Dinosaur with feathers and scales?

[UppsalaDragby]

Well the fact that you presume that my interpretion of scripture is poor without providing any evidence that it is indicates that you are prejudiced.

 

[Wormwood]

Tex,

I think if you are going to assert that something is "true" when it cannot be casually observed, then the burden of proof lies with you. Google is not a very reliable form of research. I can put up any website I want and pay to have it show up when you search my keywords. This is hardly a means of determining truth. If you have some significant evidence that suggests we all started from single-cell organisms, then you should share it. The only proofs I have seen on this site thus far are lab tests that show 50,000 generations of bacteria producing bacteria or lizards producing other lizards with stronger bites. A mutated trait that may or may not randomly give a specific creature an advantage with a stronger bite or an immunity to antibiotics is hardly evidence that this type of process can account for migration instincts, codependent organisms, or highly sophisticated functions such as blood-clotting, human vision or the immune system. Believing in Darwinian evolution is neither necessary for modern science nor is it verifiable in the lab. We cannot even, through our own remarkable intelligence and instrumentation, cause this type of punctuated equilibrium to happen in a lab. All we have is genetic information, observations of some mutations and bones in the dirt. Different scientists come to different conclusions about the information provided..and both sides will conclude what their presuppositions lead them to conclude.

 

[Tex]

Well the fact that you presume that my interpretion of scripture is poor without providing any evidence that it is indicates that you are prejudiced.

I do not have to provide anything to know your interpretation is poor. I'm not prejudice. "Prejudice" is about a pre-formed opinion against something. I used to believe young earth. I do not believe it any longer. It is an incorrect belief. That is not how Genesis 1-3 should be interpreted. It is a poor interpretation. I've done the research.

Tex,

I think if you are going to assert that something is "true" when it cannot be casually observed, then the burden of proof lies with you. Google is not a very reliable form of research. I can put up any website I want and pay to have it show up when you search my keywords. This is hardly a means of determining truth. If you have some significant evidence that suggests we all started from single-cell organisms, then you should share it. The only proofs I have seen on this site thus far are lab tests that show 50,000 generations of bacteria producing bacteria or lizards producing other lizards with stronger bites. A mutated trait that may or may not randomly give a specific creature an advantage with a stronger bite or an immunity to antibiotics is hardly evidence that this type of process can account for migration instincts, codependent organisms, or highly sophisticated functions such as blood-clotting, human vision or the immune system. Believing in Darwinian evolution is neither necessary for modern science nor is it verifiable in the lab. We cannot even, through our own remarkable intelligence and instrumentation, cause this type of punctuated equilibrium to happen in a lab. All we have is genetic information, observations of some mutations and bones in the dirt. Different scientists come to different conclusions about the information provided..and both sides will conclude what their presuppositions lead them to conclude.

I am not looking to prove evolution. There is no point. There is a prideful devotion to a poor interpretation that many people will die with. If irrefutable evidence were presented, they would simply say the evidence is "somehow wrong".

And even without any physical evidence of the movement of species, I would support evolution because it is a logical argument about reproduction, not an argument about history. Nearly every dog breed you find in the world has been created over the last 200 years. New species can be created through entirely physical means. Now, these created dog breeds were made by humans, but all we did was speed the process. I am simply aware of the natural potential for new species to comes from old ones. This piece of nature I call "evolution". When people do it, it is called "selective breeding". When nature does it, it is called "natural selection".

 

[UppsalaDragby]

I do not have to provide anything to know your interpretation is poor. I'm not prejudice. "Prejudice" is about a pre-formed opinion against something. I used to believe young earth. I do not believe it any longer. It is an incorrect belief. That is not how Genesis 1-3 should be interpreted. It is a poor interpretation. I've done the research.

Well here's the thing Tex. You do have a "pre-formed opinion". It is based on the fact that you think that the conclusions you have made are correct, that you are better equipped at understanding and interpreting scripture, and that the "research" you have done has not been missleading you.

 

[Wormwood]

Tex,

I think you are incorrect on two counts. First, if "irrefutable evidence" was given, of course it would be accepted. Some Christians felt that geocentrism was taught in the Bible (because of poor hermeneutics) but it was "proven" wrong. No Christians I know of believe the universe revolves around the earth because we have proof it does not. The problem is not the stubbornness of Christians, but varying interpretations on the same body of evidence. There is simply no proof that what we observe with dog breeds can turn dogs into horses. We see limits with what we can produce....even with all of our intelligence and instrumentation.

Second, I think you are confused about the terminology here. Yes, any type of alteration in breed or the ability to resist antibiotics in bacteria is claimed by naturalists to be "evolution." Its not that creationists do not agree that we can breed very small dogs and very big dogs...or that after 50,000 generations of bacteria create different looking/acting bacteria when exposing them to particular environments. We all see that clearly. The difference is that creationists would call these differences "variation" or "micro-evolution." Essentially they are saying, "Yes, we see these changes, but these small incremental changes do not account for the diversity and complexity we see in the natural world." In other words, bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics or the ability to breed a Great Dane and Pug, do not provide the type of evidence needed to say that a cow can become a whale or a lizard can become an eagle. Now you may believe this to be the case. But it is not based in any way on "irrefutable evidence" or really any evidence at all. Its based on inference, assumption and honestly...faith. A good friend of mine essentially has a PhD in microbiology (he has done everything but the final dissertation because he does not want to be the head of a lab...he likes doing lab work himself). He told me he does not have the "faith" it takes to believe in Darwinian evolution. So if there were proof there...I certainly think someone of his education level and expertise would know about it.

 

[KingJ]

....

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/guide_of_the_pe089161.html?utm_content=buffer127bd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[River Jordan]

I thought science was the enemy? But yes, there is plenty scientific data out there that shows the movement of a species as it continues to adapt to it's environment. Just google. And no, I'm not doing it for you.

As this thread testifies, even when you do the homework for them and show documented examples of the evolution of new genetic sequences, new traits, new abilities, and even new species, many of the creationists just wave it all away, wait a while, only to come back later and argue all over again that none of those things happen.

That's pretty a pretty strong indication that this whole debate has absolutely nothing to do with science, the data, or anything empirical. If it did and the creationists' position was based in thorough and objective study of the science...well...they would actually be able to discuss the science in depth. The fact that they can't indicates that there's something else behind their position, and if we all just be honest with each other, we know what that is. But whenever anyone tries to approach them from that angle, they get very defensive and clam up.

So I guess in the meantime, we'll all just keep playing this silly game where...gosh, if we just had the right data, the creationists would jump over to the science side in a heartbeat!

 

[Wormwood]

Yep, there is all sorts of proof out there. Bacteria, that have always been able to change, adapt, and transfer DNA, producing other bacteria and lizards with bigger jaws gives us all the evidence we need that a cow gave birth to another cow with a blowhole so it could swim around in the water millions of years ago. The proof is everywhere if only we would open our eyes to see it!

 

[River Jordan]

Yep, there is all sorts of proof out there. Bacteria, that have always been able to change, adapt, and transfer DNA, producing other bacteria

And evolving novel, functional genetic sequences, which you argued can't happen. But it does. And that leads to an obvious question...how did you ever come to argue that evolution can't produce "new genetic information" in the first place? Did you spend years pouring over the scientific literature, conducting experiments, and conversing with scientists only to finally conclude, "Huh. I don't think evolution can produce new genetic information"? Of course you didn't; you can't even say what "genetic information" is!! We all know where you got that argument; you heard it from some creationist source. And that's fine, but what's fascinating is how you behaved after that argument was shown to be completely wrong. Did you say "Oh, I wasn't aware of that data" and stop parroting the argument? Nope. You moved the goalposts to whales from cows.

So to any reasonable observer, that's a good indication that something else is going on here, something that has nothing to do with the actual science. Are you ready yet to get into the true root of this issue?

and lizards with bigger jaws gives us all the evidence we need that a cow gave birth to another cow with a blowhole so it could swim around in the water millions of years ago. The proof is everywhere if only we would open our eyes to see it!

You just keep demonstrating my point for me. No one who'd spent even a little time studying the science would say something so silly.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

And evolving novel, functional genetic sequences, which you argued can't happen. But it does. And that leads to an obvious question...how did you ever come to argue that evolution can't produce "new genetic information" in the first place? Did you spend years pouring over the scientific literature, conducting experiments, and conversing with scientists only to finally conclude, "Huh. I don't think evolution can produce new genetic information"? Of course you didn't; you can't even say what "genetic information" is!! We all know where you got that argument; you heard it from some creationist source. And that's fine, but what's fascinating is how you behaved after that argument was shown to be completely wrong. Did you say "Oh, I wasn't aware of that data" and stop parroting the argument? Nope. You moved the goalposts to whales from cows.

So to any reasonable observer, that's a good indication that something else is going on here, something that has nothing to do with the actual science. Are you ready yet to get into the true root of this issue?


You just keep demonstrating my point for me. No one who'd spent even a little time studying the science would say something so silly.

I guess "genetic information" could be described as "the set of instructions contained within a cell in order to build an organism". And I'm pretty sure you understand that what creationists mean by "new genetic information" is information that has been added to the genome, rather than that which has been distorted by mutations.

Is it your contention that everything required for building a human being is contained within a primitive life-form, such as an amoeba?

And of the organisms that you claim have "new traits" etc, would you be able to demonstrate how the genetic information in one organism has be tweaked by random mutations in such a way that it proves the claims made by evolutionists and disprove those made by creationists? Of course, in doing so you would have to show transitions all the way up through every taxonomic level. Otherwise I'm not really sure what you mean my "that argument was shown to be completely wrong".

 

[River Jordan]

I guess "genetic information" could be described as "the set of instructions contained within a cell in order to build an organism".

If we have two genomes, how do we tell which one has more "genetic information"?

And I'm pretty sure you understand that what creationists mean by "new genetic information" is information that has been added to the genome, rather than that which has been distorted by mutations.

Ok.

Is it your contention that everything required for building a human being is contained within a primitive life-form, such as an amoeba?

No. If it were, amoebas would be humans.

And of the organisms that you claim have "new traits" etc, would you be able to demonstrate how the genetic information in one organism has be tweaked by random mutations in such a way that it proves the claims made by evolutionists and disprove those made by creationists? Of course, in doing so you would have to show transitions all the way up through every taxonomic level. Otherwise I'm not really sure what you mean my "that argument was shown to be completely wrong".

Wormwood claimed that evolution cannot and/or has not produced "new genetic information". If "new genetic information" is a functional genetic sequence that wasn't previously present in the population, then the evolution of "new genetic information" is a repeatedly observed fact as evidenced by the citations I provided earlier and Wormwood's argument is wrong. If that's not what "new genetic information" is, then someone needs to define it and say how it can be measured.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

If we have two genomes, how do we tell which one has more "genetic information"?

Well, I guess it would be the one that has something added to the genome, rather than simply distorted by mutations. Why try to confuse the issue by mentioning more that one genome? Unless you can prove that rearranging the genome of an amoeba, whether it be through one or multiple genomes, can produce a human being, then having two or more genomes does not help you, does it?

No. If it were, amoebas would be humans.

Exactly! Evolutionists content that amoebas are just as "evolved" as human beings. What a laugh! What an incredible laugh! What a stroke of luck...( or misfortune depending on how you view it..) that we are no longer amoebas that are still around, still going strong! :lol:

Wormwood claimed that evolution cannot and/or has not produced "new genetic information". If "new genetic information" is a functional genetic sequence that wasn't previously present in the population, then the evolution of "new genetic information" is a repeatedly observed fact as evidenced by the citations I provided earlier and Wormwood's argument is wrong. If that's not what "new genetic information" is, then someone needs to define it and say how it can be measured.

You are still ignoring the point. Unless you can add a "functional genetic sequence" without simultaneously destroying other functions that, according to the theory of evolution, were obviously there for the purpose of ensuring survival of an organism you are left with an incredible conundrum. How does distorting the DNA of an organism, that was evolved for the purpose of ensuring survival, turn it into a human being simpy by randomly rearanging the same DNA? Sure, you can appeal to the existense of multiple genomes, but what on earth could possibly orchestrate the survival of such an organism over millions of years, through random processes, when we know full well that threats to our survival are most often immediate? You are living in a dream River.

 

[River Jordan]

Well, I guess it would be the one that has something added to the genome, rather than simply distorted by mutations.

What do you mean by "something"? Are you referring to a nucleotide? A codon? What?

Why try to confuse the issue by mentioning more that one genome?

Um....try and think about this for a second. Wormwood has been making claims about "genetic information" and whether or not it can be increased. That is a quantitative claim, and as such requires a means of quantitative measurement. If Wormwood has a way to quantitatively measure the information content of a genome, then my question (how do we tell which of two genomes has more information) would be simple to answer. OTOH, if Wormwood doesn't have any idea how to measure the information content of a genome, then the original argument is meaningless.

So rather than muddying the issue, my question is directly seeking to clarify it.

Unless you can prove that rearranging the genome of an amoeba, whether it be through one or multiple genomes, can produce a human being, then having two or more genomes does not help you, does it?

Do you believe the alphabet contains all the information in the universe?

Exactly! Evolutionists content that amoebas are just as "evolved" as human beings. What a laugh! What an incredible laugh! What a stroke of luck...( or misfortune depending on how you view it..) that we are no longer amoebas that are still around, still going strong!

Sorry, you're not really making sense here.

You are still ignoring the point. Unless you can add a "functional genetic sequence" without simultaneously destroying other functions that, according to the theory of evolution, were obviously there for the purpose of ensuring survival of an organism you are left with an incredible conundrum.

Except I provided examples where nothing was destroyed and the evolved population had functional genetic sequences that were not present in the parent population.

How does distorting the DNA of an organism, that was evolved for the purpose of ensuring survival, turn it into a human being simpy by randomly rearanging the same DNA? Sure, you can appeal to the existense of multiple genomes, but what on earth could possibly orchestrate the survival of such an organism over millions of years, through random processes, when we know full well that threats to our survival are most often immediate? You are living in a dream River.

You should try actually studying the subject before trying to argue against it. And by "study" I don't mean "lurk in internet forums"; I mean actual study of the science.

 

[Wormwood]

And evolving novel, functional genetic sequences, which you argued can't happen. But it does. And that leads to an obvious question...how did you ever come to argue that evolution can't produce "new genetic information" in the first place? Did you spend years pouring over the scientific literature, conducting experiments, and conversing with scientists only to finally conclude, "Huh. I don't think evolution can produce new genetic information"? Of course you didn't; you can't even say what "genetic information" is!! We all know where you got that argument; you heard it from some creationist source. And that's fine, but what's fascinating is how you behaved after that argument was shown to be completely wrong. Did you say "Oh, I wasn't aware of that data" and stop parroting the argument? Nope. You moved the goalposts to whales from cows.

So to any reasonable observer, that's a good indication that something else is going on here, something that has nothing to do with the actual science. Are you ready yet to get into the true root of this issue?


You just keep demonstrating my point for me. No one who'd spent even a little time studying the science would say something so silly.

Yeah, well that's funny because I read and know molecular biologists who would say that your viewpoint is silly. No one is moving the goalposts. I responded to your questions, but you seem negligent in your ability to read or remember them. I know that cells have complex coding processes in the DNA both that process information and determine how the DNA will be processed. You keep trying to obfuscate the discussion by trying to define "information." As you know, DNA contains a very complex information system that not only contains coded information in the four nucleotide bases, but also contains additional information in the "junk DNA" that has been shown to be another program that determines how the genetic information will be processed. The programming in the DNA is more complex that our current software systems and they are entirely self-regulated. If you want to believe these types of systems self-construct and can randomly alter cows to whales after over millions of years, then you can take that by faith. There is no "science" to prove that assertion. This is not moving the goalposts. This is examining the evidence of how DNA works and the processes that create variation within a species. I (and many scientists) am saying that these processes can account for diversity within a kind, but the Darwinian view that these processes developed naturally or can account for protozoa turning into amphibians, or cows turning into whales is a faith-based assertion that has been propogated by naturalists ever since non-organic substances were shown to be able to created urea. It has always been ASSUMED since that point by scientists. This started because scientists viewed the cell as a very simple organism formed out of base substances and "protoplasm." Since that time, we have discovered that the cell has such incredible complexity that it is baffling. The inner workings of the cell are ridiculously complex that carry information specific programming that direct the cell in self-construction, functionality and even its own death. Yet naturalists have continued their assertion that these things happen entirely naturally as they always have... in spite of current findings. The only thing laughable in this is the history of how off-track these naturalists have been in their assertions that are continually proved wrong. They are like religious zealots who refuse to give up on their naturalistic foundations no matter how many times their claims of origins are proved wrong. They continue to be put in textbooks as science. Protoplasm was "science" about 90 years ago, even though it was unproven and was discovered to be false. As long as no one points to God, any wild naturalistic claim is given credibility. As one who claims to be a Christian, I would think you would at least have a bit more perspective on the matter.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

What do you mean by "something"? Are you referring to a nucleotide? A codon? What?

Nice burden-shifing ploy River... Why on earth would I need to specify whether or not nucleotides or codons are involved? It is YOUR busines, as the so-called expert in genetics here, to define where the new information resides, not me!

And I thought it would be blatently obvious that what I meant by "something" is genetic information, and that the changes made to that information would be so significant that it would eventually propogate up through every kingdom, phylum/division, class, order, family, genus, species of that organism in such a way that every classification of that organism could no longer apply. The burden is on YOU, not ME!

Um....try and think about this for a second. Wormwood has been making claims about "genetic information" and whether or not it can be increased. That is a quantitative claim, and as such requires a means of quantitative measurement. If Wormwood has a way to quantitatively measure the information content of a genome, then my question (how do we tell which of two genomes has more information) would be simple to answer. OTOH, if Wormwood doesn't have any idea how to measure the information content of a genome, then the original argument is meaningless.

So rather than muddying the issue, my question is directly seeking to clarify it.

Well, again, you try to shift the burden of proof onto creationists for something that evolutionists claim!! Perhaps, instead of shifting the burden, YOU need to the the "thinking". The claim that we have been evolved from primitive one-celled organisms such as amoebas requires a scientifically verified mechanism that either adds NEW information to the genome of that organism, or that distorts the information within it in such a way that every single distortion does not threaten the EXISTING functions within that organism. And, of course, such functions would only exist if they were necessary for survival, wouldn't they????

Do you believe the alphabet contains all the information in the universe?

Sure. Do you believe that randomly bombarding the alphabet can produce the Encyclopedia Britannica? Otherwise... what on earth is your point?

Sorry, you're not really making sense here.

Well I'm sorry you are having such a difficult time understanding something so simple. I thought you were some kind of scientist... or whatever you seem to think you are. But obviously even a scientist can swallow absurdities. Why, River, why.. do you suppose that there are billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of amoebas, bacteria, and other extremely primitive lifeforms on the earth today that are all "supposedly" capable of transforming into higher lifeforms, but are never observed doing so? And can you explain why selection pressure exerted on larger animals could bring about more changes than those on smaller? Is it the size of the organism that determines whether or not it evolves? And if size is the issue, then why are organisms simply growing smaller? Because OBVIOUSLY, smaller organisms DON'T NEED TO EVOLVE in order to survive! Sheesh!!!

Except I provided examples where nothing was destroyed and the evolved population had functional genetic sequences that were not present in the parent population.

OK, I don't have time to backtrack and read everything you have written, but what examples are you talking about? And are you able to clearly demonstrate that these "new" functions were not simply examples of inherant variations within these organism designed to handle fluctuations in the environment, rather than something magically "created" by mutations?

You should try actually studying the subject before trying to argue against it. And by "study" I don't mean "lurk in internet forums"; I mean actual study of the science.

You are simply being evasive, which is something you try to do time and time again. The obvious implication of your response is that I need to "study" things claimed by evolutionists. As I have already pointed out to you many times before, "studying science" is not simply gobbling up whatever evolutionists dish out, it is studying what has been observed, tested, and repeated, and OBVIOUSLY no one has done any of those three things in regards to what you claim.

Your ad-hominem tactics are obvious - when all else fails... suggest to the creationist that he needs to "study" more... where whatever needs to be "studied" is nothing other than whatever the prevailing evolutionist paradigm declares is the truth about origins. And if that is ISN'T the case, dear River, then explain to me what I am supposed to study that is clinically clear of evolutionary assumptions, and that somehow hasn't been addressed by those "lurking in internet forums".

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Yeah, well that's funny because I read and know molecular biologists who would say that your viewpoint is silly. No one is moving the goalposts. I responded to your questions, but you seem negligent in your ability to read or remember them. I know that cells have complex coding processes in the DNA both that process information and determine how the DNA will be processed. You keep trying to obfuscate the discussion by trying to define "information." As you know, DNA contains a very complex information system that not only contains coded information in the four nucleotide bases, but also contains additional information in the "junk DNA" that has been shown to be another program that determines how the genetic information will be processed. The programming in the DNA is more complex that our current software systems and they are entirely self-regulated. If you want to believe these types of systems self-construct and can randomly alter cows to whales after over millions of years, then you can take that by faith. There is no "science" to prove that assertion. This is not moving the goalposts. This is examining the evidence of how DNA works and the processes that create variation within a species. I (and many scientists) am saying that these processes can account for diversity within a kind, but the Darwinian view that these processes developed naturally or can account for protozoa turning into amphibians, or cows turning into whales is a faith-based assertion that has been propogated by naturalists ever since non-organic substances were shown to be able to created urea. It has always been ASSUMED since that point by scientists. This started because scientists viewed the cell as a very simple organism formed out of base substances and "protoplasm." Since that time, we have discovered that the cell has such incredible complexity that it is baffling. The inner workings of the cell are ridiculously complex that carry information specific programming that direct the cell in self-construction, functionality and even its own death. Yet naturalists have continued their assertion that these things happen entirely naturally as they always have... in spite of current findings. The only thing laughable in this is the history of how off-track these naturalists have been in their assertions that are continually proved wrong. They are like religious zealots who refuse to give up on their naturalistic foundations no matter how many times their claims of origins are proved wrong. They continue to be put in textbooks as science. Protoplasm was "science" about 90 years ago, even though it was unproven and was discovered to be false. As long as no one points to God, any wild naturalistic claim is given credibility. As one who claims to be a Christian, I would think you would at least have a bit more perspective on the matter.

I'm amazed and delighted when blustering evolutionists are confounded by people who actually know what they're talking about. Great post.

 

[River Jordan]

Ok, this has to be one of the funniest things I've ever read from a creationist. Remember, Wormwood argued that evolution can't increase genetic information. Now that I've been trying to figure out what "genetic information" even is, Wormwood states...

You keep trying to obfuscate the discussion by trying to define "information."

Did everyone get that? The person who argues evolution can't increase genetic information is now saying that trying to define information is obfuscating the discussion!!! Unbelievable. :wacko:

Only in creationist world is defining terms considered obfuscation. I guess it's better to just believe and not bother with trivialities like what words mean and such.

As you know, DNA contains a very complex information system that not only contains coded information in the four nucleotide bases, but also contains additional information in the "junk DNA" that has been shown to be another program that determines how the genetic information will be processed. The programming in the DNA is more complex that our current software systems and they are entirely self-regulated. If you want to believe these types of systems self-construct and can randomly alter cows to whales after over millions of years, then you can take that by faith.

Whether or not cows turn into whales (which only shows how little you know about evolutionary biology) is irrelevant to your original claim that evolution cannot increase the amount of genetic information. It was only after your original argument about genetic information was shown to be wrong that you started on about cows turning into whales. The fact remains, your original argument is wrong.

This is examining the evidence of how DNA works and the processes that create variation within a species. I (and many scientists) am saying that these processes can account for diversity within a kind, but the Darwinian view that these processes developed naturally or can account for protozoa turning into amphibians, or cows turning into whales is a faith-based assertion that has been propogated by naturalists ever since non-organic substances were shown to be able to created urea. It has always been ASSUMED since that point by scientists. This started because scientists viewed the cell as a very simple organism formed out of base substances and "protoplasm." Since that time, we have discovered that the cell has such incredible complexity that it is baffling. The inner workings of the cell are ridiculously complex that carry information specific programming that direct the cell in self-construction, functionality and even its own death. Yet naturalists have continued their assertion that these things happen entirely naturally as they always have... in spite of current findings.

I'm sorry, but you're not a person I consider to be a reliable source to accurately summarize the state of the science in those fields.

The only thing laughable in this is the history of how off-track these naturalists have been in their assertions that are continually proved wrong. They are like religious zealots who refuse to give up on their naturalistic foundations no matter how many times their claims of origins are proved wrong. They continue to be put in textbooks as science. Protoplasm was "science" about 90 years ago, even though it was unproven and was discovered to be false.

So you have specific examples of published papers that are in serious error? If so, please cite them, identify their errors, and demonstrate how they are in error.

As long as no one points to God, any wild naturalistic claim is given credibility. As one who claims to be a Christian, I would think you would at least have a bit more perspective on the matter.

And that's what this is truly all about for you, isn't it? This doesn't have anything to do with the actual science (if it did, you'd be able to discuss it better); this is about your automatic objection to any explanation for the history of life that doesn't conform to your religious beliefs.

So why don't we discuss this from that angle, rather than pretending that your position is at all scientifically based?

Nice burden-shifing ploy River... Why on earth would I need to specify whether or not nucleotides or codons are involved? It is YOUR busines, as the so-called expert in genetics here, to define where the new information resides, not me!

And I thought it would be blatently obvious that what I meant by "something" is genetic information, and that the changes made to that information would be so significant that it would eventually propogate up through every kingdom, phylum/division, class, order, family, genus, species of that organism in such a way that every classification of that organism could no longer apply. The burden is on YOU, not ME!

If you are also advocating Wormwood's argument that evolution cannot increase genetic information, then the very first thing you need to do is say what "genetic information" is and how you're measuring it (since it's a qualitative argument). If you're not advocating that argument, then there's nothing to discuss further.

Well, again, you try to shift the burden of proof onto creationists for something that evolutionists claim!! Perhaps, instead of shifting the burden, YOU need to the the "thinking". The claim that we have been evolved from primitive one-celled organisms such as amoebas requires a scientifically verified mechanism that either adds NEW information to the genome of that organism, or that distorts the information within it in such a way that every single distortion does not threaten the EXISTING functions within that organism. And, of course, such functions would only exist if they were necessary for survival, wouldn't they????

So we have two populations...A and B. Population A is the parent to population B. Population B has a functional genetic sequence that was not present in population A. Does population B have "new genetic information"?

Sure. Do you believe that randomly bombarding the alphabet can produce the Encyclopedia Britannica? Otherwise... what on earth is your point?

Oh, well then if that's your standard for "information", then nothing can increase the information content of anything, ever. No matter what happens, all that will have happened can be contained within some arrangement of parts of the alphabet. For example...

My mom went to the dairy store.

--has the same information content as--

My mom went to the dairy store on Monday.

Even though "on Monday" seems to be new, the letters that make up those two words were already in the original sentence. The letters were just copied and rearranged to make "on Monday". Thus no new information was added to the second sentence.

Is that about the same way you're thinking about genetics?

Why, River, why.. do you suppose that there are billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of amoebas, bacteria, and other extremely primitive lifeforms on the earth today that are all "supposedly" capable of transforming into higher lifeforms, but are never observed doing so?

Why don't we see billions of years of evolution happen in our lifetimes? Um....gee, let me think about that for a second.....

And can you explain why selection pressure exerted on larger animals could bring about more changes than those on smaller? Is it the size of the organism that determines whether or not it evolves? And if size is the issue, then why are organisms simply growing smaller? Because OBVIOUSLY, smaller organisms DON'T NEED TO EVOLVE in order to survive! Sheesh!!!

Honestly, if this is your understanding of evolutionary biology, then I guess I understand where you're coming from. Not only does it contradict your reading of scripture, but you've been fed some extremely strange notions about the science as well. I guess this is what people who only know the Bible from extreme atheist groups sound like when they try and talk about scripture.

OK, I don't have time to backtrack and read everything you have written, but what examples are you talking about? And are you able to clearly demonstrate that these "new" functions were not simply examples of inherant variations within these organism designed to handle fluctuations in the environment, rather than something magically "created" by mutations?

They are repeatedly observed examples of the evolution of novel genetic sequences that are functional and weren't present in the earlier population. If that's not "genetic information", then what is "genetic information", and if it's not "new" then where was it before?

You are simply being evasive, which is something you try to do time and time again. The obvious implication of your response is that I need to "study" things claimed by evolutionists. As I have already pointed out to you many times before, "studying science" is not simply gobbling up whatever evolutionists dish out, it is studying what has been observed, tested, and repeated, and OBVIOUSLY no one has done any of those three things in regards to what you claim.

How would you know? Not only do you refuse to go read the material in the scientific journals, but you don't possess the necessary expertise to understand them. That's not an insult, it's just a fact. When I tried to discuss technical subjects with you before you admitted that you lacked the expertise to discuss them in depth. Given that, you have two options...either take the time and do the work necessary to acquire that expertise, or remain in your current state of ignorance. But keep in mind, no one can study the subjects for you; you have to do it yourself.

Your ad-hominem tactics are obvious - when all else fails... suggest to the creationist that he needs to "study" more... where whatever needs to be "studied" is nothing other than whatever the prevailing evolutionist paradigm declares is the truth about origins. And if that is ISN'T the case, dear River, then explain to me what I am supposed to study that is clinically clear of evolutionary assumptions, and that somehow hasn't been addressed by those "lurking in internet forums".

I understand your frustration, but I doubt that you are truly disputing my position that you are generally ignorant in the fields we are discussing (molecular and population genetics). I mean, are you actually arguing that you do have the expertise necessary to read published articles in those fields, fully understand them, and discuss them in depth?

 

[Wormwood]

You and I both know what "information" is and that DNA carries information that is turned into mRNA which is used by the ribosome to create proteins, etc. The reason you are trying to define DNA "information" is because your assumption that because the four nucleotide bases are the same in the DNA in various organisms, that the "information" and its complexity are indistinguishable. However, this is like claiming that because different software all boils down to binary code, than the information or the complexity of the software is immaterial. While the software of a Commodore 64 and modern programs may both use software based in binary coding, lets not pretend there is no real distinction in the complexity of the programs. Let us not confuse the inability of scientists to quantify DNA "information" with the idea that blowholes and eyeballs are nothing more than the results of scrambling nucleotide bases in the DNA. Yes, I think you are obfuscating the discussion with this line of thinking.

Whether or not cows turn into whales (which only shows how little you know about evolutionary biology) is irrelevant to your original claim that evolution cannot increase the amount of genetic information.

First, the anthracotheres (the proposed land-dwelling ancestor of the modern whale) is pretty much a cow. Maybe it looks more like a horse to you?

Cow, horse, hairy hippo...whatever you want to paint it as...I can tell you that believing some nucleotide bases got mutated which turned this creature into a killer whale is fanciful thinking...not science.

I'm sorry, but you're not a person I consider to be a reliable source to accurately summarize the state of the science in those fields.

Yeah, well like you, I read and study people who are leaders in these fields. Why is it that your study is somehow superior to mine? Instead of simply asserting that I don't have the credentials to be taken seriously (how convenient once again! Ill remember this rhetoric in our next theological discussion) why not show where my claims are false? For one who loves to allow facts and reason to prevail, you seem to be avoiding them in this particular instance.

So you have specific examples of published papers that are in serious error? If so, please cite them, identify their errors, and demonstrate how they are in error.

Well you and I can both research views on origins of life and understandings of the cell. I encourage you to look up names like Thomas Henry Huxley and Ernst Haeckel and their theories on the cell and their views on abiogenesis. These types of views were adopted (and viewed as scientific) by many biologists in their day. Certainly as more details about the cell and its complexity have been revealed, those views have been scrapped. But the default is continually that these processes formed naturally, no matter the findings and how unbelievably complicated they are discovered to be. Science has been equated with naturalism and the two are not at all the same. It is a view that was derived from a very misguided and simplistic understanding of life and has been perpetuated throughout the decades regardless of the remarkable complexity biologists continue to discover. My point is that it is absolutely 100% presupposition based on a long history of assumptions of what constitutes life and is NOT (and never was) based on scientific findings (other than the first discovery that organic material consisted of non-organic elements). Again, if you want to believe it, go right ahead. But it is a theory that is, and always has been based on speculation about the nature of life and has never been about clear evidence.

 

[River Jordan]

You and I both know what "information" is and that DNA carries information that is turned into mRNA which is used by the ribosome to create proteins, etc. The reason you are trying to define DNA "information" is because your assumption that because the four nucleotide bases are the same in the DNA in various organisms, that the "information" and its complexity are indistinguishable. However, this is like claiming that because different software all boils down to binary code, than the information or the complexity of the software is immaterial. While the software of a Commodore 64 and modern programs may both use software based in binary coding, lets not pretend there is no real distinction in the complexity of the programs. Let us not confuse the inability of scientists to quantify DNA "information" with the idea that blowholes and eyeballs are nothing more than the results of scrambling nucleotide bases in the DNA. Yes, I think you are obfuscating the discussion with this line of thinking.

So the person who argues "evolution can't add new genetic information" is now claiming that asking for a definition of "genetic information" is obfuscation. Again, that's simply bizarre. The fact remains, if you can't say what "genetic information" is, or say how we should measure it, then your argument is totally meaningless.

First, the anthracotheres (the proposed land-dwelling ancestor of the modern whale) is pretty much a cow. Maybe it looks more like a horse to you?

Oh for the love of....you seriously think that is "pretty much a cow"? Wow.

Cow, horse, hairy hippo...whatever you want to paint it as...I can tell you that believing some nucleotide bases got mutated which turned this creature into a killer whale is fanciful thinking...not science.

I'm curious...do you think of yourself as an expert in this field of study? Is your knowledge of it at such a level that not only are you able to make such declarations, but that others should pay heed to them as well?

Yeah, well like you, I read and study people who are leaders in these fields.

Yet the vast majority of the "leaders in these fields" completely disagree with you. So how do we tell who's right?

Why is it that your study is somehow superior to mine? Instead of simply asserting that I don't have the credentials to be taken seriously (how convenient once again! Ill remember this rhetoric in our next theological discussion) why not show where my claims are false? For one who loves to allow facts and reason to prevail, you seem to be avoiding them in this particular instance.

Um, I have specifically shown where all your arguments against evolutionary theory in this thread have been shown to be false. We know for a fact that 1) mutation and the evolution of new traits are very important to modern medicine; 2) evolution produces novel genetic sequences that produce new traits, which confer a selective advantage; 3) the fossil record does include gradual transitions; and 4) natural selection is an important factor in the evolution of new species.

Well you and I can both research views on origins of life and understandings of the cell. I encourage you to look up names like Thomas Henry Huxley and Ernst Haeckel and their theories on the cell and their views on abiogenesis. These types of views were adopted (and viewed as scientific) by many biologists in their day. Certainly as more details about the cell and its complexity have been revealed, those views have been scrapped. But the default is continually that these processes formed naturally, no matter the findings and how unbelievably complicated they are discovered to be. Science has been equated with naturalism and the two are not at all the same. It is a view that was derived from a very misguided and simplistic understanding of life and has been perpetuated throughout the decades regardless of the remarkable complexity biologists continue to discover. My point is that it is absolutely 100% presupposition based on a long history of assumptions of what constitutes life and is NOT (and never was) based on scientific findings (other than the first discovery that organic material consisted of non-organic elements). Again, if you want to believe it, go right ahead. But it is a theory that is, and always has been based on speculation about the nature of life and has never been about clear evidence.

You didn't answer the question. You claimed that scientists in these fields were constantly wrong. Do you have specific examples of published papers that contain errors? If all you have to cite are Huxley and Haeckel...scientists who worked over a century ago...then I'd say that's a pretty ringing endorsement of modern science.