The ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence

[Man of Faith]

oh no, we bypassed 100 pages, let's shoot for 200!

If it takes 500 pages to convince people the ToE is not true, I say we go for it.

 

[Man of Faith]

If we review and discuss all of the evidence that supports ToE, it will take that long. So far MoF hasn't caught up with the first few chunks of evidence. "Too busy." But not too busy to assert that it doesn't exist.

No, I didn't notice anything unusual, did you?

I see an elephant in that picture, so I just destroyed your argument.

 

[Man of Faith]

Check this out, I was studying, reading and ingesting a lot of information this weekend. Some of it was related to the ToE. I came across something very interesting. Let me see if I can word this properly. "There is no mechanism identified by science that can cause an animal to increase its genetic information in its DNA." That means there is no mechanism identified that can perform all this common ancestry of evolution. Information in animals doesn't increase.

For example natural selection doesn't increase genetic information it only selects existing information. Mutations are very rare and cause a loss or transfer of information not new information. In conclusion, if you want to believe in evolution by common descent then you believe that a natural mechanism for it must be waiting to be discovered.

BTW my information first came via Phillip Johnson if anyone is interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=phillip+e+johnson&search_type=

 

[Autodidact]

If it takes 500 pages to convince people the ToE is not true, I say we go for it.

It would take much more than that. It would take evidence. Got any?

 

[Autodidact]

Check this out, I was studying, reading and ingesting a lot of information this weekend. Some of it was related to the ToE. I came across something very interesting. Let me see if I can word this properly. "There is no mechanism identified by science that can cause an animal to increase its genetic information in its DNA." That means there is no mechanism identified that can perform all this common ancestry of evolution. Information in animals doesn't increase.

For example natural selection doesn't increase genetic information it only selects existing information. Mutations are very rare and cause a loss or transfer of information not new information. In conclusion, if you want to believe in evolution by common descent then you believe that a natural mechanism for it must be waiting to be discovered.

BTW my information first came via Phillip Johnson if anyone is interested.
Phillip E. Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phillip Johnson is a lawyer, not a scientist, and completely wrong. The known mechanism is mutations.

Would you define "information" for us please?

Now would you please go back and respond to the posts that made it utterly clear that your hypothesis has failed? Do I need to find them for you? They're quite a ways back.

 

[Autodidact]

I see an elephant in that picture, so I just destroyed your argument.

And yet you can't see the elephant-sized evidence I've presented so far in this thread. I'm waiting for you to respond to it, so we can go on to the next elephant, geographical distribution of species.

 

[Man of Faith]

Phillip Johnson is a lawyer, not a scientist, and completely wrong. The known mechanism is mutations.

Would you define "information" for us please?

Now would you please go back and respond to the posts that made it utterly clear that your hypothesis has failed? Do I need to find them for you? They're quite a ways back.

There are no specialists in the field of evolution. Besides how hard is it to understand?

Information is the data in DNA that is the coded instructions for a living thing.

Sorry, I can't go back to the old 19th century posts and definition of evolution which you are espousing, that has been defeated by the science. I am moving forward with the 20th century versions.

 

[Man of Faith]

Phillip E Johnson has been debating evolutionists for over 10 years and is destroying them. Look at the youtube videos.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Check this out, I was studying, reading and ingesting a lot of information this weekend. Some of it was related to the ToE. I came across something very interesting. Let me see if I can word this properly. "There is no mechanism identified by science that can cause an animal to increase its genetic information in its DNA." That means there is no mechanism identified that can perform all this common ancestry of evolution. Information in animals doesn't increase.

For example natural selection doesn't increase genetic information it only selects existing information. Mutations are very rare and cause a loss or transfer of information not new information. In conclusion, if you want to believe in evolution by common descent then you believe that a natural mechanism for it must be waiting to be discovered.

BTW my information first came via Phillip Johnson if anyone is interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson
YouTube - phillip e johnson=

Oops, your Law Professor is wrong, not surprising, as he has a limited understanding of Biology.

• Variation of traits is production of novelty, especially where there was no variation before. The accumulation of slight modifications is a basis of evolution.
• Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following:
  • the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
  • adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
  • the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
  • evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
  • modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
  • evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);
  
  There is evidence for mutations producing other novel proteins:
  • Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000).
  
  Laboratory experiments with directed evolution indicate that the evolution of a new function often begins with mutations that have little effect on a gene's original function but a large effect on a second function. Gene duplication and divergence can then allow the new function to be refined. (Aharoni et al. 2004)
  
• For evolution to operate, the source of variation does not matter; all that matters is that heritable variation occurs. Such variation is shown by the fact that selective breeding has produced novel features in many species, including cats, dogs, pigeons, goldfish, cabbage, and geraniums. Some of the features may have been preexisting in the population originally, but not all of them were, especially considering the creationists' view that the animals originated from a single pair.

Source

His extremely limited knowledge of biology is also very evident in his denial of AIDS being the result of the HIV virus.

 

[Alceste]

There are no specialists in the field of evolution.

Have you never heard of a "biologist"?

Besides how hard is it to understand?

Easy for us, hard for you, apparently. Your hypothesis predicts a brand new species of lizard that can not breed with its parents' generation every single year. This has never been observed in the history of mankind, therefore your hypothesis about Noah and the lizards is false.

 

[Gunfingers]

There are no specialists in the field of evolution. Besides how hard is it to understand?

There are biologists. Evolution is part of that field.

Also, i can't see the youtube videos from work. Can someone give me a gist of how awful they are?

Edit:

Have you never heard of a "biologist"?

Dammit, i thought we agreed you wouldn't ninja me anymore! *angry face*

 

[tumbleweed41]

There are no specialists in the field of evolution. Besides how hard is it to understand?

Yes, they are called Biologists. And it is obviously extremely hard for both you, and your sources to understand.

Information is the data in DNA that is the coded instructions for a living thing.

Correct!! Now if you only understood more about DNA.

Sorry, I can't go back to the old 19th century posts and definition of evolution which you are espousing, that has been defeated by the science. I am moving forward with the 20th century versions.

Lets skip ahead to the 21st century.
Go ahead, try it...

1. Protein functional redundancy
2. DNA functional redundancy
3. Transposons
4. Redundant pseudogenes
5. Endogenous retroviruses

 

[Dirty Penguin]

There are no specialists in the field of evolution

Yea..ok...Well go tell that to a biologist and see far far you get...:fight:

Besides how hard is it to understand?
Information is the data in DNA that is the coded instructions for a living thing.

Considering this comment here...must be too hard for you to understand. Here's some DNA/Evolution for you....

Right Here.

Sorry, I can't go back to the old 19th century posts and definition of evolution which you are espousing, that has been defeated by the science. I am moving forward with the 20th century versions.

 

[Autodidact]

There are no specialists in the field of evolution.

Have you ever heard the term "evolutionary biologist?"

Besides how hard is it to understand?

It's pretty complicated stuff.

Information is the data in DNA that is the coded instructions for a living thing.

O.K. great. In that case mutations can add information.

Sorry, I can't go back to the old 19th century posts and definition of evolution which you are espousing, that has been defeated by the science. I am moving forward with the 20th century versions.

What are you blabbing on about? Evidence is evidence. I presented evidence, from the 18th-21st centuries, that makes it clear that your hypothesis fails. Would you like me to repost?

I also presented the first 3-4 main areas of evidence, from the 18th-21st centuries, that support ToE. Are you saying you refuse to look at them?

 

[Autodidact]

Phillip E Johnson has been debating evolutionists for over 10 years and is destroying them. Look at the youtube videos.

Phillip Johnson is an ignorant blowhard who has never destroyed anything but his own credibility.

MoF: There is nothing about creationism you can teach me. I've been studying it for years, and have read all the websites, seen all the videos and have forgotten more about Phillip Johnson, the Discovery Institute and the Intelligent Design liars than you'll ever know.

 

[Alceste]

Dammit, i thought we agreed you wouldn't ninja me anymore! *angry face*

Looks like I ninja'd everybody there. I'll try to let you have the next one.

:ninja:

 

[Man of Faith]

Oops, your Law Professor is wrong, not surprising, as he has a limited understanding of Biology.

• Variation of traits is production of novelty, especially where there was no variation before. The accumulation of slight modifications is a basis of evolution.
• Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following:
  • the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
  • adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
  • the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
  • evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
  • modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
  • evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);
  
  There is evidence for mutations producing other novel proteins:
  • Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000).
  Laboratory experiments with directed evolution indicate that the evolution of a new function often begins with mutations that have little effect on a gene's original function but a large effect on a second function. Gene duplication and divergence can then allow the new function to be refined. (Aharoni et al. 2004)
  
• For evolution to operate, the source of variation does not matter; all that matters is that heritable variation occurs. Such variation is shown by the fact that selective breeding has produced novel features in many species, including cats, dogs, pigeons, goldfish, cabbage, and geraniums. Some of the features may have been preexisting in the population originally, but not all of them were, especially considering the creationists' view that the animals originated from a single pair.

Source

His extremely limited knowledge of biology is also very evident in his denial of AIDS being the result of the HIV virus.

I didn't say that mutations don't produce new features, what I said was they do not produce new information. Let me take your first example, the nylon eating bacteria. The new feature could be a function of a loss of specificity, not a function of new information.

 

[Tristesse]

There are no specialists in the field of evolution. Besides how hard is it to understand?

Information is the data in DNA that is the coded instructions for a living thing.

Sorry, I can't go back to the old 19th century posts and definition of evolution which you are espousing, that has been defeated by the science. I am moving forward with the 20th century versions.

No specialist in the field of evolution? really? Care to explain what you mean? And why don't you try moving on with the 21st century version, rather than the 1st century version which you seem to be promoting. You haven't hit anywhere near the 20th century.

 

[Man of Faith]

Phillip Johnson is an ignorant blowhard who has never destroyed anything but his own credibility.

MoF: There is nothing about creationism you can teach me. I've been studying it for years, and have read all the websites, seen all the videos and have forgotten more about Phillip Johnson, the Discovery Institute and the Intelligent Design liars than you'll ever know.

I understand, only creationists can learn anything new. :sad4:

 

[Tristesse]

I didn't say that mutations don't produce new features, what I said was they do not produce new information. Let me take your first example, the nylon eating bacteria. The new feature could be a function of a loss of specificity, not a function of new information.

New information doesn't need to be produced to present new features, you're going off of bad information.