maybe you didn't understand my question; it was mutations that have
increased the information in the genome and there is absolutely none. Scientists will tell you that 99.9% of all mutations are non-beneficial. The few ones that seem to be beneficial are evidences, not of evolution but of devolution, because what they do is make mutant proteins that are more adaptable to disease. one is sickle red blood cells and malaria; is that a beneficial mutation? what is beneficial about a sickle cell? the one you listed above is the mutant protein apo - b. it is an example of
devolution because it is a mutant that is smaller and thus less normal than the actual apo-b.
its just like cutting off your leg so that you don't get arthritis, is that beneficial?
there is NO mutation that has resulted in increase in information in the genome, and thus more complexity.
What are you talking about?
science, precisely molecular biology; you had earlier mentioned ERVs.
No, because mutations, by themselves, don't produce new species.
mutations don't produce new species, neither do they produce new kinds of animals. and if you want to say it acts in concert with natural selection, that is also untrue. Natural selection
selects, you can't have 10 pencils and select biros out of them, you can only select out of what you have already; depending on the criterion for selection, you can't have what you didn't have before.
No matter the amount of mutation, one kind of animal wont turn to another kind, a mutant virus is still a virus, it will never become a bacterium; a mutant dog is still a dog, it would never become a horse. i think this is simple enough.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html
i don't really like all these links things, they detract from the issues. my question was, how can genetic drift increase the information in the genome, where are the examples?
what is genetic drift, it is a random alteration of the frequencies of certain traits (alleles) within a population. what does it mean, the alleles are already there in the original genetic pool, however their frequency varies; that shows
variation not evolution. it doesnt produce a different or a new allele, it just scrambles existing information, with that you lose information rather than gain information. if anything, it points away from evolution to devolution.
that proves nothing, its still the same kind of animal. a chihuahua and a great dane are variants, phenotypically they look so very different, but they are still dogs, they have never and will never beecome cats. micro-evolution occurs, macro-evolution doesn't.
What do you mean by "not more adaptable"? The organisms do become more adapted to their environment because of selection. Fossil evidence of animals, include the elimination of Neanderthals to leave the path for modern humans.
when i said 'not more adaptable' i meant 'that is not what i'm asking for'.
'the organisms become more adapted to their environment because of selection' that is exactly my point. selection selects, it results in fewer number of organisms, the traits for survival are already there. you can't select for 10 feet humans, the criterion is not present initially.
secondly, selection does not create new kinds of animals. instead, it results in fewer, more fit types of the same animal.
let's take this thing very detailed,,,,,
less complex common ancestor eg bacterium-like organism. how does selection 'select' complexity; how can a less complex animal give rise to a more complex animal? simple; by evolving an increased genome; that has never happened or proven before. selection
selects, it results in fewer number of organisms and organisms less complex than the prior organisms but more specialised, it
does not create. If you say it does, by what mechanism?
between, update your evolutionary knowledge. neanderthal man has been disproved long ago and removed from the Museum of natural history. genetic screening of neandarthal has shown it to be a deformed man, if anything, he devolved from us, not the revrese.
Archaeopteryx is one example.
archaeotpteryx is a
bird not a dinosaur. yet another lie; upgrade your evolutionary knowledge.
Ok, agreed. evolution isn't chance. ok, it isn't chance, then what is it? did you read the second article; they are looking at the
chance (permit the irony) of producing a functional protein out of the building blocks. first, that is not from scratch; they have the amino acid building blocks. proteins are coded; they are made by transcribing DNA into RNA into protein. so that's not from scratch. Second, ever heard of in-vitro and in-vivo, things working under controlled test tube conditions do not translate to them working in vivo.
I have no idea. However, again, evolution isn't chance. Also, this is a non-sequitor that really seems to have been designed to draw attention away from the subject of ERV's and bog the discussion down by obfuscation.
ok, i drop the issue and take it that i need not bring it to the discussion - why i brought it is because it is evidence
for creation.
Not to be rude or anything, but it appears you actually don't know much, if anything, about endogenous retroviruses. You can read Winace's (yes, him again) excellent write-up on ERV's here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t96639 I'll briefly answer your questions, though.
that might be a little rude because i'm a medical doctor turned molecular biologist. i'm doing my phd in molecular biology at the moment so i know what i'm talking about. i wont argue with you about big bang, not that i believe it, but because i'm not a physicist. we are trained to be very critical, i've looked at the evidence and it just doesn't work. evolution is not happening now, and there is no evidence that it ever did. first, there are two things you should understand about evolutionary science; one there is the evidence itself and there is the interpretation that is alluded to the evidence. as a scientist, you are trained to make interpretations objectively, not to agree with someone else's interpretation, many of the wrong interpretations which are usually disproved within a few years.
First, you ask: how do the shared characteristics show common descent? Well, why don't they? The shared characteristics are in beings that replicate imperfectly, afterall. Nevertheless, the ERVs are situated in the genome and are, like genes, passed down through reproduction. In short, unless you accept what the data shows, you'D have to resort to special pleading to explain why we share those ERVs (and several genes) with other species that the theory of evolution, before the advent of modern genetics, had asserted we share common ancestors, why those ERVs are in the same place in the various species and more or less lines up with the tree of descent, and why what they show doesn't contradict the theory of evolution.
a major argument in evolutionary biology is evidence from homology; it is baseless and stupid. and it points to a common
creator rather than a common
origin{/quote]
its not why don't they, its why
do they. you have not said anything. similarity can never prove common descent, rather it shows a common
designer. if you say they descended commonly, how did they get there?
what do you mean by 'replicate'? do you mean reproduce or are you talking about DNA replication? the DNA polymerases in humans are very high fidelity enzymes and there is an infintesimal chance of error.
Second, you ask how the retroviruses inserted themselves into the human genome millions of years ago. The shared ones didn't, humans were born with them.
if you say they are born with them, what does that prove? humans were born with them because they are created with them. they are found in many cells which have no receptors, so they couldn't have got into those cells.
it does not disprove creation, neither does it prove evolution. if anything, its inconsequential in the debate.
or maybe, i don't get you, do you mean to say the common ancestor was more complex than the descendants?
if it was already in the common ancestor, how come there is much more of the genetic information in man?
don't you get what i'm trying to say; smaller life forms don't give rise to greater life forms, because genetic information does not increase, this is what can't be observed; new information does not arise in the genome of a particular kind of animal; all you have is a scrambling of a pre-existing gene pool, and that shows devolution, you can have a five-legged horse; that is devolution; it is still a horse but it is worse than it was before.
For the third question, look up the germ line cell
give me another of your links. cell lines are cell lines - in vitro systems. they are not animals. what you don't realise is it isn't evidence for macro-evolution, because it doesn't change the kind of animal into another animal. simple.
Wait, what? Are you asking why humans haven't tried to create ERVs? Read Winace's write up.
obviously you are not a biologist. but i have to tell you you have been reading the wrong biologists.
that was not what i asked. humans have not 'created' anything in biology; they have created deformed creatures, fruitflies with 2 sets of wings, etc. its the same genetic information but scrambled.
i've read the article. ever heard of assuming the consequent; you guys accuse of of doing that many times. if you rule out the initial assumption, it falls flat on its face. its a common fallacy, they are similar so that shows that they are from the same ancestor; when in fact that ought to show you that the same person created them. what evolutionists try to do is to erode the line between the theory and the evidence and make it seem like the theory is part of the evidence, when in fact they are two seperate things.
I'm aware. In humans, other than the appendix, there's also the tailbone. Vestiges in other animals include the wings on emus.
again, outdated disproven science. Tailbone? LOL. i would pay you a million dollars to remove yours, lol. the coccyx is a site of attachment for 6 different muscles impt in you-know-what (pooing). without it, sorry. As for emus, the small wings help the bird cool itself in hot weather - they hold the wings out so that the air can circulate around the body. vestiges don't exist; please update your knowledge. 'we don't know what their function is yet' doesn't mean it is vestigeal.
The appendix is vestigial
the appendix is NOT vestigeal. it plays a role in the immune system, if you remove yours, your life expentancy is reduced. that is one of the lies that have been disproven long ago. propagandists however still continue to lie to the gullible. (Zahid, A. (2004) "The vermiform appendix: not a useless organ." J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 14:256-258).
The peonies was one example. Another is the speciation in Elephants - African and Asian.
LOL, they are still the same kind of animal. variations occur, there is no doubt about that; no biologist will disprove micro-evolution. however, macro-evolution is a myth.
"Another is the speciation in Elephants - African and Asian." Lol, they are still ELEPHANTS!! you could have as well said an example is speciation in humans, African and Asian!!!
No, that much should be pretty obvious if you gave it some thought. Non-random does not equal consciousness and/or a set goal.
ok, you say it is not chance and it is not random. so please what is it?
as regards this first part of our argument which is to let you know that there is no
peculiar evidence for biological evolution, you have still not provided any evidence. where are the benefical mutations? where are the mutations that have increased the information in the genome? which animals, have been observed to produce another kind of animal? what is the mechansims by which mutations and natural selection increase genomic complexity?
the second part;
I mean an animal that not only can neither fit into the phylogenetic tree, but also shows none of the hallmarks associated with evolution.
what do you mean by that statement? there can't be any animal that can't fit into the phylogenetic tree because that's the
goal of the phylogenetic tree - to get every animal fitted into it.
secondly, what are the 'hallmarks associated with evolution'? there is none. that is what i've been trying to tell you - evolutionists mix in their theory with evidence and make them seem to be the same. there is NO hallmark that is associated with evolution and thus disproves creation. in order to falsify creation, you only need to do one thing - show that animals have not been reproducing according to their kinds, and that is not just happening.
Your initial response was 'living animals that couldn't have evolved'. Look around you, disregard the evolutionary brainwashing for a second; what do we observe;
animals that reproduce acoording to their kind. no matter the variation in a particular kind of animal, say dog, they will still be dogs - they will never become cats. that should be a proof to you of creation, but you don't want to accept it.
macro-evolution is a myth. it doesn't happen today, and it never did happen.
Me? I'm not omnipotent but an example of this would be the AIs that have been created by humans. We know, based on their properties, that they were created specifically and couldn't have evolved. Something similar.
you know based on their properties that they couldn't have evolved? who said? and you don't know, based on
our properties that
we couldn't have evolved. how sad.
a creation is something that couldn't have happend by itself. if you see a building, you know there is a builder around. if you see a painting you know there is a painter somewhere. if you look at nature, you ought to know that there is a creator somewhere. it can't happen by itself. please, stop the brainwashing.
a very simple example is genetic information. there are 26 alphabets, no matter how much you scramble the alphabets, you can't get a logical, meaningful book by it. same thing with genes, no matter how much chance and random mutations, you can't get information from the sequences. evolution does not do codes. please study information science; informatin is a proof of intelligent design. we were made by an intelligent being.
however, my initial question was; "in order to acheive this non - evolutionary state, what 'checks' will you as a designer use to acheive this? I mean, what design instructions will you use to make beings that can't evolve?"
the checks, are already in place. dogs don't' give rise to goats. we can't overemphasise this fact. macro-evolution is a myth.
An easily understandable and unambiguous emblem on the torso would do the trick.
what you are just trying to tell me is this; there is no evidence for creation that i can accept as being an evidence for creation. Period. because if he wrote an insignia on your torso, you'D still say it came there by chance. or to put it another way, excepts he subscribes to the evidence
I demand, then i cannot beleive there was a creation. what a pity.
however, if you care to know, God has left his imprints; the genetic code is one, the protein code is another. although the code is the same across the different kinds of animals, the information is very different and a small change in information produces a very significant phenotypical change.
creatures that reproduce according to their kind is yet another. if you choose to ignore it, then no wahala.
I have. Have you?
I'm a Phd student in molecular biology.
Then the design wasn't perfect. I supsect we may have differnet ideas of perfect. A Flawless design is not only perfect, but its offspring have to be logically perfect too, because its reproductive process and organs are by default perfect too.
what creation teaches is creatures that were initially perfect, and then began to devolve after sin came in. the question then should be, if the were perfect initially what would the evidence be?
indeed, there is incredible evidence of design when you study molecular biology and the life sciences. there is no denying that. in fact, a 'simple' organism like the paramecium is so intricately designed, we are still trying to unravel the mechanisms behind many of its basic processes.
and don't bring in logically perfect into the equation, we are talking about science, not abstractions. please do some study of biology and genetics, the awesomeness of God's wisdom will overwhelm you.
No need to; my back hurts and I may need glasses soon.
no wahala.
More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_designLOL, there is no poor design, disease is not an evidence of poor design. if you have a crashed car, those that tell you that the car was poorly designed? of course not. did the driver read the instruction manual?
No human is perfect.
Indeed. we once were, and one day we will be again. 1Cor.15;43-44, 53-54
I didn't get any of that.
i believe you. i'D explain again below
I already gave an answer: A "THIS IS THE TETRAGRAMMATON I MADE THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT" scrawled across the sky and instantly understable by any and every one, should do the trick.
and i explained that that would be pompous and self-conceited. that is not consistent with his nature.
i said 'read yourself' - what you are trying to say is there is no amount of evidence that you can accept as being a pointer to God. period. God is the creator, he can't live in his creation. so any evidence that you can have of GOd has to be indirect evidence. there is enough evidence if you want to be sincere to show that God created the univere. (ROm. 1;20). there is no excuse. what you are trying to say is; except he follows
my own requirement for evidence, i will not beleive in him. what a pity.
God has not left himself without a witness; i've tried my best to explain things to you. God created all of us. and he loves us. each one of us has rebelled and sinned against him. his Son paid his price for us. that's the goal of all i'm doing. i don't care about arguements that lead no where. there is abundant evidence of a creator, when i look around i see the awesomeness of God's creation. (Ps. 19;1) the goal of the devil is to lead us away from Him. that is why he tried to discredit the bible, from there, he made up a theory to make it seem like there is no God. His ultimate goal is to prevent people from accepting the salvation found in christ.
i believe God is trying to call you back to himself; if you look at the bible and see things that seem illogical, why don't you seek the explanation? i don't understand many things, but the ones i do work very well. i might not have time to answer you again, that's why i felt to add this addendum. cheers. remeber this question though because you've not answered it.
"If a creator made the universe and everything in it, what kind of evidence will he have left behind or imprinted or made obvious in what he made?" cheers.
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Author
