing of existing traits and is not a viable process for turning cows into whales. A persons existing immune system can become stronger when exposed to particular bacteria in small amounts which can make them stronger against disease or sickness that could permit them to survive when another dies. However, this process is built into human beings to help them survive and is not an additional feature being created from one offspring to the next.

And am I supposed to just accept that as fact? It is so because you say it is?

But in line with your stated preference that I not ask you such horrific questions.,..to put it bluntly, you're wrong. You're extremely wrong.

I understand this is what some biologists believe as a naturalistic explanation for various systems being developed among organisms from the same base substances. However, there is a lot of assumption here, specifically as it relates to the information and complexity of DNA. 50,000 generations of bacteria have shown to produce bacteria. There is nothing here that validates the type of process of punctuated equilibrium that could take a land-dwelling mammal and allow it to survive in the sea. Nothing here explains codependant organisms. Nothing here explains how birds can double their weight and fly for a week as they migrate to an island they have never been before..year after year. These slow natural selection processes cannot explain this and about 100 other such realities around us.

Your argument that we've never seen "new genetic information" come about is completely and utterly wrong. By any means you care to name, the evolution of novel genetic sequences is as common as rain. One common event is a nucleotide insertion. Since nucleotides are read in sets of threes, the insertion of a nucleotide shifts that pattern and changes the subsequent protein product. This is called a frameshift. So are such events "new genetic information"? If they're not "new", where were they before? If they're not "genetic information", what is "genetic information"?

Look, you are simply obfuscating my very clear points. Yes, it is hard to determine "information" in the DNA. What is information? Information does not have mass or weight and cannot be really qualified. However, the DNA information has been shown to be extremely similar to computer programming. It uses code just like a computer does based in four acids. No, you cant look at DNA and determine the amount of "information" anymore than a person can look at an external harddrive and discern the actual information that is within it. However, we can look at the results of that programming. We can look at the why that information in the DNA is used by the cells to create complex systems in an organism. What I am very clearly saying is that we do not see the types of significant changes in complex systems that would change one type of organism into another type of organism. Now you can believe that....given hundreds of millions of years, that small incremental changes due to natural selection process can turn protozoa into amphibians, plants, birds, slugs, monkeys and humans. However, this is simply theory and this theory is not what gives us modern medicine. As I told you before, a good friend of mine basically has a PhD in molecular biology and he is a devout Christian. The theories of Darwinian evolution are not essential for him to do his job in the lab. The study and understanding of the cell as it exists and develops today do..but our understanding of the cell today..for many molecular biologists have led them to believe in a Creator after originally being naturalists. The knife cuts both ways. Scientists cannot even comprehend the biological complexity of blood-clotting, let alone that these systems self-constructed by random processes.

I am out of time. I will respond with more later.

 

[River Jordan]

Thank you RJ for starting this thread and caring!

I had to place a lower paygrade summary in my mind as I also was an evolutionist in my teens before I met the Godman Jesus...didn't want to be deceived again in any way shape or form regarding this issue.

So if I understand you correctly, your moving from "evolutionist" to creationist was a religious conversion, right?

"Plumes evolved," and other evolution fallacies: Variation within species...yes, however strict limits (microevolution does occur) to variations that do not occur. Evolution says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles to name a few. Macroevolution (big changes) doesn't happen.

Yes it does, and we have very clear and consistent evidence that it does. But I have to wonder, if the main reason you're on this side of the issue is religion, it doesn't make much sense for us to spend all our time talking about the science, does it? It kind of misses the point.

Yes, and I refuted your claim by saying that the changes in viruses and bacteria are not proof of Darwinian evolution. The changes that are seen here represent populations that are adapting to their environment for survival and not transitions from one type of organism to another. I get the whole notion that this IS evolution on a small scale for the evolutionary biologist. What I am saying is that creationists see this same information and argue that this is a honing of existing traits and is not a viable process for turning cows into whales.

And thus you're guilty of moving the goalposts. It went something like...

Wormwood: Modern medicine is not based on this theory of mutating DNA which leads to greater complexity.

Me: Here are examples where mutation and the evolution of new traits are extremely important in modern medicine.

Wormwood: But that doesn't explain how cows became whales!


Do you see how dishonest that is? Your original argument was successfully refuted, but rather than concede that fact, you instead moved the target from mutation and evolution of new traits in the context of modern medicine, to the evolutionary history of whales.

If you want to talk about whale evolution, we can do that. As it stands now, your argument about modern medicine has been demonstrated to be wrong.

A persons existing immune system can become stronger when exposed to particular bacteria in small amounts which can make them stronger against disease or sickness that could permit them to survive when another dies. However, this process is built into human beings to help them survive and is not an additional feature being created from one offspring to the next.

Irrelevant to your argument that I was addressing. The fact remains, mutation and the evolution of new traits is important to modern medicine.

I understand this is what some biologists believe as a naturalistic explanation for various systems being developed among organisms from the same base substances. However, there is a lot of assumption here, specifically as it relates to the information and complexity of DNA. 50,000 generations of bacteria have shown to produce bacteria. There is nothing here that validates the type of process of punctuated equilibrium that could take a land-dwelling mammal and allow it to survive in the sea. Nothing here explains codependant organisms. Nothing here explains how birds can double their weight and fly for a week as they migrate to an island they have never been before..year after year. These slow natural selection processes cannot explain this and about 100 other such realities around us.

Again you're dishonestly moving the goalposts. Your original claim was that "There is no scientific observation of a species receiving additional information in their DNA that permitted new abilities by way of natural selection or mutation". I provided specific examples of the observed evolution of novel genetic sequences that led to new abilities that conferred a selective advantage. Your argument is therefore wrong. But rather than concede that fact, you now change your argument to demands about the evolution of an entire new domain ("bacteria" are a domain), punctuated equilibria, the evolution of whales, codependency, and life histories of migratory birds. IOW, something like...

Wormwood: There is no scientific observation of a species receiving additional information in their DNA that permitted new abilities by way of natural selection or mutation.

Me: Here are examples of the observed evolution of novel genetic sequences that led to new abilities that conferred a selective advantage.

Wormwood: But that's not the evolution of a new domain, punctuated equilibria, the evolution of whales, or the evolution of migratory behaviors in birds!


From where I sit, this is incredibly unethical behavior.

Look, you are simply obfuscating my very clear points. Yes, it is hard to determine "information" in the DNA. What is information? Information does not have mass or weight and cannot be really qualified. However, the DNA information has been shown to be extremely similar to computer programming. It uses code just like a computer does based in four acids. No, you cant look at DNA and determine the amount of "information" anymore than a person can look at an external harddrive and discern the actual information that is within it. However, we can look at the results of that programming. We can look at the why that information in the DNA is used by the cells to create complex systems in an organism.

So basically you have no idea what "genetic information" is or how to measure it. Yet that doesn't stop you from claiming that evolution can't add it.

What I am very clearly saying is that we do not see the types of significant changes in complex systems that would change one type of organism into another type of organism.

Too vague to be of any value. Unless you clarify what you mean by "type of organism" (and given your history of moving the goalposts whenever your arguments are refuted), there's nothing here to address.

Now you can believe that....given hundreds of millions of years, that small incremental changes due to natural selection process can turn protozoa into amphibians, plants, birds, slugs, monkeys and humans. However, this is simply theory and this theory is not what gives us modern medicine.

"It's only a theory" is one of the oldest and most ignorant creationist arguments in existence. Do we really need to go over what "theory" means in science?

As I told you before, a good friend of mine basically has a PhD in molecular biology and he is a devout Christian. The theories of Darwinian evolution are not essential for him to do his job in the lab. The study and understanding of the cell as it exists and develops today do..but our understanding of the cell today..for many molecular biologists have led them to believe in a Creator after originally being naturalists. The knife cuts both ways. Scientists cannot even comprehend the biological complexity of blood-clotting, let alone that these systems self-constructed by random processes.

Again, so what? I can find you PhD's who believe the sun orbits the earth. Do you find that a compelling argument in favor of geocentrism?

The fact remains, your arguments that, 1) mutation and the evolution of new traits are not important to modern medicine, 2) "genetic information" has never been observed to increase, and 3) there are no gradual transitions in the fossil record are all wrong. In fact, I can't find a single argument you've made about evolutionary biology that isn't wrong.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

i have an example. over the last 10,000 years, dogs have acquired the ability to understand when humans point to an object. The development of this trait has been sped up by domestication, but it is present in all dogs when they are puupies - it is not learned.

And falconry also goes back thousands of years too. You'll have a hard time proving that animals evolved in their ability to be trained.

 

[aspen]

has nothing to do with training in the case of dogs.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

has nothing to do with training in the case of dogs.

Um...ok whatever. You still have no way of proving this outlandish claim.

 

[Wormwood]

And thus you're guilty of moving the goalposts. It went something like...
Wormwood: Modern medicine is not based on this theory of mutating DNA which leads to greater complexity.
Me: Here are examples where mutation and the evolution of new traits are extremely important in modern medicine.
Wormwood: But that doesn't explain how cows became whales!
Do you see how dishonest that is?

First, I think your assertions that I am being dishonest is more than bit overstated. We are exploring the understanding of "evolution/Darwinian evolution" and how that relates to modern medicine. My contention is that understanding how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics is very different from the assertion that such a process can be reversed over millions of years to explain all forms of life by the same gradual process. Again, there are microbiologists who are involved in such medical work that do not agree with such a theory...nor is it necessary for modern medicine. There is nothing "dishonest" here. Again, the coding in DNA is so incredibly complex that even Bill Gates said it exceeds any type of computer programming we have today...on a nano scale. Programs infer a programmer and many microbiologists (whether in medicine or other fields) look at the same evidence you see and do not ascribe to Darwinian evolution. You should learn to accept disagreement without accusing people of lying.

Again you're dishonestly moving the goalposts. Your original claim was that "There is no scientific observation of a species receiving additional information in their DNA that permitted new abilities by way of natural selection or mutation". I provided specific examples of the observed evolution of novel genetic sequences that led to new abilities that conferred a selective advantage. Your argument is therefore wrong. But rather than concede that fact, you now change your argument to demands about the evolution of an entire new domain ("bacteria" are a domain), punctuated equilibria, the evolution of whales, codependency, and life histories of migratory birds. IOW, something like...

Wormwood: There is no scientific observation of a species receiving additional information in their DNA that permitted new abilities by way of natural selection or mutation.
Me: Here are examples of the observed evolution of novel genetic sequences that led to new abilities that conferred a selective advantage.
Wormwood: But that's not the evolution of a new domain, punctuated equilibria, the evolution of whales, or the evolution of migratory behaviors in birds!

From where I sit, this is incredibly unethical behavior.

Yes you provided supposed examples that you THINK can be reversed and account for all life over millions of years. I responded with an article showing scholars who disagree with your belief on this matter. This is not at all about "moving the goalposts." This is about differing interpretations when various people look at the same information. I have been very clearly trying to exhibit that many scholars do not see your petri dish examples of bacteria as providing results that validate the Darwinian hypothesis.

As you may or may not know, this entire naturalistic debate began back with Friedrich Wohler's discovery that he could create urea with non-organic substances. Thus, it was assumed that because organic life did not carry any mysterious vitality to it, that all things could be explained through naturalistic means. This led to theories of life that were based in protoplasm and life just naturally arose from basic chemicals, to the idea that all that was needed was organic molecules which enclosed proteins. Naturalism has been ASSUMED ever since it was understood that the building blocks of life are based in common substances and new theories continually are derived (and proven false) as technology increases. Yet every person with their theory (whether protoplasm or what not) was immediately accepted by all scientists and taught as fact (as I do not doubt your present theory will also be dismissed as understanding increases about DNA information and what is actually taking place with the DNA information in these petri dish experiments). Now we know cells are incredibly complex and DNA is essentially a ridiculously in-depth computer program. Yet because the theory has been assumed for so long, it is continually perpetuated...no matter how complex and unique cells and living organisms are discovered to be. And every new theory is warmly embraced by those who already assume naturalism.

In sum, it is fine if you want to accept naturalism and see the bacteria in a petri dish dying because they aren't suited for an environment while the others reproduce as rationale for cows into whales. However, I am simply saying that one does not mandate the other. The petri dish does not say all you are claiming it says. You are inferring things that NOT ALL SCHOLARS infer. I am not lying and neither am I moving goal posts. I am disagreeing with you..and I think I have valid reasons to do so.

 

[Tex]

God gave humanity the rational capacity. And it is totally reasonable to look at genetics, the complete blueprint of our biology which is passed on from parents to child, and understand that the similarity between species is also parent-child relationship, common ancestor. Regardless of any details wrong in the theory, the basic premise is reasonable.

The next question is "Is God reasonable?" and the answer must be "yes". Sure, we many times do not understand him, his creation, his ways, etc., but that doesn't make them unitelligible. Why would God provide the scientific evidence showing the Earth has been around for billions of years, the universe for longer, fossils and oil that have been around for millions of years, and other data if it wasn't to simply let us understand his magnificent creation? Did Satan create those things? Did Satan maniulate the laws of creation to make them into lies? Of course not, Satan does not have that power.

Science is not at war with religion. God made both to glorify Him and bring his people to salvation.