 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject: YECS vs. Evolution....Whats the Debate really about? |
 |
|
6 Objections taken by YECS against Evolution are:
1) No New Information Gained from Genetic Mutations.
2) Species are now adapted to their environment
3) Species are now more specialized
4) This is due to Natural Selection
5) Genes have actually been lost from populations—i.e., there has been a loss of genetic information, the opposite of what microbe-to-man evolution needs in order to be credible.
6) Now the population is less able to adapt to future environmental changes i.e. were the climate to become hot, there is no genetic information for short fur, so dogs would probably overheat.
Evolution can not advance as a theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7559
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Finally, a scientific debate!
What do you mean that no new information is gained from genetic mutations? Being a microbiologist, surely you are aware of insertion mutations. How can you possibly say that insertion mutations do not add information? They literally make a DNA sequence longer, which is the definition of adding information.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | Finally, a scientific debate!
What do you mean that no new information is gained from genetic mutations? Being a microbiologist, surely you are aware of insertion mutations. How can you possibly say that insertion mutations do not add information? They literally make a DNA sequence longer, which is the definition of adding information. |
Inserting a letter does not mean a gain of information. It has no new information.
The cat sat on the fence. Insert a new letter, "the ciat sat on the fence." Any gains of information added here? No. The insertion has taken away the meaning, and hence destroyed the meaning of the statement. Hence we see a loss of information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7559
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
Inserting a letter does not mean a gain of information. It has no new information.
The cat sat on the fence. Insert a new letter, "the ciat sat on the fence." Any gains of information added here? No. The insertion has taken away the meaning, and hence destroyed the meaning of the statement. Hence we see a loss of information. |
You can't wow me with simplistic false analogies. I've studied computational biology at the graduate level in a good computer science department at a good university, so you don't need to patronize me.
I know full well (as you also do) that insertions (or transposition or substitutions, for that matter) in an area of coding DNA can easily change which codons are expressed. Changing the codons changes the protein that is coded for. With any luck, that change is useful, and voila, we have a GAIN in useful information.
And perhaps a better example: let's say we have a non-coding segment. A single insertion or transpostion or substitution could easily turn it into a coding region. Again, voila, we have a GAIN in useful information.
You've got a Ph.D in microbiology, so why the act? I remember having this argument with another person on this board a long time ago. I'm really surprised that I'm having it with you.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: | Finally, a scientific debate!
What do you mean that no new information is gained from genetic mutations? Being a microbiologist, surely you are aware of insertion mutations. How can you possibly say that insertion mutations do not add information? They literally make a DNA sequence longer, which is the definition of adding information. |
Inserting a letter does not mean a gain of information. It has no new information.
The cat sat on the fence. Insert a new letter, "the ciat sat on the fence." Any gains of information added here? No. The insertion has taken away the meaning, and hence destroyed the meaning of the statement. Hence we see a loss of information. |
But if you add the right letter, in the right place, and something meaningful can happen:
The cats sat on the fence.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | Dr. Michael Martin wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: | Finally, a scientific debate!
What do you mean that no new information is gained from genetic mutations? Being a microbiologist, surely you are aware of insertion mutations. How can you possibly say that insertion mutations do not add information? They literally make a DNA sequence longer, which is the definition of adding information. |
Inserting a letter does not mean a gain of information. It has no new information.
The cat sat on the fence. Insert a new letter, "the ciat sat on the fence." Any gains of information added here? No. The insertion has taken away the meaning, and hence destroyed the meaning of the statement. Hence we see a loss of information. |
But if you add the right letter, in the right place, and something meaningful can happen:
The cats sat on the fence. |
It'd be a duplicating of genetic information. No new information actually added. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
Inserting a letter does not mean a gain of information. It has no new information.
The cat sat on the fence. Insert a new letter, "the ciat sat on the fence." Any gains of information added here? No. The insertion has taken away the meaning, and hence destroyed the meaning of the statement. Hence we see a loss of information. |
You can't wow me with simplistic false analogies. I've studied computational biology at the graduate level in a good computer science department at a good university, so you don't need to patronize me.
I know full well (as you also do) that insertions (or transposition or substitutions, for that matter) in an area of coding DNA can easily change which codons are expressed. Changing the codons changes the protein that is coded for. With any luck, that change is useful, and voila, we have a GAIN in useful information. how does that stimulate a gain? It just changes what is already there to something that is already there.
And perhaps a better example: let's say we have a non-coding segment. A single insertion or transpostion or substitution could easily turn it into a coding region. Again, voila, we have a GAIN in useful information.
Non-coding segments are recognized to be of beneficial use at times. But again, no gains in useful information are really taking place. Just more DNA replications/copying. Nothing new being gained through the processes.
You've got a Ph.D in microbiology, so why the act? I remember having this argument with another person on this board a long time ago. I'm really surprised that I'm having it with you. |
Would you be referring to Dawkin's Weasel Program here?
Last edited by Unverified on Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7559
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
It'd be a duplicating of genetic information. No new information actually added. |
You've been saying some pretty strange things here, Dr. Michael, and you're making me very suspicious. You're not talking like a microbiologist AT ALL, let alone one with a Ph.D. Every undergrad knows that what you're saying is wrong. We're talking like second year microbiology. In fact, most high school biology courses teach about protein synthesis and mutations.
Do you actually have a Ph.D in microbiology? Are you the real Dr. Michael?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7559
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
Would you be referring to Dawkin's Weasel Program here? |
Nope, I'm talking about codons and how mutations can change them to add information and functionality.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
It'd be a duplicating of genetic information. No new information actually added. |
You've been saying some pretty strange things here, Dr. Michael, and you're making me very suspicious. You're not talking like a microbiologist AT ALL, let alone one with a Ph.D. Every undergrad knows that what you're saying is wrong. We're talking like second year microbiology. In fact, most high school biology courses teach about protein synthesis and mutations.
Do you actually have a Ph.D in microbiology? Are you the real Dr. Michael? |
Throwing more elephant hurl around doesn't make you look any better here.
No gains have taken place, only replication. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
Would you be referring to Dawkin's Weasel Program here? |
Nope, I'm talking about codons and how mutations can change them to add information and functionality. |
No gains have taken place, only replication of DNA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7559
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
No gains have taken place, only replication of DNA. |
Now you've REALLY got me suspicious. This is just plain false, and anyone with ANY education in microbiology would know it.
Are you actually Dr. Michael Martin? Do you have a Ph.D in microbiology?
If you are who you say you are, then you should be able to answer the following questions with ease. If you're not, then you're going to have a hard time.
In computational biology, what is the best algorithm for LCS?
Do you know Gene Myers? What did he do? Have you ever met him or seen him talk? What was memorable about his appearance?
What are microarrays used for?
What is the best technique for predicting / simulating protein folding?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6886
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
This thread was actually interesting. A point was made, it was refuted, the refutation was shown to be incorrect, and then those who had been shown to be incorrect delved right into personal attacks and appeals to authority rather than demonstrating any scientific evidence in support of thier position.
Cat and cats - new information or replication of the same information? I'm not a second year university microbiology student, but I certainly can see the fact of replication verses 'new' information...
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6064
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
What, you're taking this seriously? 
Look, I'll make it easy, using the exact same analogy but slightly different solution:
"The cat sat on the fence."
"The scat sat on the fence."
Uh oh, only one letter was added and the meaning changed!
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | What, you're taking this seriously?
Look, I'll make it easy, using the exact same analogy but slightly different solution:
"The cat sat on the fence."
"The scat sat on the fence."
Uh oh, only one letter was added and the meaning changed! |
The 2nd instance is a destruction of information. This would constitute a loss of genetic information...not a gain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
