Thoughts

[Succubus]

I've read it...

I seriously doubt you have the intellect or the attention span to absorb it. If you've read anything with a 'Talkorigins' tag it's likely a bastardised version from answers in genesis.

[Godscreated]

None of that is proof of evolution, you do not even understand the science you think is real.

I think I must be psychic, I am sure I said elsewhere that creationists always deny this without clearly ever having read it.

If you don't think I understand the science, please show me the flaws in the article so we can discuss them. And I can assure you I have read a lot more than read just Theobald. Might even invite my sister here, with her PhD in Genetics. But then, she's a woman, what the fuck would she know about science.

You haven't studied shit, just swallowed it.

 She can't defend against what is known, understand this DNA can't have new information add to it and thus eliminates the possibility for on kind to become another, period. This is something you can not get around.

GC

---

None of that is proof of evolution, you do not even understand the science you think is real.

Evolution = Descent with Modification.  What is there to understand that does not involve the many complexities and nuances of Science?  The concept of evolution is straightforward.

 Being straight forward as you say doesn't mean it's true, just your stated opinion that doesn't hold water against the facts.

GC

---

It's bunk it refutes itself if one uses critical thinking.

How the fuck would you know anything about critical thinking?

 I just might understand things of many kinds you wouldn't believe, but then I do not care what you believe about me. God knows and in the end that's all that counts.

GC

[KevinM1]

Imma just leave this right here.... http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/ev...ution9.htm

[Jehanne]

Evolution = Descent with Modification.  What is there to understand that does not involve the many complexities and nuances of Science?  The concept of evolution is straightforward.

Being straight forward as you say doesn't mean it's true, just your stated opinion that doesn't hold water against the facts.

GC

Name one fact that does not support Darwinian evolution.

[Angrboda]

I think I must be psychic, I am sure I said elsewhere that creationists always deny this without clearly ever having read it.

If you don't think I understand the science, please show me the flaws in the article so we can discuss them. And I can assure you I have read a lot more than read just Theobald. Might even invite my sister here, with her PhD in Genetics. But then, she's a woman, what the fuck would she know about science.

You haven't studied shit, just swallowed it.

 She can't defend against what is known, understand this DNA can't have new information add to it and thus eliminates the possibility for on kind to become another, period. This is something you can not get around.

You're a fucking moron.  Creationist bullshit about being unable to add information is just that: bullshit.

Claim CB102:
Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.

Source:
AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/CvE_report.asp

Response:

 

•  It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
  
         increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
         increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
         novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
         novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
  
     If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.
  
• A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
         
  • Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
           
    
  • RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
           
    
  • Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
    
•    The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.
  
• According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).
  
• The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).
  

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

[JackRussell]

Incredulity is all we get from GC, he has clearly NEVER read the actual evidence and has no real understanding of what evolution is.

It's all crocoducks to him.

Sad really, when it is so amazing.

[JackRussell]

 She can't defend against what is known, understand this DNA can't have new information add to it and thus eliminates the possibility for on kind to become another, period. This is something you can not get around.

You're a fucking moron.  Creationist bullshit about being unable to add information is just that: bullshit.

Claim CB102:
Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.

Source:
AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/CvE_report.asp

Response:

 

•  It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
  
         increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
         increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
         novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
         novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
  
     If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.
  
• A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
         
  • Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
           
    
  • RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
           
    
  • Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
    
•    The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.
  
• According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).
  
• The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).
  

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

I doubt GC could distinguish between Shannon and Chaitin-Kolmogorov information.

Has probably just heard that DNA is a CODE, therefore a LANGUAGE, therefore an AUTHOR.

Fail at every level.

[Harry Nevis]

I think I must be psychic, I am sure I said elsewhere that creationists always deny this without clearly ever having read it.

If you don't think I understand the science, please show me the flaws in the article so we can discuss them. And I can assure you I have read a lot more than read just Theobald. Might even invite my sister here, with her PhD in Genetics. But then, she's a woman, what the fuck would she know about science.

You haven't studied shit, just swallowed it.

 She can't defend against what is known, understand this DNA can't have new information add to it and thus eliminates the possibility for on kind to become another, period. This is something you can not get around.

GC

---

Evolution = Descent with Modification.  What is there to understand that does not involve the many complexities and nuances of Science?  The concept of evolution is straightforward.

 Being straight forward as you say doesn't mean it's true, just your stated opinion that doesn't hold water against the facts.

GC

---

How the fuck would you know anything about critical thinking?

 I just might understand things of many kinds you wouldn't believe, but then I do not care what you believe about me. God knows and in the end that's all that counts.

GC

Ooohhh....you "just might" understand things.  You sure haven't demonstrated it here.

[Jehanne]

Angels push planets in their orbits, stars, too!  Why?  Because my religion says that they do, but they do it in such a way that their motions can be modeled by mindless forces.

[Angrboda]

Proof that you can add information to DNA:

Take an organism, say we call it A. Suppose that its offspring suffers a mutation in its genome. According to creationist dogma, this must either result in no change in the amount of information, or a loss of information. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it results in a loss of information. By definition, this new organism, B, has less information than A. Now suppose that B's offspring suffers a mutation which changes its DNA back to that which it was in A. Call this organism C. Because A has more information than B, and A and C have the same information, organism C's DNA has more information than B's DNA (by transitivity). Thus, by mutation, an increase in information was observed.

QED.