They DO exist. Alien life found on meteorite!

Lady Moriarty in Paris wrote:

well with the ensuing argument about creationism.....i might as well say it...

10/10.

Well disguised though in the OP.

If you want to give a 10 that's your business. According the the Troll Raters Society every rater is entitled to their rating no matter how wrong it may be.

BUT....the ensuing argument about creationism was entirely predictable - no extra credit warranted.

citation needed wrote:

citation needed wrote:

(Unlike in that specious "house construction by earthquake" analogy at the bottom of that article)

Again I probably should clarify - the author argues that mutation is too destructive, that "information gains" will be undone by the same mutations that created them. But as was already pointed out, evolution is much more complex than just alterations in the code. The epigenome can cause the expression or suppression of DNA without destroying anything.

You're right that the epigenome can control the expression and suppression of certain genes, but this has nothing to do with the information that is lost or gained in transcription during replication. Mutations will simply not allow the expression of some genes because expression information has been lost, while in other cases, suppression information has been lost, but in all cases, it is lost, not gained.

another one wrote:

Didn't mean to click reply to you Drakes.

Someone-I guess I know nothing about science, as well as the majority of scientists since they disagree too.

What do you believe happened if God didn't use evolution as a tool? I assume you don't think the earth is 6k years old. If it's older and we can rely on the fossil record, why did God take so long to make everything? I ask sincerely, and seem to remember you being more civil on religious threads.

I try to be civil in all my responses, but I know I am not perfect, nor is anyone. I believe the earth is about 6k years old, as is supported by the vast majority of evidence in geology, astronomy, and chemistry. You are right that it would be inconsistent and nonsensical for God to make everything. My God does it right the first time, and I choose not to compromise this belief or the Bible with a dumb theory like evolution, which as you can see has many flaws.

citation needed wrote:

someone else wrote:

Source?

Touche :)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21050816

The effects of mutations are overwhelmingly destructive.

EXACTLY. Non-"information" tends to be destroyed. The game is rigged - not as neatly as Dawkins might have us believe, but rigged nonetheless.

So, if information turns into non-information, and non-information is destroyed, how does that constitute a gain in information? It seems to me that the genetic code would whither away at that rate because it is losing all of its "non-information" which used to be information.

But the expression or non-expression of those genes is determined by the genetic code, not the other way around. I am not sure what your definition of species is in this instance, but speciation, or the branching off of different kinds of dogs, cats, horses, etc. is simply the dilution of the gene pool and the limitation of it for further variation.

What I am wondering is, in evolution, how do you get a bacterium to evolve over time into a human? You would certainly have to gain an astronomical amount of meaningful information, and you can't turn a bacterium into any kind of animal no matter how differently you express its genes.

I'm not sure what you are replying to, but I think you will find my reply to answer #1 in my other posts. As for answer #2, the kinase simply can't be turned off because it does not need to be phosphorylated. In many cases, this leads to apoptosis because it is harmful to the cell, but no information is gained. There is simply a loss of regulation on the kinase.

I suspect, however, that was just an attempt to confuse me with biological terms (which I am accustomed to, thank you), so save it. You bring nothing new to the table.

I'll admit that I haven't read through the links or even this whole thread, but I just want to add my .02.

First, the guy on here saying that mutation leads to a loss of information is correct. But it's important to remember that evolution has two components, mutation AND natural selection. Although most mutations will be deleterious to an organism, a small fraction will be beneficial and this small fraction is selected for.

Evolutionary theorists have certainly noted that it seems difficult to believe that this process alone could give rise to complex structures. However, as we tease apart the mechanisms on the genetic and molecular level we begin to see a large amount of repetition. We also find interesting emergent phenomena, where a small genetic change can lead to a large change in phenotype.

On a more philosophical note, scientists will actually try to understand the phenomena around them. Creationists don't. I'm sorry but they don't. I'm all for skepticism, but the same level of skepticism is not applied to their own beliefs. At the moment, I will concede that science does not have an answer for how abiogenesis occurred. That doesn't prove creationists correct.

That's fine, and I don't suggest you have to believe them, I am simply talking to the people who are willing to listen. Admittedly, I'm probably in the wrong place, but for now, it is what it is. The problem with preconceived biases is that they are unavoidable. There is no neutral position because the fact remains that we exist, and how you think we got here will inevitably play a role in how you view scientific findings and study scientific knowledge. The people on that website simply acknowledge this fact, as so many evolutionists are unwilling to because they preclude that their preconceived notions are correct. It's a shame that the debate has come to this, but unfortunately, that's what has happened.

Sorry, it seems my post has suffered a deletion mutation. I meant, "it would be inconsistent and nonsensical for God to make everything using evolution."

someone else wrote:

So, if information turns into non-information, and non-information is destroyed, how does that constitute a gain in information? It seems to me that the genetic code would whither away at that rate because it is losing all of its "non-information" which used to be information.

I've been trying to use your definition of "information" for the sake of argument, but I'm not sure I've got it right - correct me if I'm wrong, that could be the cause of our misunderstanding.

You seem to be saying that if a DNA element codes for mRNA/tRNA/rRNA/snRNA/etc. that ultimately confers some survival benefit to the organism, that element contains "information", correct?

And if that element is altered by mutation, and the function of the product is lost, "information" has been lost, right?

Thus loss of "information" by your definition confers a survival disadvantage on the organism, and loss of "information" mutations will tend to disappear over time by natural selection (a mechanism you don't contest).

Under your definition, accumulated mutations and additions in non-expressed regions don't result in any loss of "information". Huge chunks of novel DNA can develop with no detriment to the organism. But can they result is gain of information?

Most likely if part of the accumulated mutations get a start codon, the products will just get chewed up by proteasomes. But all it takes is ONE translated element conferring ANY survival benefit to the organism to meet your definition of new information. You can say that's unlikely, but it's clearly not impossible.

I can't overstate the vast scale we're talking about here. Just looking at bacteria, the population on the planet is on the order of 10^30, all reproducing a couple times a day, swapping plasmids, to say nothing of all the bacteriophages floating around chewing up and reinserting DNA between them. On that scale, the unlikely can become commonplace.

You didn't reply to my second comment. That is it has been repeatedly shown that new genetic information can and has been inserted into the genome through retrovirus-like elements. Also that whole scale rearrangement of the genetic sequences and movement of elements (transposons) from one position to another has been observed. http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/Transposons.htmlhttp://www.pnas.org/content/93/11/5177.abstract

I try to understand the phenomena around me. I am a creationist and a scientist (okay, I don't have my PhD yet, but I certainly have a scientific mind). The two are not mutually exclusive.

I am aware that the problem of abiogenesis doesn't make creation correct, but it certainly opens up the door for different explanations. It is not scientific to hold a theory as sacred even when it can't explain some things. In that case, the scientific mind should be open to other theories that do explain it.

someone else wrote:

My God does it right the first time, and I choose not to compromise this belief or the Bible with a dumb theory like evolution, which as you can see has many flaws

This I can understand and respect.

I believe the earth is about 6k years old, as is supported by the vast majority of evidence in geology, astronomy, and chemistry. You are right that it would be inconsistent and nonsensical for God to make everything.

This is where you lose me. Reading (well, skimming) through answers in genesis, I see very little of what I'd call "creation science" in the sense that it seeks compelling evidence for a 6000 y/o Earth. Instead what I see are criticisms of flaws in current theories of evolution, geology, and astronomy. That's great! That's how science works, and how we improve our pitifully incomplete understanding of the world around us. Creation scientists may be among the most important evolutionary scientists in the field. And that's why, all snarkiness aside, I enjoy these discussions, because a theory that is never questioned turns into dogma - a very real danger with evolution as so many blindly accept what they read in their highschool bio textbooks. Just don't judge the entire field by the simplifications of those textbooks. And don't mistake imperfections in one theory as a "vast majority of evidence" in favor of an arbitrary alternative.

The vast majority of geologic evidence supports a 6k old earth? Radiometric dating, ash layers for semi-predictable volcanoes, glacial erosion, wind erosion, water erosion, glacial stration and polarity changes in magnetic alignments and rock layers and mountain building+subduction zones supporting continental drift, radiocarbon corroborating with tree ring data--all pointing to billions not thousands of years old. What is your evidence to the contrary?

Someone else,

Serious question - If indisputable proof of alien life was discovered which in noway could have originated on Earth, would that make you question your beliefs? Would that discovery invalidate much of what you believe? Or is there some explanation in the bible which could fit with the discovery?

Aghast wrote:

Someone else,

Serious question - If indisputable proof of alien life was discovered which in noway could have originated on Earth, would that make you question your beliefs? Would that discovery invalidate much of what you believe? Or is there some explanation in the bible which could fit with the discovery?

Serious answer - Not clear on the implications of proof of alien life. I don't recall where in the bible there is any mention of God not creating life elsewhere.

someone else wrote:I believe the earth is about 6k years old, as is supported by the vast majority of evidence in geology, astronomy, and chemistry.

Ok, everyone can stop now. This guy HAS to be a troll. No-one can possibly think that "the vast majority of evidence in geology, astronomy, and chemistry" supports the Earth being only 6000 years old. There isn't even a single semi-respected scientist that would agree with this.

By the way, "creationist science" is not science. As I was taught while performing research in my first lab while an undergrad (oh, by the way, this is a Nobel Prize winning lab), one is only a successful scientist if they come to the table with no agendas and simply perform experiments in a completely unbiased fashion, purely interested in the truth and only the truth. People will accept your scientific ideas most if you yourself go out of your way to attempt to disprove them. None of these creationist scientists are willing to accept the possibility that they might be wrong, just like you. They do not consider any alternatives and are blinded by their desire to prove themselves right. True scientists are more concerned with discovering the truth than being right, even if it means disproving former ideas of their own. I personally would be unwilling to give stock to any "results" discovered by a "creationist science" group unless confirmed by an unbiased group. There's a reason why legitimate journals ask you to list any conflicts of interest...

I think we shall agree at this point, and I respect your position, but I would argue that the vast majority of evidence is in favor of the creation theory.

Also, if you are interested in the site, I know it is kind of hard to skim and find what you are looking for, but if you go to the answers section, it has different categories, and you can find the age of the earth category and it has a lot of compelling arguments there for why they believe the earth is about 6000 years old or at least much younger than evolutionists say it is.

another one wrote:

The vast majority of geologic evidence supports a 6k old earth? Radiometric dating, ash layers for semi-predictable volcanoes, glacial erosion, wind erosion, water erosion, glacial stration and polarity changes in magnetic alignments and rock layers and mountain building+subduction zones supporting continental drift, radiocarbon corroborating with tree ring data--all pointing to billions not thousands of years old. What is your evidence to the contrary?

Go to the answers section and find the "Age of the Earth" category. I don't have time to go into a whole different debate on here.