[ARCHIVED] - Creation vs. Evolution

[Tiberius]

You misunderstand the whole "information" thing which is a common creationist blunder. Every single mutation changes the information in the genome, some delete specific genes, sometimes a gene gets mutated into another, sometimes a gene duplicates. Any one of these mutations could "add" information to the genome, as they have changed the entire genetic code of the animal.

I'd personally like to see some evidence that both colours were already in their genes, because I've never heard of that before.

One species can NOT change into another without gaining information. You can only lose so much. And even if you wanted to argue that it COULD, it would still contradict what you are saying. That would mean that each species gets more and more inferior. See?

There is no contradiction to what we are saying. You are creating a strawman argument in order to make it appear that we have a contradiction.

Firstly, a species can change into another species without gaining information. In order for this to happen you would simply have to delete information from the genome until the animal couldn't reproduce successfully with its ancestors any more.

Secondly, the above doesn't really matter, because the whole concept of "information" you guys have doesn't exist. Genetics doesn't work like that. Sure, we can pinpoint sections of genetic code that relate to certain functions of the organism, but by changing one of the genes in those functions doesn't necessarily mean the function is reduced. It could have a positive effect on the function (what you would call increasing information) or it could simply have no effect at all.

To show how your assertion of out contradiction is wrong, you only have to look at your original example of the beetles that lost their wings. In their environment, losing wings was a good thing, so they hardly got "inferior". Without their wings they survived more. It all depends on the environment, and as we've discussed elsewhere on this forum, we currently have no solid way of determining complexity, let alone how "inferior" a species is.

If your other team members aren't able to continue, perhaps it might be better to invite some of your other group members? Just PM me their account names and I'll make sure they can post in here.

[Demonaura]

Firstly, best wishes to your friends, particularly the one who was injured. I hope she recovers quickly.

Second, on the topic of the genome heres a basic model I was shown before.

Lets say a creature has the genes A B and C, so his genetic code is simply ABC.

What you are calling adaptation is when things happen like a deletion or a switch. So AB and ACB are adaptations by that definition. Thought ABC may not be able to breed with ACB, that would be macroevolution because we have two seperate species now.

However, mutations can also occur creating combinations such as ABCD, ABD or ACBD. All of which are the same as the things you accept as microevolution but, with a single mutation that developed the D gene. I have a technical document on this kinda thing but, frankly I have to go slow to keep up with it and it won't do us any good to start translating the document here.

If anyone is feeling brave (or is good at mathematics where I am not) http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297

Mutations are unexpected, and are aptly named. There are actually humans out there with a mutation that allowed them immunity to a broader range of diseases, I beleive AIDS was one of them. Not all humans have this in their genome, that's why were doing constantly blood samples of this family and trying to isolate the gene in the hopes that someday a vaccine for AIDS will be developed.

that would be the crown example for medicinal technology that exists because evolution is true. On top of everything we already have of course.

[Amanda]

yes, i'm not saying mutation cannot be benificial, adrian. But they canNOT gain any "information" or whatever you want to call it. I'm getting some help on the E. Coli thing, I'll get back to you soon.

The info can change its order, and it can lose it. Like ACB and AB. But as far as I know, and I can't reasearch right now, it canNOT gain any new info. I'm, like, 99.9_% sure. BEcause that would not be mutation, but when I get a chance, I'll look into it............. <3

[Tiberius]

Well I suggest you read up on genetics, point mutations, and insertion mutations, because they are all observable. Wikipedia has an article covering it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation if you want an way of understanding it from a layman's perspective. I'm not sure where you get the idea that a mutation cannot increase information, because it happens in micro-evolution as much as it does in macro-evolution. Micro-evolution (at least when scientists talk about it) is not just adaptation, but minor changes within a species.

Otherwise, if mutations always either changed order or lost stuff, every organism on the planet would be losing DNA as it ages (due to the deletion). The organisms that reproduced the fastest would lose the most, as they mutate more often, but the opposite is true. The DNA of some protozoa is 100 times longer than mammal DNA:



You can check out http://www.genomesize.com for more info.

[Amanda]

so sorry it's taking so long. Anyway Adrian I've gotten to a little bit more research, and some more help.

I was wrong, a species CAN change. That's not a problem with Creation. We observe it all the time. But they have never gained any information. (I know you don't like that term, but I can't explain it any other way. What I mean is, a mutation, benificial or not, cannot add anything to the DNA that wasn't already there. It can lose info, {ABC to AB}, change order, {ABC to ACB}, and maybe, I'm not sure, copy it. That wouldn't be gaining info, I don't think. SO that would be like {ABCABC or ABCACB}. But it can't be {ABCD}. do you see what I'm saying?)

THe E coli, as far as I can see, is just another proven example of Adaptation. It has not evolved to be better, it has actually lost some of what it had before. This goes AGAINST evolution, actually. Now when I get a chance, I'll study that more and now get to more posts. I saw a link that was saying that this was wrong altogether, but I didn;t have time to check it out. So I'll get back.

[Becki]

yep. and here is a link to that.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Significanc...xperiments

[Amanda]

(from darwinian)


It seems to me quite odd that someone can accept micro evolution but then stop short of macro evolution. Macro evolution is simply the culmination of many micro evolutionary steps.

It's a bit like accepting that a few rain drops can create a puddle but then refusing to believe that many puddles can create a lake.



(me)


Maybe, Darwinian. But until that's proven, it's not fact. The only thing that has been observed is micro/adaptation. So until your Macro can be proven, we refuse to accept the idea that a bunch of puddles made your lake.

---

(Adrian)

Can you name any theories that have been published in scientific literature as fact.


(Me)


Yep. One example is how long after it was a proven fact that cells were exremely complex, and even our best machines can't duplicate the mpst simple cell we find, it was still put in text books as a fact saying that cells were simple.

THEORY is ok to put in a textbook. And that theory can later be proven wrong. But what is unexceptable is when THEORY is put in textbooks AS A FACT. It should be clear that it is only a theory. ANd NEVER should information be put into it when it has been proven wrong already. ESPECIALLY when it's stated as fact.

---

(Adrian)


Have you any evidence to back up your assertion that the odds of this happening are "a billion to one".


(Me)


I'm sure if I looked, there would be TONS of proof, yes. I have heard that on scientific vids, and read it places as well. If you would like, I can get you some references. But since it has already been disproven, I won't take the time now, since as far as I can see, we were right about that.

[Demonaura]

I think the whole thing lies in your perception of 'information'. ABC and ABCABC have no relation. They are different and if you get ABCABC from a creature that had ABC the ABCABC IS new.

One person I've seen speak very well on this is AronRa on Youtube, hes a paleontologist in Texas U.S.A. Relevant video linked below, an interesting one at that.

His example is like this, genetics works like our alphabet, theres various core building blocks at the lowest of levels (letters) that assemle themselves in new and different ways to create genetic senquences (words). so I can take a set of letters S I P E N and do this: SPINE, SNIPE. Two words, completely different but, made of the same things. Are these words the same?

We can also observe this in atoms. Steel is different from air right? Of course it is but, steel and air are both made of the exact same things. Protons, neutrons and electrons that assemble themselves in different ways to create new materials in the same way these genetic fibres assemble themselves to create completely new traits in creatures. The same core things literally take on entirely new properties when they come together in different ways. Which I find amazing btw, very cool stuff.

Also, to my knowledge theres no limit to the number of genetic sequences a species can have, you become a new species if you add one but, since we now know that ABC and ABCABC will have completely different and possibly even unrelated results this means there is an infinite ammount of canvas to create new species, and traits with.

Hope I made sense, Let me know if I missed anything Adrian this is not always my best topic.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJ...95&index=7 - AronRa, part of a series on evolution and creationisim.)

[Ashlyn]

She said, she wasn't sure if that was possible. I think I got all that. And I would say (but remember i'm not an expert and I'll have to check on this) that SNIPE and SPINE are possible from that. But It has NEVER been observed to change into a more complex species. If you disagree, please throw some actual examples at me, instead of made up codes. That way we have something to work with. Thanks!!

[Tiberius]

I was wrong, a species CAN change. That's not a problem with Creation. We observe it all the time. But they have never gained any information. (I know you don't like that term, but I can't explain it any other way. What I mean is, a mutation, benificial or not, cannot add anything to the DNA that wasn't already there. It can lose info, {ABC to AB}, change order, {ABC to ACB}, and maybe, I'm not sure, copy it. That wouldn't be gaining info, I don't think. SO that would be like {ABCABC or ABCACB}. But it can't be {ABCD}. do you see what I'm saying?)

Sections of DNA mean different things though. As DNA replicates, it copies across all the information stored in it. However the copying isn't perfect, and mutations occur. As you have said, mutations can be deletions of a base pair, but this doesn't "delete" information, it only changes it. I didn't want to confuse things with an example but look at it like this.

The word "Steam" has 5 letters in it, and it has a meaning in the English language. We can copy the word again and again and it will remain the same, but what happened if a deletion occurred like this: "Stem". The 'a' has gone, but no "information" has been lost. Instead, we have a new word that also has a meaning in the English language. But say another mutation occurred that switched two letter: "Setm". Now we have a new word, never before used in the English language, and it is a gain in "information".

The whole concept of "Information" is flawed in your view of Evolution because you simply don't understand how the genome works. There are only 4 acid bases in the entire genome of every DNA sequence: A, C, G, and T. You don't get mutations that suddenly add an extra acid base (ACT -> AGZ) because DNA is only composed of the 4 I've stated. The DNA sequence ACGTTA could mean something completely different in another organism, but it still has information. An "increase" in information can be obtained through any mutation (even a deletion) because it could lead to a new attribute of the organism, simply because the genome structure wasn't right.

THe E coli, as far as I can see, is just another proven example of Adaptation. It has not evolved to be better, it has actually lost some of what it had before.

It gained a new ability to absorb citrate. Please explain how this is losing something. It still had the ability to absorb the standard food supply as well, so it didn't just lose that.

This goes AGAINST evolution, actually.

No it doesn't. Nowhere in Evolutionary theory does it state that organisms have to get more complex. Indeed, current fossil records show that snakes lost limbs in ther Evolutionary path.

yep. and here is a link to that.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Significanc...xperiments

Conservapedia is not a scientific website. It is also a website that is editable by anyone, and it has a strong anti-evolutionary bias. Please find a decent peer-reviewed scientific document that discredits this experiment. Science is all about testing theories, and if someone has found an actual fault with Lenski's experiment, they could very easily publish it and get a lot of attention.