prove me wrong on evolution

[Endless]

ndless has a magic goal post instead of a valid definition of 'new' information. As soon as the ball looks like it's about to go in the back of the net they miraculously move and Endless pretends he's made a brilliant diving save.

But i haven't - when have i changed what constitutes new information. I gave my definition and have not changed it. I also commented on Opethian's posting from talk origins - to which neither of you have corrected me - because i am not wrong.

The burden is on you to explain how a mutation changing a base pair consitutes new information and not just new content. It is up to you to explain how duplication constitutes new information - when it is a duplication of existing information. I have outlined why these are not information - you have merely claimed that they are. Please post something constructive as to how these constitute new information.
I'm not about to let this conversation now drop down a level - you are capable of continuing this on this level Opethian.

 

[Fade]

You are asking us to explain away YOUR strawman. It's your misconception, you deal with it.

 

[Opethian]

Just for a bit of clarity

No, the whole protein has to be doing something. Different combinations of content yes, but not of information. Information will lead to a function - so new information leads to a new function. By new function i'm talking about a completely different function to what it had before - only in this way can the first simple organism evolve in complexity and evolve new structures and biochemical pathways as it must have done.

This is what you are talking about right?

The burden is on you to explain how a mutation changing a base pair consitutes new information and not just new content. It is up to you to explain how duplication constitutes new information - when it is a duplication of existing information. I have outlined why these are not information - you have merely claimed that they are. Please post something constructive as to how these constitute new information.

Well, suppose one base pair is changed, and this results in a changed codon that codes for a different amino acid (so we leave out the possibility of change into a codon that codes for the same amino acid). This will result in an altered gene that can be translated in a protein with a different primary structure than the one before it mutated. The effect of this changed primary structure will change the protein, but the impact of this change depends on a lot of factors. The most important question is how it affects the folding of the protein (thus the lower structure levels), which ultimately means the appearance of the protein inside the cell, the main environment in which it will react. Because of changed folding, new active sites may emerge in the protein, enabling it to react with molecules it did not interact with before. Old sites may be eliminated. Certain hydrophobic or hydrophylic groups may be turned inwards to outwards or vice versa, changing the water affinity of the protein, and thus altering the locations where it resides inside the organism. In other words, a lot of things can happen, and these things can have a very significant effect on the protein's function, because a protein's function is in fact what it does, and what it does depends on what it reacts with. A slight change can cause a protein to react with something entirely different than it reacted with before, and thus completely alter its function. When for example a certain enzyme is changed in such a way it can react with a completely different substrate, it can have a drastic effect on an organism's metabolism. If this happens to occur during a time of environmental change, where it is actually favorable for the organism to be able to metabolise this different substrate, the organism will thrive, and a population of organisms with the new ability will quickly multiply.

 

[alexander garcia]

Hi, I'm Alexander Garcia and I'll give you an answer you may have a problem with. WILL. In order for anything to evolve it must have a will! You must want to evolve. And it only gets worse for evolutionists.

 

[Opethian]

You don't need a will at all. You don't know what you're talking about...

Edit: I bet you're just someone that debated with me on one of the other threads about free will and now wants to have a little laugh at me with a new account

 

[alexander garcia]

Alexander Garcia again. A fast look at the inventor of evolution Darwin, he said blacks are still almost monkies and the Irish are white chimps is this true?

 

[Opethian]

You remind me of this guy called Moo at F2Cforums, is it possible that YmirgF set you up to do this?

 

[Opethian]

Ok from that last post you made in the trinity thread I can see that you are not Moo and probably not joking (Damn Poe's law!).
1. Evolution does not require will.
2. Darwin never said anything as foolish as you stated.

sigh...

 

[Fade]

Alexander Garcia again. A fast look at the inventor of evolution Darwin, he said blacks are still almost monkies and the Irish are white chimps is this true?

No, I'm pretty sure Darwin never said anything of the sort, though I could be proven wrong. However if I were to say "Alexander Garcia is a slanderer and has a low IQ, is this true?" The general consensus would be "Yes".

Oh btw all humans are still almost monkies[sic] and the Irish do tend to be white.

 

[Endless]

alexander garcia,
I don't think you understand what you are talking about - you don't evolve by willing it. :biglaugh:

What are you talking about Fade - Opethian was the one that stated that changing a single base pair = information. Therefore i asked him to explain it - i have already made my position on what constitutes information perfectly clear, and shown - even with the examples provided on talkorgins that there is no evidence of it happening. So when you then try and redefine information as something else, then you need to actually say why it is information....i'd have thought that would be pretty obvious.

Opethian - you just gave a definition of a change in base pairs that leads to what i classified as new information - that has never been observed in nature to happen, a change that allows the protein to do something completely different - like the bacteria suddening able to digest 'nylon compounds' - we have never seen anything like this happen in nature. Talkorigins tried to provide the scientific examples but failed - it even tried to mislead on the 'nylon' example which is unfortunate....
So there is no example of this happening in nature. It's the missing link in the theory - sure it all sounds good on paper - but we have tried to make it happen hands off, we have tried to make it happen 'hands on', we can only make it happen by doing it ourselves. Now, if we are missing the mechanism that has to occur for evolution of the first simple creature to all others - what does that tell you about the evolution that we do observe happening?

 

[Fade]

It tells me that you are still barking up the same tree. We don't need direct observational evidence to support the claims of evolution.

Assertion 4.18: Macroevolution remains unproved because no one has observed it. In fact, macroevolution is in principle unobservable, so evolution is unscientific.

Although information in experimental science is acquired through observation, the observation of a great amount of indirect evidence of a process makes as good a scientific case as the direct observation of a process. As Michael Ruse asks, "[t]he evidence that I have a heart is all indirect, neither I nor anyone else ever seen it, but does anyone really believe that it is not a fact that I have a heart?" (Ruse 1982:58). In the same way, there is sufficient evidence for macroevolution that it can safely be considered a fact without direct observation of the process occurring in our time. We need not, as many unsophisticated creationists put it, observe cats changing into dogs right before our eyes, in order to have a good case for macroevolution.

Assertion 4.12: Mutations never increase the amount of genetic information.

It is unclear how to evaluate this claim without a definition of "genetic information." If the term simply refers to any functional sequence of DNA, then mutations that duplicate functional sequences of DNA obviously can very easily increase the amount of genetic information in a genome. If novelty is also required, then it is worth noting that point mutations to the duplicate sequences can generate novel functions without impairing the original function. This is, in fact, how hemoglobin evolved.

 

[Opethian]

It is unclear how to evaluate this claim without a definition of "genetic information." If the term simply refers to any functional sequence of DNA, then mutations that duplicate functional sequences of DNA obviously can very easily increase the amount of genetic information in a genome. If novelty is also required, then it is worth noting that point mutations to the duplicate sequences can generate novel functions without impairing the original function. This is, in fact, how hemoglobin evolved.

That is one of those examples out of my biochemistry book I was talking about, but I still haven't found it or I would post a few more. Duplication of a gene and then independant evolution in those 2 genes causing 2 different genes.
If endless accepts that point mutations occur, I fail to see how he can deny that novel information can easily arise through them.

 

[Opethian]

So there is no example of this happening in nature. It's the missing link in the theory - sure it all sounds good on paper - but we have tried to make it happen hands off, we have tried to make it happen 'hands on', we can only make it happen by doing it ourselves. Now, if we are missing the mechanism that has to occur for evolution of the first simple creature to all others - what does that tell you about the evolution that we do observe happening?

There are thousands of examples of this happening in nature. The changes are just not as drastic as the ones you are looking for, since the time period during which we have known about the mechanism of evolution and have had methods to research it has been too short to cause any of the large impact changes you probably mean with novel information. We are not missing any mechanism at all, you are just looking at it the wrong way.

 

[Endless]

No there are not thousands. There is no example of as talkorigins put it: novel genetically-regulated abilities - in which it sited the nylon example which was relatively easy to show that science doesn't regard this being due to mutation.

I'll put it simply to you - in order for evolution to have happened, we would have had to get genes coding for proteins that specifically function differently and is useful compared to what the original gene product did. How else could we get new structures and new complexity?
Now we don't observe this happening in nature - there are no examples of this -science has tried to replicate this with bacteria, but failed. Why has science failed except by genetically modifying it themselves? Why don't we observe this happening - there must be a reason, what is the reason behind science's failure to do this? If it did occur then why can't we make it occur in the science lab using random mutation?

That is the question, that is what i mean by 'new information'. I know mutations alter genes, i know that genes can be altered so that their products if enzymes can increase in speed etc. But they all perform the same task or don't perform it well or at all, or they interfere with something they shouldn't etc. But this is not what is missing - what i am talking about is what is missing.

There are no examples in the scientific literature - the only examples are extrapolation backwards by studying existing genetic sequences - this has not been observed to happen - we merely guess that it did so based on evolutionary theory.
So why has science failed?

 

[Fade]

There are no examples in the scientific literature - the only examples are extrapolation backwards by studying existing genetic sequences - this has not been observed to happen - we merely guess that it did so based on evolutionary theory.
So why has science failed?

Science has not failed, you have failed to understand Science.
You have answered your own question in the above statement.
"the only examples are extrapolation backwards by studying existing genetic sequences ". Never mind that you contradict yourself by saying there are 'no' examples in the preceding sentence.

I will say it once more for your benefit as you seem incapable of grasping the concept without it being repeated adnauseum...

Although information in experimental science is acquired through observation, the observation of a great amount of indirect evidence of a process makes as good a scientific case as the direct observation of a process. As Michael Ruse asks, "[t]he evidence that I have a heart is all indirect, neither I nor anyone else ever seen it, but does anyone really believe that it is not a fact that I have a heart?" (Ruse 1982:58). In the same way, there is sufficient evidence for macroevolution that it can safely be considered a fact without direct observation of the process occurring in our time. We need not, as many unsophisticated creationists put it, observe cats changing into dogs right before our eyes, in order to have a good case for macroevolution.

 

[alexander garcia]

Hi, It is a masing how on this site so many will babble and say there "smart" comments but they really will stay away form your question. Or they will as some try and show there so called "smart" by getting tecnical which is only the devils way of side steping the truth. Here I'll try and give you something to think about. I as you can tell by now do Not believe in any kind of evolution. I have no formal education so if I don't know the terminaligy please don't trash me cause that lets me know that you are as scared or unsure of your beliefs as so many here are! That is why you will see so much babble. I have only been here a short wial it is interesting. back to your question. I'll try and start at the point I think is the start of it here on Earth, cause if I go before it is not relly evolutionat least not here. But this is the reason that we are looking to try and validate our man made theories by looking into space and saying " if we could only find water some where else in space that proves evolution. First of all that only proves water not lifecause as we ALL KNOW water does not turn into life. Just to throw in a plug, it is much easier for a person to turn water into wine than for nothing to turn water into life! Still most evolutionist say they can't believe the easy one but they swallow a camel! So first you must put life into the water so life did not just come from water? Amino acids HA. Here is your first point to get past, We'll leave the rest alone for now after this point if you wish to continue let me know. The differance between evolution and addaptation is WILL! Anything can and will adapt but to evolve you must have a will and a want. Now if you can find or try and explain how anyone can get past this one point please do cause I have never found anyone that could put a brain into that little NONE LIFE amino acid? For if you don't respond it's been fun thanks for the question.

 

[alexander garcia]

Hi, again I just read the last page and this sound like our courts! We don't need proff if we come up with anything and they can't prove their innocent they must be guilty. Thats how it works in English law. But laws are laws. So once again I state somathing that does not have a brain can NOT evolve! If you can't turn the UNPROVABLE HOPE THEIR WAS amino acids in some thing oh ya amino acids don't have brains end of theory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Or can any of you get past this FACT AMINO ACID DON"T HAVE BRAINS THERE FORE ARE INCAPABLE OF EVOLVING!

 

[Fade]

Anything can and will adapt but to evolve you must have a will and a want. Now if you can find or try and explain how anyone can get past this one point please do cause I have never found anyone that could put a brain into that little NONE LIFE amino acid? For if you don't respond it's been fun thanks for the question.

Alaxender. You are not talking about evolution. You are talking about abiogenesis.

 

[alexander garcia]

HI, again to beat a dead horse DNA has no brain either!

 

[Fade]

Hi, again I just read the last page and this sound like our courts! We don't need proff if we come up with anything and they can't prove their innocent they must be guilty. Thats how it works in English law. But laws are laws. So once again I state somathing that does not have a brain can NOT evolve! If you can't turn the UNPROVABLE HOPE THEIR WAS amino acids in some thing oh ya amino acids don't have brains end of theory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Or can any of you get past this FACT AMINO ACID DON"T HAVE BRAINS THERE FORE ARE INCAPABLE OF EVOLVING!

:faint: Words fail me.

I think you may be a little confused Alex my friend.
FYI - It's 'innocent until proven guilty' not 'Guilty until proven innocent'.