Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 11:54 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Argument #3: Mutations
#11
RE: Argument #3: Mutations
(June 11, 2014 at 12:14 am)Revelation777 Wrote:
(June 10, 2014 at 11:56 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You know, it occurs to me Rev, that before you post the stuff you rip off from AIG, that you might want to cross-check it against what real biologists actually have to say on the matter, lest it make you look foolish.

I'm having an odd sensation of deja vu.

FYI, I didn't get that from AIG.

FYI, wherever YOU got it from, it likely originated at AIG - that old chestnut has been floating around, thoroughly debunked forever it seems.

In any case, the link I provided you soundly refutes it. Perhaps you should go read the sources they cite. You know, because real research quotes sources.

Enjoy.
Reply
#12
RE: Argument #3: Mutations
(June 10, 2014 at 11:52 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:
(June 10, 2014 at 11:35 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Carl Sagan, stated that evolution was caused by "the slow accumulations of favorable mutations." However, mutations which apparently result in new traits in an organism are due to the corruption of existing information rather than the formation of mutations gaining new information. This reality conflicts against what would be expected for the advancement of evolution.

Wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

/thread

The so called new information that many evolutionists claim that takes place is a result of a corruption of already existing information. The examples you cite fail to achieve a "gain in functioning" mutation. In fact if there were an evolution from molecule to man we should readily see an abundance of this occurrence, we don't.
Reply
#13
RE: Argument #3: Mutations
(June 11, 2014 at 12:29 am)Revelation777 Wrote:
(June 10, 2014 at 11:52 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

/thread

The so called new information that many evolutionists claim that takes place is a result of a corruption of already existing information. The examples you cite fail to achieve a "gain in functioning" mutation. In fact if there were an evolution from molecule to man we should readily see an abundance of this occurence, we don't.

So.... you didn't actually read any of the sources quoted in that link did you? Did you pull that answer out of your rear end, or is that what your handlers tell you to write?

Oh, and what are your sources for the above? Quid pro quo, Clarice. I showed you mine, you show me yours.
Reply
#14
RE: Argument #3: Mutations
(June 11, 2014 at 12:29 am)Revelation777 Wrote: The so called new information that many evolutionists claim that takes place is a result of a corruption of already existing information. The examples you cite fail to achieve a "gain in functioning" mutation. In fact if there were an evolution from molecule to man we should readily see an abundance of this occurrence, we don't.

Incidentally, Rev - wrong again. The material I provided answers that objection in the very first bullet point.

Saying "neener neener" and repeating your claim is in no way a rebuttal.
Reply
#15
RE: Argument #3: Mutations
(June 10, 2014 at 11:35 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Carl Sagan, stated that evolution was caused by "the slow accumulations of favorable mutations." However, mutations which apparently result in new traits in an organism are due to the corruption of existing information rather than the formation of mutations gaining new information. This reality conflicts against what would be expected for the advancement of evolution.

Oh yay. Another bullshit "argument" that's been debunked a shitload of times already that will be defended to the death (or at least 60-70 pages) by someone who thinks it's "fresh" and "compelling."

Rev, it's neither. Will you please quit posting this drivel without first checking with reputable sources.
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
Reply
#16
RE: Argument #3: Mutations
I know this has been pointed out to you before, but it bears repeating: even if you could[*] prove every single aspect of naturalism wrong, that still moves you not even one iota closer to making a case for god, creationism, or any other foolish thing you care to claim. It moves us closer to "we don't know".

Congratulations. You're rooting for ignorance.

[*] you can't.
Reply
#17
RE: Argument #3: Mutations
(June 11, 2014 at 12:29 am)Revelation777 Wrote:
(June 10, 2014 at 11:52 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

/thread

The so called new information that many evolutionists claim that takes place is a result of a corruption of already existing information. The examples you cite fail to achieve a "gain in functioning" mutation. In fact if there were an evolution from molecule to man we should readily see an abundance of this occurrence, we don't.

You do not understand how the genome works. Size does not relate to organism complexity. It is the organisation of the genome that counts.

There are many examples of organisms with much larger genomes than human DNA:

"For example, the marbled lungfish, Protopterus aethiopicus, has more than 40 times the amount of DNA per cell than humans!" (Figure 2). Indeed, the marbled lungfish has the largest recorded genome of any eukaryote. One haploid copy of this fish's genome is composed of a whopping 132.8 billion base pairs, while one copy of a human haploid genome has only 3.5 billion. (Genome size is usually measured in picograms [pg] and then converted to nucleotide number. One pg is equivalent to approximately 1 billion base pairs.) Therefore, genome size is clearly not an indicator of the genomic or biological complexity of an organism. Otherwise, humans would have at least as much DNA as the marbled lungfish, although probably much more."

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage...lexity-437

Of all creatures the one with the largest genome of all is the single celled Amoeba ( http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/article...omes.shtml )

Evolution, it appears, simplifies the genome whilst making it more efficient at its encoding capabilities.

This is one of the strongest arguments against an omniscient God. Why would he do it this way? You could argue for this approach if, and only if, he was learning on the job.
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
Reply
#18
RE: Argument #3: Mutations
Quote: This reality conflicts against what would be expected for the advancement of evolution.

And what the fuck would a bible-thumping douche like you know about it?

Go read your bible. Leave the heavy thinking to others.
Reply
#19
RE: Argument #3: Mutations
At some point even the most hardened evolutionist must admit that Christians simply don't evolve, ever.
Reply
#20
RE: Argument #3: Mutations
(June 10, 2014 at 11:35 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Carl Sagan, stated that evolution was caused by "the slow accumulations of favorable mutations." However, mutations which apparently result in new traits in an organism are due to the corruption of existing information rather than the formation of mutations gaining new information. This reality conflicts against what would be expected for the advancement of evolution.

This whole "gaining new information" and "corruption of existing information" is just creationist talk. From the perspective of evolutionary biologists, there is no "gaining" or "corrupting" with regards to "information" because these are relative terms when related to the topic of evolution (which should not be confused with "advancement").
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)