Argument #3: Mutations

[Anomalocaris]

One of our cats has six toes instead of the normal five on each front foot. Since a six-toed cat contains more information than a five-toed cat, clearly, some mutations do indeed increase information.

Rev, do you ever get tired of your 'arguments' being so easily and readily refuted?

Boru

Increased instances of the same information is not necessarily an increase in biological information, otherwise normal gorwth or mere proliforation of cancer cells would count as increase information.

An increase in biological information would be when there is an increase in instances of the same information, but some of the extra instances then changed to make the extra instantiation a permanent heritable feature, or even better, changed to make the extra instance an new adaptive as well as heritable feature.

In fact, it is believed a major mechanism for genetic evolution is based on exploiting errors in transcription of genetic information during cellular reporduction that resulted to extra copies (instances) of the same information being inserted into the new genome. The insertion of extra, dupicate genes through transcritpion errors in well documented and commonly observed in biology. Some of these extra information become free to experiment with less deadly effect on the organism because a unchanged, working copy exists elsewhere in the genome. Increase freedom of mutation of the extra copy of genens in turn provides the raw material from which trial and error could result in new adaptively useful information.

I bet Revs didn't even read 0.0000001% of the way to this relatively elementary understanding of how mutation works in genetic level in conjunction with survivability to create new information, before he boldly started to lay yet another turd in this forum.

---

When it goes extinct.

Not even then, if some of its members had left descendants which had in the mean time become another specie.

[popeyespappy]

My maternal grandfather didn’t believe humans had been to the moon. That is not surprising as he spent most of his life in the mountains of southern Appalachia. His formal education was in a one room schoolhouse from which he graduated at the age of 12 at the completion of the 6th grade. He also stubbornly resisted the adoption of new technology. After his kids chipped in to add a bathroom to the house sometime in the 70’s he refused to use it. Preferring to walk out into the woods to take care of his business after the outhouse was torn down to using the indoor facilities.

I can understand why someone like my grandfather would resist the idea of people on the moon. As far as he was concerned his 1940’s Ford tractor with a PTO was state of the art technology. Current day moon landing deniers are a different story. These people are right up there with flat Earthers as far a critical thinking goes.

[Revelation777]

Refuting Talk Origins statements on mutations


good read -
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/can...61221.html

[Bad Wolf]

A person posting their opinion on a website does not count as a refutation of mutations.

[Esquilax]

Refuting Talk Origins statements on mutations


good read -
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/can...61221.html

I spotted an incorrect statement by the third paragraph. That's not a good sign.

Additionally... information isn't a thing. It's not the issue, so the whole article is kind of farting on about nothing anyway.

[Cato]

Dear Atheist Friends,
It is time to look to the Creator for answers not empty theories grasping at straws.
Rev 777

Self defeating. Without evolution we couldn't grasp straws.

[FatAndFaithless]

Refuting Talk Origins statements on mutations


good read -
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/can...61221.html

I spotted an incorrect statement by the third paragraph. That's not a good sign.

Additionally... information isn't a thing. It's not the issue, so the whole article is kind of farting on about nothing anyway.

Additionally, Dollo's law is just a hypothesis (note: very different from a theory) that was proposed in 1893, its parameters are unclear, and many exceptions have been found (some by Stephen J. Gould himself).

[Angrboda]

Refuting Talk Origins statements on mutations


good read -
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/can...61221.html

This is just a repackaging of the failed irreducible complexity hypothesis. It's claiming that multiple mutations need to occur in near simultaneous fashion for a beneficial structure to arise. This is wrong, as well as being a misrepresentation of what evolution says. Evolution says that the intermediate steps are retained because they pass natural selection, possibly by serving some other function. Claiming that whole new structures have to evolve in one step is false. This is not what evolution says and so it's attacking a straw man. And failing! As "irreducibly complex" structures proposed by Behe have been shown not to be irreducibly complex, and the whole argument is nothing more than an argument from ignorance, ergo, "I can't imagine how evolution could have done it, therefore it didn't."

[pocaracas]

Why is it that, instead of spending time actually learning what the theory says, these people waste their time coming up with what it isn't in order to attack it?

[Mister Agenda]

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.

Are all seven of your arguments, arguments against evolution? Shouldn't 'not evolution!' just be one argument? If I recall correctly, you advertised that you were going to make seven arguments for believing God is real. Maybe you should have promised seven arguments that evolution is false.

Especially since if you actually disproved evolution, that would not be an argument for believing in God, just for not believing in evolution. Contrary to fundamentalist myth, evolution and atheism are not entwined, hundreds of millions of Christians, and even many Muslims, accept evolution. They just give God credit for it.

---

Why are we even entertaining a guy who doesn't know the foggiest about evolution but who insists on talking about it as though he's an expert?

Because he's slightly less pathetic than most of his competitors, which makes him the chewiest toy available. At least he doesn't come across as hateful. He just doesn't seem to be able to learn any sicence.

---

Dear Atheist Friends,
It is time to look to the Creator for answers not empty theories grasping at straws.
Rev 777

Dear Theist Friend:

It's time to start responding to the rebuttals of the assertions you've already made instead of just making more assertions.