I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying it didn't happen without a Creator.
I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying it didn't happen without a Creator.
Aghast wrote:
Well by definition it is biased as it is espousing a particular view point and it attempting to convince readers of that world-view. It is not attempting to present both sides or give general information.
There are numerous inaccuracies/misunderstandings and hand-waving going on it those links you posted. It is bad enough that nobody with 1 pounce of intelligence would feel that what is written is a sound argument.
someone else wrote:So just because they're creationist, means they're not scientific? That's not biased at all.
I beg to differ, though, in fact, there is a lot of science, and many of the people who run that website have PhDs. in physics and other relevant fields and are practicing scientists.
It's great that you can make blanket statements about the sources I cited, but you explained nothing and have refuted nothing. I would especially like to see you try to take apart the scientific study I posted. I don't understand how you can just ignore such a gaping hole as the problem of abiogenesis. Simply avoiding the question won't do you any good, either.
It is easy to add information. Example) Most of the genome is made up of non-coding elements. Some of those elements play a role (promoter regions, microRNA, etc..) but much of it is padding. If there is a mutation which inserts a start codon (ATG) then the non-coding region could become a coding region and a new protein sequence will be translated.Example)A mutation could cause a new alternative splicing of a gene so that while the original protein can be translated, a new protein can also be translated from the same gene.
someone else wrote:
Dawkins was asked about a situation which he could think of that added new information to the genome, and after thinking about it for a few minutes, he said, "shut the camera off."
We've been observing evolution on a genetic level for maybe half a century. That's not a counterexample for a theory about a process that covers billions of years.
Here's a nice little gem from newscientist (biased? yes. But still a nice gem)
"consider this. Most mutations can be reversed by subsequent mutations - a DNA base can be turned from an A to a G and then back to an A again, for instance. In fact, reverse mutation or "reversion" is common. For any mutation that results in a loss of information, logically, the reverse mutation must result in its gain. So the claim that mutations destroy information but cannot create it not only defies the evidence, it also defies logic."
Aghast wrote:
It is easy to add information.
Example)
Most of the genome is made up of non-coding elements. Some of those elements play a role (promoter regions, microRNA, etc..) but much of it is padding. If there is a mutation which inserts a start codon (ATG) then the non-coding region could become a coding region and a new protein sequence will be translated.
Very good point. And it's important to note that, until that start codon is inserted, all sorts of crazy mutations, duplications, and additions can occur in that element without affecting the viability of the organism at all.
The insertion of a start codon would simply allow for the expression of information that was already there. In evolution, it is necessary to gain completely different functions via added information to the genome. Your second example is still just a different way of expressing information that was already there.
Organisms are made with built-in variability in the genetic code in order to allow speciation and adaptation, but no new information is ever added. It is simply variations of the same information, or a net loss in information.
To go from bacterium to animal, you have to have completely new, different information inserted into the genetic code, but all mutations do is rearrange information that was already there, or delete it.
Someone else: what the f*** are you talking about? What about point mutations? Frame shifts? These things completely change the information that is encoded. If you combine these things with duplications you get completely new genetic information added to the genome. Seriously I dont know where you get off making some of these statements
Your link doesn't make sense. Inversion mutations do not cause a gain in information. They say this by using faulty logic to explain what a mutation is. Let me clear it up.
DNA is comprised of four letters, G, A, T, and C, which form "words" that provide the cell with information that can be translated into proteins. These "words" have quantity as well as meaning. There can be a loss or gain of a word, and a loss or gain of meaning. If you replace one letter for another, you gain a new word, but lose the old one. However, you also lose meaning, since the new word doesn't make sense in the context of the rest of the sentence.
Inversion mutations are like spelling a sentence backward. Take this example:
The car was red. The red car had one key. The key has one eye and one tip.
In an inversion mutation, it is changed to:
The car was red. Yek eno dah rac der eht. The key has one eye and one tip.
In this case, you lost several words and the meaning of all of them. It is preposterous to call this a gain in information, unless you lose dodgy logic to make a radical claim, such as your article does.
It can be shown in every kind of mutation that it results in a net loss of information or is simply neutral.
Here is an article that explains all of the different kinds of mutations and what they do to the genetic code:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/mutations-engine-of-evolution
someone else wrote:
The insertion of a start codon would simply allow for the expression of information that was already there.
As I pointed out above, there are many ways completely new sequences can develop within non-coding elements prior to the insertion of a start codon.
I know what an inversion mutation is. The link was talking about "reversion" mutations. Not the same thing.
citation needed wrote:
someone else wrote:The insertion of a start codon would simply allow for the expression of information that was already there.
As I pointed out above, there are many ways completely new sequences can develop within non-coding elements prior to the insertion of a start codon.
New sequences, yes, but not new information. The article I posted explains exactly what happens in ALL of the types of known genetic mutations, including insertion, deletion, point, frame-shift, inversion, etc.
It must add new words and new meaning to effectively be a gain in information.
I meant all of the well-known types of mutations. Of course there are others, but explain to me how they:
1. add new words to the sentence being created.
2. add new meaning to the sentence.
someone else wrote:
New sequences, yes, but not new information. The article I posted explains exactly what happens in ALL of the types of known genetic mutations, including insertion, deletion, point, frame-shift, inversion, etc.
It must add new words and new meaning to effectively be a gain in information.
Monkeys typing Shakespeare. Most of those new strands will do nothing if expressed, or even kill the cell. The very, very few that do have some function, even if only causing RNAi, will have created new "information" by your definition. The mechanism is clearly there.
1. Information theory is not an "important part of genetics." Rather, it is a part of mathematics that has been taken out of proper context by creationists to try to support their point (much like the laws of thermodynamics). In fact, the information theory article that you linked me to contains no mention of genetics.
2. How is going from copying a DNA sequence (adding genetic material) and then mutating it (so that it changes amino acid sequences) not adding information? It would be like saying:
Your mom is fat
Your mom is fat Your mom is fat (information doubles)
Your mom is fat You mom is fat (deletion)
Your mom is fat aou mom is fat (base change)
Your mom is fat anu mom is fat (base change)
Your mom is fat and mom is fat (base change)
Your mom is fat and momisfat (deletion)
Your mom is fat and somisfat (base change)
Your mom is fat and stmisfat (base change)
Your mom is fat and stuisfat (base change)
Your mom is fat and stupsfat (base change)
Your mom is fat and stupifat (base change)
Your mom is fat and stupidat (base change)
Your mom is fat and stupid (deletion change)
By doing nothing but accidentally copying some information twice and then making some mutation, I have added information. Before, we only knew that you mom was fat, but now we also know that she is stupid. Lots of generations + natural selection can accomplish this same thing.
citation needed wrote:
Monkeys typing Shakespeare.
And, to clarify, unlike the proverbial monkeys, nature has a mechanism to get rid of all the stuff generated that is not "Shakespeare".
do you know what an enhancer is? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20833320please stop. the "monkey typing shakespeare" comment was spot on. grab a banana.
someone else wrote:
I meant all of the well-known types of mutations. Of course there are others, but explain to me how they:
1. add new words to the sentence being created.
2. add new meaning to the sentence.
citation needed wrote:
someone else wrote:New sequences, yes, but not new information. The article I posted explains exactly what happens in ALL of the types of known genetic mutations, including insertion, deletion, point, frame-shift, inversion, etc.
It must add new words and new meaning to effectively be a gain in information.
Monkeys typing Shakespeare. Most of those new strands will do nothing if expressed, or even kill the cell. The very, very few that do have some function, even if only causing RNAi, will have created new "information" by your definition. The mechanism is clearly there.
This article explains the monkeys typing shakespeare and dawkin's weasel fallacies.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/dawkins.aspIn your example, you systematically determine what the changes are going to be each time to produce a new sentence. I would like to see a genetic code that knows what it's doing in order to change "You mom is fat" into "and stupid" one letter at a time. I think you should take a look at the article I posted again, as it explains it very well how the sentence will get messed up at some point rather than arranged nicely into a new sentence.
someone else wrote:
This article explains the monkeys typing shakespeare and dawkin's weasel fallacies.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/dawkins.asp
Yes! Exactly! The game is rigged! Because "junk" mutations are weeded out by death, and functional mutations are passed on to progeny! (Unlike in that specious "house construction by earthquake" analogy at the bottom of that article)
(For what it's worth, I'll admit Dawkins is a bit of a jackass)