 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
The 2nd instance is a destruction of information. This would constitute a loss of genetic information...not a gain. |
The bases form codons. Changing and inserting bases changes the codons. Changing the codons changes the amino acid sequence which is coded for. Changing the amino acid sequence changes the protein. Changing the protein changes the fucntion, which CAN EASILY be a beneficial change. All of a sudden we have a new protein being coded for which might give the creature wonderful new abilities.
What part of this don't you understand? This is NOT a loss in information. It is OBJECTIVELY a GAIN. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Unverified
Booted
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
The 2nd instance is a destruction of information. This would constitute a loss of genetic information...not a gain. |
The bases form codons. Changing and inserting bases changes the codons. (This is what we're trying to prove. You're begging the question here. Does not follow). Changing the codons changes the amino acid sequence which is coded for. Changing the amino acid sequence changes the protein. Changing the protein changes the fucntion, which CAN EASILY be a beneficial change. All of a sudden we have a new protein being coded for which might give the creature wonderful new abilities.
What part of this don't you understand? This is NOT a loss in information. It is OBJECTIVELY a GAIN. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5844
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: | | No Analogous arguments are perfectly legitimate. Equivocations are not. The difference is like most Evolutionists, you're changing the word's meaning midway through here to mean something it doesn't mean. |
The dictionary supports my take on it, it's not my fault you used an ambiguous word. What you're doing now is goalpost-shifting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Michael Martin wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: | | Dr. Michael Martin wrote: |
The 2nd instance is a destruction of information. This would constitute a loss of genetic information...not a gain. |
The bases form codons. Changing and inserting bases changes the codons. (This is what we're trying to prove. You're begging the question here. Does not follow). Changing the codons changes the amino acid sequence which is coded for. Changing the amino acid sequence changes the protein. Changing the protein changes the fucntion, which CAN EASILY be a beneficial change. All of a sudden we have a new protein being coded for which might give the creature wonderful new abilities.
What part of this don't you understand? This is NOT a loss in information. It is OBJECTIVELY a GAIN. |
|
Stop putting your words into my posts! I don't want people here thinking that I was the one to write that!
Changing bases DOES change codons. This is NOT what I'm trying to prove; it is a FACT. You don't know the first thing about microbiology. You're either a complete fraud and liar and you don't have a Ph.D in microbiology, or you're the worst microbiologist on the planet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | 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? |
You haven't answered these questions. Why not? Is it because you're not a real microbiologist? Were my questions too hard? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Incidentally, what are the genes which cause separation called? (Think arms, hands, starfish, etc.)
This isn't just a test to expose you as a fraud; it's also highly relevant to the discussion at hand. It gives an explicit counterexample to your absurd claim that mutations don't add information. Do you know why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | Incidentally, what are the genes which cause separation called? (Think arms, hands, starfish, etc.)
This isn't just a test to expose you as a fraud; it's also highly relevant to the discussion at hand. It gives an explicit counterexample to your absurd claim that mutations don't add information. Do you know why? |
I'm not sure which piece of this puzzle you are missing P.
When we talk about increases in information as a result of mutations, it become incumbent upon you to demonstrate how a mutation produces increases in functionality... not losses of it... at the same rates.
If all we see is consistent losses of information from mutations, losses of functionality... wouldn't it be equally reasonable to assume that there had to be (in order to go from a singled celled organism to a human being) or has to be, at a minimum, the least same amounts of increases.
Now, what does observational science tell us? We are talking real... observable... repeatable... testable science. Not some hocus pocus dogma spewed from textbooks, National Academies... etc... SCIENCE.
What do our observations demonstrate P? If you want a hint.... it ain't evolution. At least not the requisite changes REQUIRED by the 'additions of information' you are implying here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
When we talk about increases in information as a result of mutations, it become incumbent upon you to demonstrate how a mutation produces increases in functionality... not losses of it... at the same rates.
|
Trinity, I've explained this very clearly. It can't get more clear. There are at least two ways in which it can happen.
If there is a mutation in a coding region of the DNA, then that mutation can increase the number of amino acids being coded for.
If the mutation occurs in a non-coding region, then it can turn the non-coding region into a coding region.
What I'm saying here is not up for debate. It is objective fact. Pick up any microbiology textbook, and you'll see that it agrees with what I'm saying.
Talk to anyone who knows anything about microbiology, and you'll see that they agree with what I'm saying.
This stuff isn't hard; it's trivial introductory biochem stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
When we talk about increases in information as a result of mutations, it become incumbent upon you to demonstrate how a mutation produces increases in functionality... not losses of it... at the same rates. |
Trinity, I've explained this very clearly. It can't get more clear. There are at least two ways in which it can happen.
If there is a mutation in a coding region of the DNA, then that mutation can increase the number of amino acids being coded for. |
This is not what I'm asking for. The only thing you are doing here is repeating a function already present... not creating anything new. It therefore fails the requisite requirement for evolution to be tenable.
| Quote: | | If the mutation occurs in a non-coding region, then it can turn the non-coding region into a coding region. |
Okay.. .coding for what then? All you are doing here is duplication of already existing functions P... nothing more. That is not evolution... not the kind that is required to make it work. That is nothing more than running a my term paper over a copy machine 200 times and then calling it a novel. It no more makes my 2 page paper a novel than it does create new functionality for an organism.
| Quote: | | What I'm saying here is not up for debate. It is objective fact. Pick up any microbiology textbook, and you'll see that it agrees with what I'm saying. |
I'm not arguing your data P... I'm challenging your inferences... that's the point. And that is not object but subjective.
| Quote: | | Talk to anyone who knows anything about microbiology, and you'll see that they agree with what I'm saying. |
Seems Dr. Martin knows a thing or two... and he doesn't agree with you. Perhaps he might have a few more things to say about this... who knows.
| Quote: | | This stuff isn't hard; it's trivial introductory biochem stuff. |
Yea... easy for you to say... you’re not some have baked crusty Army Sergeant.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
This is not what I'm asking for. The only you are doing here is repeating a function already present... not creating anything new. It therefore fails the requisite requirement for evolution to be tenable.
|
Trinity, do you understand how protein synthesis works? Do you know what role codons play in it?
I am saying something very simple here, and it's not even remotely debatable.
Codons are groups of three bases. If a mutation occurs in a coding region, then it affects AT LEAST one codon. With a different codon, you get a different amino acid being produced. Do you agree with me up to here?
With a new amino acid produced, you get a new protein. Do you agree with me up to here?
With a new protein, you get new functionality. Do you agree with me up to here?
| Trinity1 wrote: |
| Quote: | | If the mutation occurs in a non-coding region, then it can turn the non-coding region into a coding region. |
Okay.. .coding for what then? All you are doing here is duplication of already existing functions P... nothing more. |
No, Trinity, you're not listening to me. If you have a non-coding area, and it gets turned into a coding area due to a mutation, then you BY DEFINITION get the production of a COMPLETELY NEW amino acid that was not present before. This is NOT duplication, and it WAS NOT an already existing function. If it was non-coding, then it there was not already a function there! What you get is COMPLETELY NEW functionality.
This is not debatable, and the fact that Dr. Michael disagrees with me shows that he's a fraud. You know more about biochemistry than he does.
Go ahead and ask him what the most obvious promoter regions found upstream from genes are called. Seriously, ask him. I bet you he doesn't know the answer. And if he doesn't then that really proves that he lied about having a Ph.D in microbiology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
This is not what I'm asking for. The only you are doing here is repeating a function already present... not creating anything new. It therefore fails the requisite requirement for evolution to be tenable.
|
Trinity, do you understand how protein synthesis works? Do you know what role codons play in it?
I am saying something very simple here, and it's not even remotely debatable.
Codons are groups of three bases. If a mutation occurs in a coding region, then it affects AT LEAST one codon. With a different codon, you get a different amino acid being produced. Do you agree with me up to here?
With a new amino acid produced, you get a new protein. Do you agree with me up to here?
With a new protein, you get new functionality. Do you agree with me up to here? |
Yes, yes, and no. What function are you speaking of. Answer that and you'll see my position on this.
What good does 'mricae' or 'amricer' or 'cmeria' or any other jumbled mess of letters have when trying to spell America. Same with the amino acids when producing an increase in funcitionality? I'm sure you are familiar with the monkey analogy typing War and Peace... yes? Sure its a possibility, sure he can type by hitting those buttons, sure he may occasionally connect a few letters making a word or two... but the point is... and this is what you are missing... these differences in coding are never going to create 'War and Peace'. The only thing you are ever going to create is a jumbled mess of non-functioning DNA.
You're 'faith' in chance here is remarkable. If you beleive extant species are a result of this process then you have to beleive a monkey can type this novel. That is the point... it just is not going to happen. Regardless. It is statistically impossible.... and yes... FFT... statistically impossible. 
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
| Quote: | | If the mutation occurs in a non-coding region, then it can turn the non-coding region into a coding region. |
Okay.. .coding for what then? All you are doing here is duplication of already existing functions P... nothing more. |
No, Trinity, you're not listening to me. If you have a non-coding area, and it gets turned into a coding area due to a mutation, then you BY DEFINITION get the production of a COMPLETELY NEW amino acid that was not present before. This is NOT duplication, and it WAS NOT an already existing function. If it was non-coding, then it there was not already a function there! What you get is COMPLETELY NEW functionality. |
No... this is not what you get. What you get is a more DNA that can not perform any pertinent functions... that is all you are getting. Name one new sequence that created a new function.... you can't as it never has happened...
| Quote: | | You know more about biochemistry than he does. |
No... I am actually demonstrating the application of this philosophy fails when the requirements/demands of ToE are applied. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
What good does 'mricae' or 'amricer' or 'cmeria' or any other jumbled mess of letters have when trying to spell America. Same with the amino acids when producing an increase in funcitionality? I'm sure you are familiar with the monkey analogy typing War and Peace... yes? Sure its a possibility, sure he can type by hitting those buttons, sure he may occasionally connect a few letters making a word or two... but the point is... and this is what you are missing... these differences in coding are never going to create 'War and Peace'. The only thing you are ever going to create is a jumbled mess of non-functioning DNA.
|
Trinity, you have an oversimplified view of how mutations work which COMPLETLEY mischaracterizes EVERYTHING that is going on. You are mixing analogies which have very little in common. Yes, DNA is a string of bases analogous to 'America' or 'War and Peace' being a string of letters. But the rules of English grammar and spelling are not analogous at all to the rules of protein folding and how proteins interact in your cells. So don't do this, because it's simplistic and wrong.
A single spelling mistake in 'America' completely changes the word. A single amino acid change in a protein MIGHT completely change the protein, but it's FAR more likely that it will change a local area of the protein. So some of the non-mutated protein's original function is conserved, and some of it has changed. This change might be beneficial, or it might be harmful.
As far as 'new functionality' goes, here is the most common way for this to happen (and scientists have observed this REPEATEDLY in experiments on organisms such as fruit flies and bacteria, but also on plants and other animals): You start off with some DNA which contains a certain gene A which codes for some protein which has function p(A). Now a duplication mutation occurs (a duplication mutation is when a large piece of a chromosome duplicates accidentally within a genome; this happens all the time and is documented in any undergrad microbiology textbook) on the section of the chromosome containing A. Now we have two copies of gene A in the genome.
Having two copies of A rarely does harm to the organism, since there are already mechanisms in the cell to regulate p(A). Now the organism might reproduce for many generations and in all of that time all of the offspring inherit the double copy of A in their genomes.
But also during this time, point mutations continue to occur. If A is a vital gene, then if some of these point mutations occurred in A when there was only one copy, then this might have caused death. But now that there are two copies, there is room for mutations to play around with one of them. Since it's already a gene which does something in the organism, it is not nearly a random string of DNA, and therefore modifying it has a high probability of producing a new gene, call it B, which also does something useful.
In nature, this happens over many, many generations, and many mutations cause death, but many also add benefits. So over time these beneficial mutations build up in B and add new functionality by doing whatever p(B) does. Maybe it adds resistance to antibiotics. Maybe it adds resistance to a virus. Maybe it just changes the shape of the organism slightly. Maybe it acts as anti-freeze, so the organism can increase its range into colder climates, etc.
But the point is that we started with a creature with a single copy of A, and through reproduction and mutations which we KNOW happen ended up with a creature with both A and the new gene B with new functionality p(B). This is CLEARLY not like randomly messing around with strings of English or monkeys and typewriters as you described in your analogy about War and Peace. It is a false analogy which just confuses the issues.
Gene B is clearly not a duplicate of A, because it STARTED as a duplicate of A and changed over successive generations. People have observed this in the lab countless times. In fact, by subjecting fruit flies or bacteria to radiation, we can even increase their natural mutation rates and see really crazy things happen. Some of them are even beneficial. For example, bacteria's increasing resistance to antibiotics is VERY beneficial for the bacteria. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So please stop going on about this 'no new information' stuff, because it's just not true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Trinity, you have an oversimplified view of how mutations work which COMPLETLEY mischaracterizes EVERYTHING that is going on. You are mixing analogies which have very little in common. Yes, DNA is a string of bases analogous to 'America' or 'War and Peace' being a string of letters. But the rules of English grammar and spelling are not analogous at all to the rules of protein folding and how proteins interact in your cells. So don't do this, because it's simplistic and wrong. |
It may be simplistic P, but it is hardly wrong. The folding of these proteins is really not as complicated as you are making it out to be. Granted, my undertstanding of the process involved here is indeed rudementry, by the principles are not hard to figure out. The foldings of a protein are no more different, using another analogy, then the different wways you can place a letter. You sit an A straight up and down, upsidedown, sideways – left or right, and it still is the letter “A”. You can only do some man yt things with it though, and by itself, it will never become a B, C, or P. (No pun intended of course)
| Quote: | | A single spelling mistake in 'America' completely changes the word. A single amino acid change in a protein MIGHT completely change the protein, but it's FAR more likely that it will change a local area of the protein. So some of the non-mutated protein's original function is conserved, and some of it has changed. This change might be beneficial, or it might be harmful. |
I have absolutely no problem with that at all. I understand it and believe it is part of observational science. Real science!
| Quote: | As far as 'new functionality' goes, here is the most common way for this to happen (and scientists have observed this REPEATEDLY in experiments on organisms such as fruit flies and bacteria, but also on plants and other animals): You start off with some DNA which contains a certain gene A which codes for some protein which has function p(A). Now a duplication mutation occurs (a duplication mutation is when a large piece of a chromosome duplicates accidentally within a genome; this happens all the time and is documented in any undergrad microbiology textbook) on the section of the chromosome containing A. Now we have two copies of gene A in the genome.
Having two copies of A rarely does harm to the organism, since there are already mechanisms in the cell to regulate p(A). Now the organism might reproduce for many generations and in all of that time all of the offspring inherit the double copy of A in their genomes.
But also during this time, point mutations continue to occur. If A is a vital gene, then if some of these point mutations occurred in A when there was only one copy, then this might have caused death. But now that there are two copies, there is room for mutations to play around with one of them. Since it's already a gene which does something in the organism, it is not nearly a random string of DNA, and therefore modifying it has a high probability of producing a new gene, call it B, which also does something useful.
In nature, this happens over many, many generations, and many mutations cause death, but many also add benefits. So over time these beneficial mutations build up in B and add new functionality by doing whatever p(B) does. |
Stop right there. Everything up until this point was… is reasonable. Now, by stating ‘over time’ you are stepping outside of observational science and into inference and conjecture… not observational science.
| Quote: | | Maybe it adds resistance to antibiotics. Maybe it adds resistance to a virus. |
Resistances are normally the result of a loss of functionality in a gene… not the introduction of a new set of genes all set up and ready to resist the virus. Sorry, you are mistaken about this. I do know that! THis is not the result of an increase of functionality. Perhaps a change in the difference in which the gene performs a function, always to it degradation of its original function BTW. (Sickle Cell Anemia is a prime example that is often cited - when in reality - it is a loss of functionality that provides the resistance)
| Quote: | | Maybe it acts as anti-freeze, so the organism can increase its range into colder climates, etc. |
This is conjecture and inference… not science.
| Quote: | | But the point is that we started with a creature with a single copy of A, and through reproduction and mutations which we KNOW happen ended up with a creature with both A and the new gene B with new functionality p(B). |
I asked for a citation… an example, and you provide me with a story P. Come on now...
| Quote: | | This is CLEARLY not like randomly messing around with strings of English or monkeys and typewriters as you described in your analogy about War and Peace. It is a false analogy which just confuses the issues. |
No it is not. It is playing a statistic game of maybe.. possibly… could happen…. just might result in, all the while avoiding the cruel hard facts that it hasn't been observed that it does happen, or even can happen.
| Quote: | | Gene B is clearly not a duplicate of A, because it STARTED as a duplicate of A and changed over successive generations. People have observed this in the lab countless times. In fact, by subjecting fruit flies or bacteria to radiation, we can even increase their natural mutation rates and see really crazy things happen. Some of them are even beneficial. For example, bacteria's increasing resistance to antibiotics is VERY beneficial for the bacteria. |
You would have to bring up the fruit fly example. If this is the example you want to go with... great.
Here we have 1000s of generations of observational evidence that began with a fruit fly, and we have at the end of the day… a fruit fly. And then, you want to tell me that that somehow demonstrates that a single celled organism, left alone and not subjected to these false inflections of ‘climate changes’ spurring on their evolution, can change into a human being. It is false dogma P based ON THE EVIDENCE. Your philosophy runs contrary to the evidence. Your philosophy spites the evidence. It is not real science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr M wrote: | 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. |
That's not how evolution works. Some dogs have long hair and some dogs have short hair. If long hair were to become a trait that killed dogs before they could reproduce (and also barring human interference such as haircuts, air conditioning, relocation, etc), there would be short haired dogs who would survive and thus extinction wouldn't happen.
As for your concern that genetic information can only be lost and never gained, here's an argument that you should accept if you accept the bible's story of Noah's ark to be true:
Noah and his family were the only 8 people to survive the Great Flood, and all the males were genetically related (Noah and his three sons). This alone cannot account for all the variance we see in humans today.
If that doesn't grab you, then perhaps citations of observed increase in genetic variance will be more to your liking.
Drosophila Silvestris
Maize |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
