[_ Old Earth _] Evolution 101

[Charlie Hatchett]

"Here, read this. When you understand it completely, we can begin to have a useful discourse on entropy."

Not necessary. I'm fully aware of the implications of the Second Law.

We used the concepts involved in The Second Law of Thermodynamics

continuously while operating our nuclear reactors and steam turbine

engines in the Navy.

Not just theoretically, but practically everyday...for 6 months stretches at a

time.

It's amazing when evolutionists get backed into a corner how they tend

to attack your intelligence and person...with no basis.

Well then, you're wrong.

...and so are they.

Charlie, you do realize that some people are just stupid?

...yet have biases, agendas, logic problems, schizophrenia...

Repeating a lie, doesn't make that lie true.

Morris is either lying or mistaken.

...one person with a Phd who does not understand this...

It deals with physical phenomenon involving heat transfer. Moreover, as I stated before, it requires a closed system.

It also deals with organization, and the tendency of all systems toward

disorganization. It's meaningless to talk about closed systems and open

systems, when only open systems exist. That's a very

common tactic of supporters of ToE...to resort to the "closed system"

argument...it's so very predictable.

However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the

exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually

tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an

irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe.

Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible

in the natural world.

A number of scientists believe the 2nd Law, when truly understood, is

enough to refute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is one of the most

important reasons why various Evolutionists have dropped their theory in

favor of Creationism. Me included. I am a former evolutionist, so I've

been through all the rationalizations that are being expressed on this

forum.

I know the rationalizations inside out, because I used to use them.

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a system

requires outside energy and internal information. Evolutionists maintain

that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth,

since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest

that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet.

However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish

this great feat?

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy

make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once

used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and

produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single

seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe,

and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the

Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again

(assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun?

The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and

break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds

the disorganization process.


The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it

this way:

"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].13

teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is "directionlessness," having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.14


"Living organisms, however, differ from inanimate matter by the degree of complexity of their systems and by the possession of a genetic program... The genetic instructions packaged in an embryo direct the formation of an adult, whether it be a tree, a fish, or a human. The process is goal-directed, but from the instructions in the genetic program, not from the outside. Nothing like it exists in the inanimate world."

Ernst Mayr, Ph.D., Evolutionist

The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules.

Dr. Wilder-Smith
Ph.D. Organic Chemistry
University of Reading, England




Quote:
"...in all the reading I've done in the life sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.The problem with the NDT is not natural selectionâ€â€this is a straightforward, easily observable phenomenon, but it cannot of itself create information."



Dr Lee Spetner

Johns Hopkins University

With a Ph.D. in physics from MIT, Spetner taught information and

communication theory for years at Johns Hopkins University.

He accepted a fellowship in biophysics at that institution, where he

worked on solving problems in signal/noise relationships in DNA electron

micrographs. He subsequently became fascinated with evolutionary

theory, and published papers concerning theoretical and mathematical

biology in prestigious journals such as the Journal of Theoretical Biology,

Nature, and the Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress of

Biophysics.He's got a good read out called "Not by Chance"...

"Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd... The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life." (Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley)

Come on guys...give it up. I've been there, and it does nothing positive

for you. Why not move on to the next level...the Truth.



Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free.


John 8:32


Peace

 

[army_of_juan]

Funny thing is if Evolution did violate the 2LoT (which in no way it does) then the 2LoT would have to be revised to accommodate it. Evolution happens, there's no doubt about it (in the scientific community that is) so if the 2LoT conflicts then the 2LoT is wrong. Laws can be wrong sometimes, look at Newton's Law of Gravitation.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Funny thing is if Evolution did violate the 2LoT (which in no way it does) then the 2LoT would have to be revised to accommodate it. Evolution happens, there's no doubt about it (in the scientific community that is) so if the 2LoT conflicts then the 2LoT is wrong. Laws can be wrong sometimes, look at Newton's Law of Gravitation.

Hmmm...interesting take on it. We could attempt to disprove the 2LoT.

I've actually never thought of that, and will certainly research it.

Thinking out of the box there a bit. Nice. Again, I'll research it.

Peace

 

[jwu]

"...in all the reading I've done in the life sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.The problem with the NDT is not natural selectionâ€â€this is a straightforward, easily observable phenomenon, but it cannot of itself create information."

How does Spetner quantify information? I'm looking for an algorithm which comes up with an actual number which describes the information content, so that it can be compared to the information content after mutations occured.

Without a definition for a unit of information his statements are useless.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

How does Spetner quantify information? I'm looking for an algorithm which comes up with an actual number which describes the information content, so that it can be compared to the information content after mutations occured.

Without a definition for a unit of information his statements are useless.

Totally understood.

Here's his description of his quantification:



The information content of the genome is difficult to evaluate with any precision. Fortunately, for my purposes, I need only consider the change in the information in an enzyme caused by a mutation. The information content of an enzyme is the sum of many parts, among which are:

* Level of catalytic activity
* Specificity with respect to the substrate
* Strength of binding to cell structure
* Specificity of binding to cell structure
* Specificity of the amino-acid sequence devoted to specifying the enzyme for degradation

These are all difficult to evaluate, but the easiest to get a handle on is the information in the substrate specificity.

To estimate the information in an enzyme I shall assume that the information content of the enzyme itself is at least the maximum information gained in transforming the substrate distribution into the product distribution. (I think this assumption is reasonable, but to be rigorous it should really be proved.) We can think of the substrate specificity of the enzyme as a kind of filter. The entropy of the ensemble of substances separated after filtration is less than the entropy of the original ensemble of the mixture. We can therefore say that the filtration process results in an information gain equal to the decrease in entropy. Let’s imagine a uniform distribution of substrates presented to many copies of an enzyme. I choose a uniform distribution of substrates because that will permit the enzyme to express its maximum information gain. The substrates considered here are restricted to a set of similar molecules on which the enzyme has the same metabolic effect. This restriction not only simplifies our exercise but it applies to the case I discussed in my book.

The products of a substrate on which the enzyme has a higher activity will be more numerous than those of a substrate on which the enzyme has a lower activity. Because of the filtering, the distribution of concentrations of products will have a lower entropy than that of substrates. Note that we are neglecting whatever entropy change stems from the chemical changes of the substrates into products, and we are focusing on the entropy change reflected in the distributions of the products of the substrates acted upon by the enzyme.

The entropy of an ensemble of n elements with fractional concentrations f1, … , fn is given by:

Equation 1 (1)

and if the base of the logarithm is 2, the units of entropy are bits.

As a first illustration of this formula let us take the extreme case where there are n possible substrates, and the enzyme has a nonzero activity on only one of them. This is perfect filtering. The input entropy for a uniform distribution of n elements is, from (1), given by:

Equation 2 (2)

since the fi’s are each 1/n. The entropy of the output is zero,

Equation 3 (3)

because all the concentrations except one are zero, and the concentration of that one is 1. Then the decrease in entropy brought about by the selectivity of the enzyme is then the difference between (2) and (3), or

Equation

Another example is the other extreme case in which the enzyme does not discriminate at all among the n substrates. In this case the input and output entropies are the same, namely

Equation 4 (4)

Therefore, the information gain, which is the difference between HO and HI, in this case is zero,

Equation 5 (5)

We normalize the activities of the enzyme on the various substrates and these normalized activities will then be the fractional concentrations of the products. This normalization will eliminate from our consideration the effect of the absolute activity level on the information content, leaving us with only the effect of the selectivity.

Although these simplifications prevent us from calculating the total entropy decrease achieved by action of the enzyme, we are able to calculate the entropy change due to enzyme specificity alone.

Dr Lee Spetner

Johns Hopkins University

I'm very interested in knowing the outcome of your calculations!

Peace

 

[Oran_Taran]

In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.

Ok, let's assume that you're right. Then development is utterly impossible. One cell should not become trillions of cells. And what's more, those trillions of cells should not be able to make more trillions and trillions of cells (offspring).
It's that simple. Your interpetation is wrong because otherwise simply organisms growing and having offspring would be impossible.

It's meaningless to talk about closed systems and open systems, when only open systems exist.

Ok, you have a problem with the open system argument? then re-define the second LoT. Because the second LoT specifically says it ONLY applies to closed systems.

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a system requires outside energy and internal information.

The sun, and DNA.
You just disproved your own point. There IS outside energy AND internal information.

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

I don't see the relevance of this. A dead plant is dead for a reason. By the very definition, the plant has changed in such a way that it cannot function as a plant anymore.
The real test is provinding a living plant with USABLE energy. Provide that and it will keep on living and living.

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant.

The same basic structures as a whole (leaves, roots, etc), but it does NOT contain the same structures inside cells, they don't function the same way, etc.

Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order"

See, I don't even know what you're arguing for/against anymore. Are you arguing against the second law? because you're talking about individual organisms. You're making it seem like you believe individual organisms are impossible beause they go against the second law.
And like I said, your argument of the second law does mean individual organisms are impossible as they gain greater complexity.

The rest of your posts are about that- proving individual organisms are impossible.

 

[jwu]

First off, he does not assign units of information to DNA at all in first instance, only to enzymes. Furthermore, it's based on incorrect assumptions, e.g. that enzymes either bind completely or not at all. In reality it's not that clear.

What does he mean by a "substrate"?

The entropy of the ensemble of substances separated after filtration is less than the entropy of the original ensemble of the mixture. We can therefore say that the filtration process results in an information gain equal to the decrease in entropy.

In algorithmic information theory more entropy means more information...if anyone can make up his own information theory, then one of course can construct a version of it in which no information increase can happen. If that version is meaningful to biology is an entirely different question then...e.g. Shannon's information theory does not allow for an increase of information during transmission - but it's implication on biology is that no information increase is required to get from the first replicator to a human, because that replicator's DNA or RNA is defined to have the hightes possible content of information.

By the way, in the not enumerated equation between (3) and (4) he comes up with a decrease of entropy due to selection, which according to his own definition is an increase in information. He defeats his own point there.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Charlie Hatchett
123 Christian Friend


Joined: 22 Dec 2005
Posts: 50


PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:01 am

How does Spetner quantify information? I'm looking for an algorithm which comes up with an actual number which describes the information content, so that it can be compared to the information content after mutations occured.

Without a definition for a unit of information his statements are useless.


Totally understood.

Here's his description of his quantification:



Quote:
The information content of the genome is difficult to evaluate with any precision. Fortunately, for my purposes, I need only consider the change in the information in an enzyme caused by a mutation. The information content of an enzyme is the sum of many parts, among which are:

* Level of catalytic activity
* Specificity with respect to the substrate
* Strength of binding to cell structure
* Specificity of binding to cell structure
* Specificity of the amino-acid sequence devoted to specifying the enzyme for degradation

These are all difficult to evaluate, but the easiest to get a handle on is the information in the substrate specificity.

To estimate the information in an enzyme I shall assume that the information content of the enzyme itself is at least the maximum information gained in transforming the substrate distribution into the product distribution. (I think this assumption is reasonable, but to be rigorous it should really be proved.) We can think of the substrate specificity of the enzyme as a kind of filter. The entropy of the ensemble of substances separated after filtration is less than the entropy of the original ensemble of the mixture. We can therefore say that the filtration process results in an information gain equal to the decrease in entropy. Let’s imagine a uniform distribution of substrates presented to many copies of an enzyme. I choose a uniform distribution of substrates because that will permit the enzyme to express its maximum information gain. The substrates considered here are restricted to a set of similar molecules on which the enzyme has the same metabolic effect. This restriction not only simplifies our exercise but it applies to the case I discussed in my book.

The products of a substrate on which the enzyme has a higher activity will be more numerous than those of a substrate on which the enzyme has a lower activity. Because of the filtering, the distribution of concentrations of products will have a lower entropy than that of substrates. Note that we are neglecting whatever entropy change stems from the chemical changes of the substrates into products, and we are focusing on the entropy change reflected in the distributions of the products of the substrates acted upon by the enzyme.

The entropy of an ensemble of n elements with fractional concentrations f1, … , fn is given by:




Equation 1 (1)

and if the base of the logarithm is 2, the units of entropy are bits.

As a first illustration of this formula let us take the extreme case where there are n possible substrates, and the enzyme has a nonzero activity on only one of them. This is perfect filtering. The input entropy for a uniform distribution of n elements is, from (1), given by:




Equation 2 (2)

since the fi’s are each 1/n. The entropy of the output is zero,




Equation 3 (3)

because all the concentrations except one are zero, and the concentration of that one is 1. Then the decrease in entropy brought about by the selectivity of the enzyme is then the difference between (2) and (3), or

Equation



Another example is the other extreme case in which the enzyme does not discriminate at all among the n substrates. In this case the input and output entropies are the same, namely




Equation 4 (4)

Therefore, the information gain, which is the difference between HO and HI, in this case is zero,



Equation 5 (5)

We normalize the activities of the enzyme on the various substrates and these normalized activities will then be the fractional concentrations of the products. This normalization will eliminate from our consideration the effect of the absolute activity level on the information content, leaving us with only the effect of the selectivity.

Although these simplifications prevent us from calculating the total entropy decrease achieved by action of the enzyme, we are able to calculate the entropy change due to enzyme specificity alone.


Dr Lee Spetner

Johns Hopkins University

I'm very interested in knowing the outcome of your calculations!

Peace

jwu
123 Christian Friend


Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 65


PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:02 am

First off, he does not assign units of information to DNA at all in first instance, only to enzymes. Furthermore, it's based on incorrect assumptions, e.g. that enzymes either bind completely or not at all. In reality it's not that clear.

What does he mean by a "substrate"?

Quote:
The entropy of the ensemble of substances separated after filtration is less than the entropy of the original ensemble of the mixture. We can therefore say that the filtration process results in an information gain equal to the decrease in entropy.
In algorithmic information theory more entropy means more information...if anyone can make up his own information theory, then one of course can construct a version of it in which no information increase can happen. If that version is meaningful to biology is an entirely different question then...e.g. Shannon's information theory does not allow for an increase of information during transmission - but it's implication on biology is that no information increase is required to get from the first replicator to a human, because that replicator's DNA or RNA is defined to have the hightes possible content of information.

By the way, in the not enumerated equation between (3) and (4) he comes up with a decrease of entropy due to selection, which according to his own definition is an increase in information. He defeats his own point there.

I'll respond soon.

sorry...little busy right now.

Peace

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Hi Guys.

I' gonna have to delay my postings for just a few days.

I've got a very cool project going on concerning a potential PreClovis metal

smelting furnace, and a bunch of potential metal artifacts made via the

furnace.

The lab has received samples of the metallic material and here's what the

Dr. has to say to date:

-------Original Message-------

From:
Date: 01/17/06 12:43:43
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject: Re: Fw: Possible Prehistoric Furnace and Metal Working


Charlie:

It just arrived via DHL.

I had a quick look and checked the specimens with a strong magnet. There is no metallic iron in any of them. However, both types of specimens are surprisingly dense, considering the sedimentary rock terrane in which they occur.

That brings up a point - could you tell me in which county the site is located? As in big Texas, I know that the counties are relatively small in most cases.

As for the specimens, I am completely mystified at the moment.

I will proceed immediately to get small polished thin sections made of bits of them for microscopic and SEM examination.

In any event, the specimens look very interesting whether they are of natural or human origin. I will get right on the case. I do have a break in mid-February and a lot of points withe Air Canada. How far are you from Dallas? This is the only place Air Canada flies to in Texas aside from Houston. There is some interaction with United, but I don't know if my points will apply with them.


I see that your site is just off xxx. That is a straight run from xxxx, which is about xxx miles xxx of here. ... Actually, annealed cast iron is relatively soft in comparison with most earth materials. My lab technician is already working on the samples.

I got to be all over this. I've been waiting for the appropriate expert in this

field to analyze the material for 6 months....and I got the best!!!


I'll keep ya'll posted, and, jwu, I promise to answer you points just as soon

as this settles down...he's got me pumping all kinds of data to him.



Thanks and peace!!

Oh, P.S.- If any of ya'll would like to review these finds, I've got a nice

photo galley located at : http://www.preclovis.com

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

First off, he does not assign units of information to DNA at all in first instance, only to enzymes. Furthermore, it's based on incorrect assumptions, e.g. that enzymes either bind completely or not at all. In reality it's not that clear.

What does he mean by a "substrate"?

I don't think saying he used incorrect assumptions is fair.

And I think he was clear that he was using an extreme example for

illustrative purposes.

As a first illustration of this formula let us take the extreme case where there are n possible substrates, and the enzyme has a nonzero activity on only one of them. This is perfect filtering. The input entropy for a uniform distribution of n elements is, from (1), given by:


"the equations are above...their .gifs"




Equation 2 (2)

since the fi’s are each 1/n. The entropy of the output is zero,

"the equations are above...their .gifs"


Equation 3 (3)

"the equations are above...their .gifs"

because all the concentrations except one are zero, and the concentration of that one is 1. Then the decrease in entropy brought about by the selectivity of the enzyme is then the difference between (2) and (3), or

"the equations are above...their .gifs"

Equation

"the equations are above...their .gifs"

What would your assumptions be to test the hypothesis?

How would you design the test?


This is very cutting edge stuff, and sometimes you use the best educated

guess or estimate you have knowledge of at the time. Of course you correct

as necessary as time progresses. The substrate is the original enzyme

molecular "package" which is used as the base for measuring entropy

changes after enzyme filtration of the array of test molecules.

In algorithmic information theory more entropy means more information...if anyone can make up his own information theory, then one of course can construct a version of it in which no information increase can happen.

Your statement: "In algorithmic information theory more

entropy means more information" is incorrect.

The correct statement is "In algorithmic information theory more

entropy means more noise (or entropy)".

Def: Interestingly, the mathematical expression for information content closely resembles the expression for entropy in thermodynamics. The greater the information in a message, the lower its randomness, or “noisiness,†and hence the smaller its entropy.

http://www.answers.com

Maxwell's Demon is an imaginary creature that the mathematician

James Clerk Maxwell created to contradict the second law of

thermodynamics.

This imaginary situation seemed to contradict the second law of

thermodynamics. To explain the paradox scientists point out that to realize

such a possibility the demon would still need to use energy to observe the

molecules (in the form of photons for example). And the demon itself (plus

the trap door mechanism) would gain entropy from the gas as it moved the

trap door. Thus the total entropy of the system still increases.

The demon is trying to create more useful energy from the system than

there was originally. Equivalently he was decreasing the randomness of

the system (by ordering the molecules according to a certain rule) which is

decreasing the entropy. No such violation of the second law of

thermodynamics has ever been found.


http://www.auburn.edu/~smith01/notes/maxdem.htm







Peace

 

[jwu]

I don't think saying he used incorrect assumptions is fair.

And I think he was clear that he was using an extreme example for

illustrative purposes.

Why? This is massively important for its relevance to reality. Furthermore, even with his own examples he nicely defeats his own point by coming up with a clear cut case in which even according to his own assumptions there is an increase of information due to mutation and selection. What is your take on that?

What would your assumptions be to test the hypothesis?

How would you design the test?

What is the hypothesis?

Your statement: "In algorithmic information theory more

entropy means more information" is incorrect.

The correct statement is "In algorithmic information theory more

entropy means more noise (or entropy)".

Unless i am grossly mistaken noise is a concept from Shannon's information theory, not Kolmogorov/Chaitin's information theory, which is the "algorithmic" one. In their information theory a random string has the highest content of information as it cannot be expressed with less characters - and random strings have maximum entropy according to any definition of entropy known to me.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Unless i am grossly mistaken noise is a concept from Shannon's information theory, not Kolmogorov/Chaitin's information theory, which is the "algorithmic" one. In their information theory a random string has the highest content of information as it cannot be expressed with less characters - and random strings have maximum entropy according to any definition of entropy known to me.

I'm not quoting anyone's theory per se, just what I believe to be the truth.

Then I try to support it.

Random signals, e.g. WEKJHDF BK LKGJUES KIYFV NBUY, are not ordered,

but complex. But a random signal contains no useful information (cool tie

into the similarities between physical and informational entropy). A

non-random aperiodic (non-repeating) signalâ€â€specified complexityâ€â€e.g. ‘I

love you’, may carry useful information. However, it would be useless unless

the receiver of the information understood the English language convention.

The thoughts have no relationship to that letter sequence apart from the

agreed language convention. The language convention is imposed onto the

letter sequence.

Proteins and DNA are also non-random aperiodic sequences. The sequences

are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and

nucleotides themselves. This is a huge contrast to crystal structures, which

are caused by the properties of their constituents. The sequences of DNA

and proteins must be imposed from outside by some intelligent process.

Proteins are coded in DNA, and the DNA code comes from pre-existing

codes, not by random processes.

Many scientific experiments show that when their building blocks are simply

mixed and chemically combined, a random sequence results. To make a

protein, scientists need to add one unit at a time, and each unit requires a

number of chemical steps to ensure that the wrong type of reaction doesn’t

occur. The same goes for preparing a DNA strand in a correct sequence.

Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [L. Orgel

Peace

 

[jwu]

I note that you didn't address my request for your take on Spetner's own increase of information.

You shifted from information to "useful information".

What determines if a string of letter is useful? It's not only its abidance to the sytnax and semantics of a language that the reader understands, but also its reference to reality around the reader. There are sentences which are grammatically correct but which make no sense whatsoever.

In terms of DNA, the base pairs have to abide some syntax - they are ordered in triplets for example. That syntax isn't very complicated though, and mutations usually don't screw it up. If they do, then that's a deleterious mutation in most cases of course, unless that particular gene was redundant meanwhile.

What is it then that determines if a string of DNA "makes sense" in the way as a sentence in a language makes sense? It's the environment. The string will be transcripted to some e.g. protein. Then its effect on the reproductive success ill determine if it makes sense or not.

To make a

protein, scientists need to add one unit at a time, and each unit requires a

number of chemical steps to ensure that the wrong type of reaction doesn’t

occur. The same goes for preparing a DNA strand in a correct sequence.

Be careful there! DNA is not a protein. It is transcribed into proteins, and that indeed happens one step (triplet) at a time. From that one cannot conclude the same about the formation of DNA though, that's a clear non-sequitur.

 

[Heidi]

Ok, since most people don't know much about evolution, I'll explain the VERY basics of evolution. (again, this is VERY simplified, don't nag me about not mentioning sexual selection and stuff, because this is just to get things started)

First off, evolution can be defined by: the change of the frequency of genes in a population over time. (populations of organisms change over time)
It does this mainly through natural selection. Natural selection is a very simple concept to grasp:
1) Organisms have MANY more offspring than the environment can support.
2) Since there are limited resources (food, water, shelter, space), and other forces working against them (predation, etc), not all of them survive.
3) That means that there is a struggle for existance
4) No two offspring are alike, so some are more fit to survive than others.
5) Those fit enough survive and reproduce, thus passing their genes on.
6) After many generations, better genes replace less good genes.
That's it. That's evolution. Did you notice I never said anything about the origin of life? or the origin of the universe? or galaxies? the exact year humans migrated to north america? stars, moons, antimatter, etc? That's because the scientific theory of evolution does not deal with any of those. Evolution only says that populations of living organisms change over time.
Natural selection is NOT a creative process, it is an editing process. It does not create what is needed, it just replaces the good/bad by the better.
So how does new information arise? mutations. There are many types of mutations, most of which do not do anything, many which are bad, and a few which are good. There are mutations that just change existing information, others that add new information, and others that change existing DNA but which codes for nothing.
Beneficial mutations HAVE been observed many times, in organisms ranging from bacteria to humans.
Now, evolution explains a mountain of observations, of which I will make a small hill since I'm not here to teach a biology course.
Biogeography- Darwin noticed that species who live close to each other are generally more closely alike than species who live far apart. This applies even if the climate is very different.
For example, the sonoran desert and australian. The organisms in the sonoran desert are more alike to the organisms in north america, regardless of climate (say, they're like the organisms in decidious forests) than to those in australian deserts, even though both are deserts. This is because the organisms in the sonoran desert evolved from those in north america, not from those in australia.
for example, the mammals in the sonoran desert are all placental mammals. There may be rabbits, rats, and whatever else. This is in contrast to australia, where the mammals are marsupials. They may have kangaroos, and other small marsupial animals. (note that rats were introduced to australia. They're not native there)
PAST biogeography is the same way (fossils)
Evolution also explains homologies. Organisms that have common ancestors share similar DNA, proteins, and anatomy. For example, If you compare the hemoglobin (a protein) from chickens, fish, a lizard, a monkey, and a human, you will find that human hemoglobin is the closest like the monkey, then the (crap, I forgot the exact order... :P) then the... lizard? then the chicken, and then the fish. (again, I might have mixed up the lizard and the chicken) Same with DNA.
and as for anatomy, you'll find that since bats, whales, humans, and cats are all mammals, they have very similar bone structures in their limbs.
here, take a look at this picture- http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/160/homologous.jpg
Evolution also explains analogous structures. These are structures that superficially look similar and serve a similar purpose, but because they evolved separately they don't have the same structure. For example, bat wings and bee wings serve the same purpose (to fly), but they are VERY different structurally. A better example may be the fins of sharks and of dolphins. They serve the same purpose, and look very much alike, but structurally they are very different. The dolphin has a "hand-like" arrangement of bones, and the shark has many rays of cartillage instead.
This is because they evolved in the same environment, and therefore the pressures were the same, so they evolved similarly. But because they came from different ancestors, their structures are very different. You'll find the same with genes/proteins, the dolphin's will be more like other mammals than to the shark. And the shark will be more like other fish than to the dolphin.
Vestiges are also explained by evolution. Vestiges are things that at one point in time (in the ancestors), served a greater role than they do now. They may or may not serve a function now.
an example of an useful vestigial structure are ostrich wings. Ostriches evolved from flying birds, so they retain the same structures (wings), but they don't serve for flying anymore. Nowdays they do use them for their mating rituals, but they're still vestigial.
An example of a useless vestigial structure is the muscle that allows you to wiggle your ears. In our ancestors, they were used to orient the ears towards a sound (like in rabbits). Nowdays, most people don't even know how to wiggle their ears. Those muscles are useless.

Fossils: Fossils allow us to see the chronological order and geographical distribution of past life forms. We can see that as you go back further in time, the organisms look less and less like today's organisms. We also see many transitional fossils, which are fossils that are links between an organism's ancestor and today's organism.

Evolution also explains a wide range of many other observations, which I won't mention right now. The mechanisms of evolution have been observed, such as natural selection with guppies, HIV, the peppered moth, and many others; and evolution itself has been observed. Speciation (a population of one species becoming another species) has been observed quite a few times, with a quite a few organisms ranging from goatsbeard, mice, mosquitoes, to fruit flies and primroses.

and... I'll think I'll quit now. Like I said, there is much more to evolution than this, such as sexual selection, geographical isolation, reproductive isolation, ring species, and dozens more, but this was just to get things rolling. lol.
If you read all this, thanks! (remember I had to type it all... from scratch... no copying and pasting... ... yes, I'm just bragging now lol)

Sorry but all animals and humans have defective babies everyday who mate and breed within their species and thus pass their genes along to their offspring. And animals and humans have been producing defective offspring since the beginning of recorded history and still are today. We have the same variety of strong and weak members of animals and humans today as we ever did. So this whole theory about the survival of the fittest is poppycock. Everyone dies regardles of how fit or unfit they are.

 

[jwu]

Many bacteria are biologically immortal though, they do not die of old age, only of "unnatural" causes such as lack of food or something else that kills them.

However, ultimately everyone will die, that is true - but that doesn't matter unless you deny differential reproductive success.
You also mention defects...true again, these exist. But do you deny the existence of beneficial mutations?

 

[Heidi]

Many bacteria are biologically immortal though, they do not die of old age, only of "unnatural" causes such as lack of food or something else that kills them.

However, ultimately everyone will die, that is true - but that doesn't matter unless you deny differential reproductive success.
You also mention defects...true again, these exist. But do you deny the existence of beneficial mutations?

Yes I do. If there was such a thing as beneficial mutations then scientists would simply leave cancer cells alone to mutate into healthy ones! But they don't because they know that a cell always responds to its nucleus. Thus, bacterial cells will become more virulent. Only when an outside stimuli affects a nucleus will it change the nucles into something else.

"Mutation" is simply a magical explanation for the changes in cells that humans don't understand. But there is always a reason that a cell changes regardless of whether or not humans understand what that reason is. And since scientists can't explain how an ape turned into a human, they simply use the word "mutation" to explain the magic. And since the general public doesn't understand mutation either, they simply take the word of people who claim they do.

 

[jwu]

If there was such a thing as beneficial mutations then scientists would simply leave cancer cells alone to mutate into healthy ones! But they don't because they know that a cell always responds to its nucleus. Thus, bacterial cells will become more virulent. Only when an outside stimuli affects a nucleus will it change the nucles into something else.

That implies that we could control beneficial mutations. Cancer is a case of a deleterious one. Furthermore it is not one of the mutations that evolution is about - mutations which occur during conception or in gametes, which affect the genes of all of one's children's cells. Cancer does no such thing. Furthermore, it takes a very specific mutation to turn it into a healthy one then, while there are tons of possibilities of beneficial mutations in the cases which are relevant to evolution. Of course one cannot expect billions of cells of such a tumor to get that special mutation! But evolution does not depend on such a thing, as only a single cell needs to mutate, not billions at once, and there are many possibilities of a beneficial mutation and not just a handful ones as in your cancer example.

But that has been explained to you many times, and as always you'll refuse to listen. I already see it coming...

Beneficial mutations however have been directly observed many times. Immunity to certain toxics and diseases and so on are caused by beneficial mutations.

 

[Heidi]

If there was such a thing as beneficial mutations then scientists would simply leave cancer cells alone to mutate into healthy ones! But they don't because they know that a cell always responds to its nucleus. Thus, bacterial cells will become more virulent. Only when an outside stimuli affects a nucleus will it change the nucles into something else.

That implies that we could control beneficial mutations. Cancer is a case of a deleterious one. Furthermore it is not one of the mutations that evolution is about - mutations which occur during conception or in gametes, which affect the genes of all of one's children's cells. Cancer does no such thing. Furthermore, it takes a very specific mutation to turn it into a healthy one then, while there are tons of possibilities of beneficial mutations in the cases which are relevant to evolution. Of course one cannot expect billions of cells of such a tumor to get that special mutation! But evolution does not depend on such a thing, as only a single cell needs to mutate, not billions at once, and there are many possibilities of a beneficial mutation and not just a handful ones as in your cancer example.

But that has been explained to you many times, and as always you'll refuse to listen. I already see it coming...

Beneficial mutations however have been directly observed many times. Immunity to certain toxics and diseases and so on are caused by beneficial mutations.

So why has no human ever produced offspring with wings? :o Why do all humans with few exceptions, instead produce offspring who resemble their parents? Yet evolutionists claim that some apes produced offspring who talk, form sentences, read, write, form conceptual analyses, build bridges and skyscrapers, etc.!

And evolutionists are asking us to believe that millions of accidental mutations happened in one species, namely, the ape, to produce a human being. Sorry, but the odds are so astronomical as to be considered unbelievable. It is isimply a desperate attempt to deny the miracle of the human being, and instead attribute our existence to an accident from the womb of an animal. So why do people do this? :o Do they not think of themselves as any better than an animal? :-? Do they not see the differences between themselves and animals?

In addition, evolutionists still cannot explain how the first animal was created. So since it was, then why couldn't humans have been created the same way? Why would an animal simply have appeared first on this earth and not humans? :o

 

[jwu]

So why has no human ever produced offspring with wings?

That'd actually pretty much disprove evolution, and you once more show that you don't understand anything about it. Evolution doesn't work in such big leaps at once, and once again, this has been explained to you many times.

Why do all humans with few exceptions, instead produce offspring who resemble their parents? Yet evolutionists claim that some apes produced offspring who talk, form sentences, read, write, form conceptual analyses, build bridges and skyscrapers, etc.!

No-one claims that offspring won't be very similar to its parents. Just not completely identical, and over many generations these differences can accumulate.

And evolutionists are asking us to believe that millions of accidental mutations happened in one species, namely, the ape, to produce a human being. Sorry, but the odds are so astronomical as to be considered unbelievable.

No, the odds are 1. Some mutations had to happen, just because it is extremely unlikely for no mutations to happen. The result of these mutations is us humans. Had other mutations happened, then we'd just look a bit different today.
Your objection makes as much sense as throwing a billion dice, watching the result, and then screaming that it couldn't possibly have happened because this particular result was extremely unlikely. But some result had to come up.

In addition, evolutionists still cannot explain how the first animal was created. So since it was, then why couldn't humans have been created the same way? Why would an animal simply have appeared first on this earth and not humans?

The first animal? Define "animal".

Furthermore, abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation, and the evidence simply indicates that humans did not pop up ex nihilo but developed from different ancestors.

 

[Heidi]

So why has no human ever produced offspring with wings?

That'd actually pretty much disprove evolution, and you once more show that you don't understand anything about it. Evolution doesn't work in such big leaps at once, and once again, this has been explained to you many times.

[quote:f65b1] Why do all humans with few exceptions, instead produce offspring who resemble their parents? Yet evolutionists claim that some apes produced offspring who talk, form sentences, read, write, form conceptual analyses, build bridges and skyscrapers, etc.!

No-one claims that offspring won't be very similar to its parents. Just not completely identical, and over many generations these differences can accumulate.

And evolutionists are asking us to believe that millions of accidental mutations happened in one species, namely, the ape, to produce a human being. Sorry, but the odds are so astronomical as to be considered unbelievable.

No, the odds are 1. Some mutations had to happen, just because it is extremely unlikely for no mutations to happen. The result of these mutations is us humans. Had other mutations happened, then we'd just look a bit different today.
Your objection makes as much sense as throwing a billion dice, watching the result, and then screaming that it couldn't possibly have happened because this particular result was extremely unlikely. But some result had to come up.

In addition, evolutionists still cannot explain how the first animal was created. So since it was, then why couldn't humans have been created the same way? Why would an animal simply have appeared first on this earth and not humans?

The first animal? Define "animal".

Furthermore, abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation, and the evidence simply indicates that humans did not pop up ex nihilo but developed from different ancestors.[/quote:f65b1]

No. I'm talking about the "millions" of years you say humans have been on this earth! In those millions of years, why has no human ever produced offspring with wings? :o You said it took millions of years for apes to turn into humans, so again, why have humans not produced offspring with wings in those millions of years? :o

Sorry, but humans haven't bred offspring unidentical enough to call them a different species like the offspring of apes which are called "homo sapiens"!

But other mutations didn't happen as you can see. You'll only find the truth in reality, not in the imagination, my friend.

Once again, all descendants are capable of breeding with their ancestors because mating and breeding are what produce descendants, not one species simply turing into another one on its own. That only happens in sci-fi movies and books.