B
buffalo
Guest
That is the popular fantasy. Science is showing different.
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
I got it from you ignoring my post about evolution generating information, and ignoring my question about how you were measuring information and jumping from evolution to eigenetics.
What else did you expect me to think?
False. Your YEC sources are lying to you. Our single-celled ancestors did not have a heart. We do. Hearts evolved.
DNA is a chemical, not a language. We use language as a simile to describe it. You are confusing a simile with a description. Does “I wandered lonely as a cloud” mean that clouds can experience loneliness?
Wishful thinking and lies from YEC websites will get you nowhere.
You have still not explained either how you are measuring information or how you deal with a back mutation.
rossum
Last edited:
How do we know This?
I do not recall being tested for mutations.
T
Techno2000
Guest
This will explain everything :
R
rossum
Guest
Thank you for asking the question. I was going on old information, a better estimate is 60 mutations for each of us. See How Many Genetic Mutations Do I Have?.
Science measures things and publishes the results. That is how we know, scientists have done checks and measured the results.
rossum
K
Kei
Guest
I don’t understand how evolution is compatible with what we know about genetics, and I’m a tad disappointed no one wanted to help me understand, with all so many evolutionists here who hopefully have an understanding on the concepts.
So, say I have a dog. I can breed dogs to have fluffy fur, I can breed dogs to have long nails, I could breed dogs to have all sorts of different things about them.
But, I don’t understand how one could breed a dog to have a wing.
You couldn’t. So, this would be an example of a “mutation”, correct? Because otherwise it is not possible.
Now, say this dig gets a small growth that is the beginning of a wing, say it’s growing on the sides of the legs. So, it starts out a mutation.
But then, it needs to breed. So it lives long enough to have offspring. For this mutation to take effect in evolutionary history, this mutation needs to be passed onto the offspring. This is one part of where I don’t get it. You have one dog with this mutation and one without it. Yet their offspring get the mutation. Not only this, but their offspring also have the ability to pass on this trait. But this isn’t how inheritance works. For example, consider little people (if you don’t know, this is the “correct” way to refer to those called midgits, midgit is considered offensive). They have children. Some children can be little people. But they also have normal size children. Those with the he hose his abnormality in their ancestors may sometimes have children with it, but by no means is it many.
Evolution doesn’t care about if something is helpful to survival, it just cares about what survives. So, say something is weak and infirm, it doesn’t matter so long as it has offspring. It’s just more likely that those who are not weak and infirm have children in most cases.
Anyway, so it has children with this mutation for a bit of a wing, and they have children. It gets passed on to the other children. Eventually it does this until it is useful, for no reason other than randomness and chance.
Is this accurate? It just seems ridiculous.
One thing that always bothered me is that it just seems too fortunate for, say, a bug to have a mutation that makes it resistant to being killed by a bug poison, just when it is getting used. It always made more sense to me that the body recognized the need for a resistance, and so it brought it forth. I believe epigenetics is making this seem more and more plausible.
So, say I have a dog. I can breed dogs to have fluffy fur, I can breed dogs to have long nails, I could breed dogs to have all sorts of different things about them.
But, I don’t understand how one could breed a dog to have a wing.
You couldn’t. So, this would be an example of a “mutation”, correct? Because otherwise it is not possible.
Now, say this dig gets a small growth that is the beginning of a wing, say it’s growing on the sides of the legs. So, it starts out a mutation.
But then, it needs to breed. So it lives long enough to have offspring. For this mutation to take effect in evolutionary history, this mutation needs to be passed onto the offspring. This is one part of where I don’t get it. You have one dog with this mutation and one without it. Yet their offspring get the mutation. Not only this, but their offspring also have the ability to pass on this trait. But this isn’t how inheritance works. For example, consider little people (if you don’t know, this is the “correct” way to refer to those called midgits, midgit is considered offensive). They have children. Some children can be little people. But they also have normal size children. Those with the he hose his abnormality in their ancestors may sometimes have children with it, but by no means is it many.
Evolution doesn’t care about if something is helpful to survival, it just cares about what survives. So, say something is weak and infirm, it doesn’t matter so long as it has offspring. It’s just more likely that those who are not weak and infirm have children in most cases.
Anyway, so it has children with this mutation for a bit of a wing, and they have children. It gets passed on to the other children. Eventually it does this until it is useful, for no reason other than randomness and chance.
Is this accurate? It just seems ridiculous.
One thing that always bothered me is that it just seems too fortunate for, say, a bug to have a mutation that makes it resistant to being killed by a bug poison, just when it is getting used. It always made more sense to me that the body recognized the need for a resistance, and so it brought it forth. I believe epigenetics is making this seem more and more plausible.
B
buffalo
Guest
Dr. John Sanford (inventor of the gene gun)
“Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome”
Below is additional support for IDvolution.
Some quotes from Dr John Sanford on genetic entropy. Very consistent with IDvolution and Scripture. To get the full effect take the time to view the videos. Listen carefully where he states it is “kind of a trade secret of population geneticists.” The design of the genome is astonishing and shows intelligence, design and purpose.
“a vastly superior operating system”
“a galaxy of design and complexity”
“over 90% of the genome is actively transcribed”
“the genome has multiple overlapping messages”
“data compression on the most sophisticated level”
“more and more the genome looks like a super super set of programs”
“more and more it looks like top down design”
“the reality is everybody is mutant”
“the selection process really has nothing to grab hold of”
“so it’s kind of a trade secret amongst population geneticists,any well informed population geneticist understands man is degenerating”
“so in deep geological time we should have been extinct a long time ago”
“the human race is degenerating at 1-5% per generation”
“so personal and so immediate, because there is no circle of life where things where things stay the same, and it’s not an upward spiral of evolution, things keep getting better and better, it is a downward spiral exactly as described in Scripture”
“I realized it had major implications for evolution, but I had no… I couldn’t have guessed how profound the biblical implications are, how profoundly the evidence supports the biblical perspective of a dying universe and a dying world, we are dying because of the fall”
“and our only hope is Christ” IDvolution.org: Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome"
“Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome”
Below is additional support for IDvolution.
Some quotes from Dr John Sanford on genetic entropy. Very consistent with IDvolution and Scripture. To get the full effect take the time to view the videos. Listen carefully where he states it is “kind of a trade secret of population geneticists.” The design of the genome is astonishing and shows intelligence, design and purpose.
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is a thought of God."Pope Benedict XVI
“a vastly superior operating system”“a galaxy of design and complexity”
“over 90% of the genome is actively transcribed”
“the genome has multiple overlapping messages”
“data compression on the most sophisticated level”
“more and more the genome looks like a super super set of programs”
“more and more it looks like top down design”
“the reality is everybody is mutant”
“the selection process really has nothing to grab hold of”
“so it’s kind of a trade secret amongst population geneticists,any well informed population geneticist understands man is degenerating”
“so in deep geological time we should have been extinct a long time ago”
“the human race is degenerating at 1-5% per generation”
“so personal and so immediate, because there is no circle of life where things where things stay the same, and it’s not an upward spiral of evolution, things keep getting better and better, it is a downward spiral exactly as described in Scripture”
“I realized it had major implications for evolution, but I had no… I couldn’t have guessed how profound the biblical implications are, how profoundly the evidence supports the biblical perspective of a dying universe and a dying world, we are dying because of the fall”
“and our only hope is Christ” IDvolution.org: Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome"
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
The First Gene
More support for IDvolution! God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.
“The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control” is a peer-reviewed anthology of papers that focuses, for the first time, entirely on the following difficult scientific questions:…
Abstract: Could a composome, chemoton, or RNA vesicular protocell come to life in the absence of formal instructions, controls and regulation? Redundant, low-informational selfordering is not organization. Organization must be programmed. Intertwined circular constraints (e.g. complex hypercylces), even with negative and positive feedback, do not steer physicochemical reactions toward formal function or metabolic success. Complex hypercycles quickly and selfishly exhaust sequence and other phase spaces of potential metabolic resources.
“Chance and necessity are completely inadequate to describe the most important elements of what we repeatedly observe in intra-cellular life, especially. Science must acknowledge the reality and validity not only of a very indirect, post facto natural selection, but of purposeful selection for potential function as a fundamental category of reality. To disallow purposeful selection renders the practice of mathematics and science impossible.”
A new technical book, The First Gene, edited by Gene Emergence Project director David L. Abel, …" Materialists will not like this book because its arguments are 100% scientific, devoid of religious, political, or cultural concerns, and most importantly, compelling.
From reading The First Gene, a number of minimal theoretical and material requirements for life emerge:
*High levels of prescriptive information -
*Programming -
*Symbol systems and language -
*Molecules which can carry this information and programming
*Highly unlikely sequences of functional information -
*Formal function -
*An “agent” capable of making “intentional choices of mind” which can “choose” between various options, select for future function, and instantiate these requirements for life. -
idvolution.blogspot.com
And this science leads them to the conclusion that blind and unguided material causes cannot produce the complexity we observe in life. Some agent capable of making choices is required to produce the first life.
More support for IDvolution! God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.
“The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control” is a peer-reviewed anthology of papers that focuses, for the first time, entirely on the following difficult scientific questions:…
Abstract: Could a composome, chemoton, or RNA vesicular protocell come to life in the absence of formal instructions, controls and regulation? Redundant, low-informational selfordering is not organization. Organization must be programmed. Intertwined circular constraints (e.g. complex hypercylces), even with negative and positive feedback, do not steer physicochemical reactions toward formal function or metabolic success. Complex hypercycles quickly and selfishly exhaust sequence and other phase spaces of potential metabolic resources.
“Chance and necessity are completely inadequate to describe the most important elements of what we repeatedly observe in intra-cellular life, especially. Science must acknowledge the reality and validity not only of a very indirect, post facto natural selection, but of purposeful selection for potential function as a fundamental category of reality. To disallow purposeful selection renders the practice of mathematics and science impossible.”
A new technical book, The First Gene, edited by Gene Emergence Project director David L. Abel, …" Materialists will not like this book because its arguments are 100% scientific, devoid of religious, political, or cultural concerns, and most importantly, compelling.
From reading The First Gene, a number of minimal theoretical and material requirements for life emerge:
*High levels of prescriptive information -
*Programming -
*Symbol systems and language -
*Molecules which can carry this information and programming
*Highly unlikely sequences of functional information -
*Formal function -
*An “agent” capable of making “intentional choices of mind” which can “choose” between various options, select for future function, and instantiate these requirements for life. -
The First Gene
IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin
idvolution.blogspot.com
And this science leads them to the conclusion that blind and unguided material causes cannot produce the complexity we observe in life. Some agent capable of making choices is required to produce the first life.
Last edited:
Those secret black ops geneticists must have been testing me while I slept.
B
buffalo
Guest
Or… it could be jumping genes (HGT). The tree of life has fallen and is now a bush.
E
edwest211
Guest
Thanks to people like yourself who have taken the time to explain the mechanism, I still don’t see where any guidance is coming from. I mean evolution could produce thousands or millions of bad choices, and according to the rules, these creatures would die. End of story. But if they somehow survived and kept on breeding, we’d still see them.
The other issue refers to what I call ‘self-upgrading.’ Everything becomes more complex for no particular reason. In a lab, things can be observed, but in a dynamic real world with earthquakes, asteroid impacts and dramatic weather changes like the Ice Age (the last one), we just assume that whatever survived just happened to survive?
There is no way for the mechanism to determine what is better. Without prior knowledge, if my entire car was totally disassembled, and I was given the tools, I would not be able to put it back together. So, a creature gets two tails or a head crest, so what?
I mean, honestly, just assuming everything I’ve seen recreated from fossils is 100% designed, the mechanism is not the better answer. I’ve worked with people who are professional designers and I have an art design background. I’m even called in to consult on designs. And these are mechanical designs. They cannot afford to have even one pound added unless that pound is critical to its operation. I’m seeing the same things with animals. I work with someone who specializes in that. Again, design is the only answer that works. And living creatures that can run at certain speeds? I mean, the body arrangement will be radically different than another animal that survives, today, without these high-speed capabilities.
I also study the media and invention, and how ideas are spread. There is no way that after a few hundred years, the proposed mechanism accounts for what I know and what I’ve learned. Animals are sleek and more complex than machines, and then there’s the brain.
The other issue refers to what I call ‘self-upgrading.’ Everything becomes more complex for no particular reason. In a lab, things can be observed, but in a dynamic real world with earthquakes, asteroid impacts and dramatic weather changes like the Ice Age (the last one), we just assume that whatever survived just happened to survive?
There is no way for the mechanism to determine what is better. Without prior knowledge, if my entire car was totally disassembled, and I was given the tools, I would not be able to put it back together. So, a creature gets two tails or a head crest, so what?
I mean, honestly, just assuming everything I’ve seen recreated from fossils is 100% designed, the mechanism is not the better answer. I’ve worked with people who are professional designers and I have an art design background. I’m even called in to consult on designs. And these are mechanical designs. They cannot afford to have even one pound added unless that pound is critical to its operation. I’m seeing the same things with animals. I work with someone who specializes in that. Again, design is the only answer that works. And living creatures that can run at certain speeds? I mean, the body arrangement will be radically different than another animal that survives, today, without these high-speed capabilities.
I also study the media and invention, and how ideas are spread. There is no way that after a few hundred years, the proposed mechanism accounts for what I know and what I’ve learned. Animals are sleek and more complex than machines, and then there’s the brain.
I
IWantGod
Guest
How Evolution works
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The guidance is coming from the fact that nature punishes the bad guesses. You make a bad guess, you don’t reproduce. You make a good guess, you can reproduce, and maybe better than everyone else.
But that’s not what evolution needs to do. The entire car is never completely disassembled. It is only partially modified. Most of the design information is passed on through heredity.
Intelligent design, such as you do in mechanical design, is certainly a faster and more efficient way to achieve a specified goal. We would rightly criticize any design engineer who ignored all the theory and just tried things, trial and error style. There would be a lot of bridges that would collapse and devices that would fail is some way. Evolution is not so efficient. It does use trial and error. And so a good design that you might come up with in a matter of several weeks would take millions of years to achieve by stupid trial error. But given enough time, it could still get there.
A good example of this process is a demonstration project on how machines can learn. The “machine” in this case is called “Menace” and is composed of nothing more that 304 matchboxes with colored beads in them that “learn” to play tic-tac-toe (nor noughts and crosses if you are British). No electronics. No prior knowledge of the best strategy to play the game or even the rules of the game. The machine learns all of this through actual experience in a way that is very similar to random variation and natural selection. Watch this video for a complete description of the process and see if you don’t think it describes evolution very well.
B
buffalo
Guest
??? Design and purpose?
B
buffalo
Guest
Who programmed this? What beginning assumptions were made? Where did the information come from? Did the computer have any software code initially? Did the hardware have any beginning code?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
No, just the design. The purpose is not encoded.LeafByNiggle:
??? Design and purpose?
B
buffalo
Guest
Design is void of purpose? Then why design to begin with?
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If you watch the video you will see that there were no assumptions beyond the shape of the board and the number of spaces. There was not computer. No software. No code. It was just 403 matchboxes with colored beads inside with no information about the rules of the game. If you made up different rules and played Menace under those rules, Menace would learn a totally different strategy. Just watch the video. It is all explained in the first 2 minutes.
B
buffalo
Guest
Machine learning presumes a machine.
- Status