[_ Old Earth _] Evolution stopped after billions of years.

[zeke]

You're wrong. Homology is inexplicable in terms of creationism. But it makes perfect sense in light of the way God actually did it.

Actually, it is you who is in error as I have pointed out many times. You are a slow learner. Homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. God could have used existing species in situ as the blueprint for more advanced species.

The existence of homologous structures merely raises questions of relationship, but it cannot answer them. This is why Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Both Darwinists and design proponents can explain the existence of homologies within their respective frameworks of interpretation. Because of this, neither side can disprove the other’s interpretation of homology, and neither view stands solely on its own interpretation of homology. ~ Davis and Kenyon​

 

[spartakis]

Depends on what you think "life" is. What, in your opinion, is the absolute lower limit of things a living thing needs to have in the way of structures?

I am going by what you believe waiting for your explanation. You claim we should not see any new novel features produced, but you claim that is how everything evolved.

You're wrong. Homology is inexplicable in terms of creationism. But it makes perfect sense in light of the way God actually did it.

No I am sorry your wrong. Makes perfect sense, the same God created everything so you have similar creation. Look around and enjoy it:yes

Yep. Now show us, using the information equation why a new allele in a population increases the information in it.

Let's use something real from nature. But it doesn't matter what the allele is. Just calculate how the information will change if there's a new allele.

By definition, it is. And we know Shannon's equation works, because it lets us pack a maximum amount of information in a channel, with as little error as we care to have.

You've been misled about what "information" means. Perhaps you want to argue that there are no useful mutations, which is quite a different issue. Would you like to learn about that?

Your right lets use something from nature. I ll make it easy. Show me one example of a mutation adding new information to a genome.
I show you what your buddy dawkins answer was.

[video=youtube;9W4e4MwogLo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo[/video]

Actually, it is. Often gene duplication will result in a change in the organism. But most often, it happens by gene duplication, followed by mutation of one of the copies. And as you know, that is something new.

Gene duplication does not produce new information to a genome. See the video. Gene duplication only duplicates information already there.

Every time we've checked so far, it's been mutation and natural selection.

Yes that is the theory, but no empirical evidence. Considering natural selection and mutations can not add new information to genome. It's all a hypothesis with big gaps.

 

[Barbarian]

Actually, it is you who is in error as I have pointed out many times. You are a slow learner.

Well, you know how slow barbarians are...

Homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. God could have used existing species in situ as the blueprint for more advanced species.

Nope. There's no reason at all why God would take a quadruped, and modify it's body to become a biped, producing all sorts of suboptimal solutions on the way to becoming well-fitted. And yet, that's what we see in homology.

You've confused homology (same structures modified to different uses) with analogy, (same general function, but different structures).

The existence of homologous structures merely raises questions of relationship, but it cannot answer them. This is why Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

You were asked once before to provide a checkable source for that claim, and refused to do it. Honesty would compel you to not make that claim until you can support it.

Both Darwinists and design proponents can explain the existence of homologies within their respective frameworks of interpretation.

Even honest creationists admit that's not the case.

But this time, how about showing us that statement from Gould?

Until then (no one should hold his breath) let's see what Gould actually said about homologies:

Let me then go to the first point--backreading as the only way we have looked at or tried to understand animals. First let me point out that there is limited legitimacy to this tactic on occasion, because genuine homology exists between humans and other creatures. That is, we are animals, and we are evolved from other animals, and we do have varying degree.; of kinship with animals. And, as you know, evolutionary biologists make a key distinction when judging similarities that exist among different organisms, into homology and analogy. Analogies are similarities held because evolution has produced, independently, pretty much the same form over and over again: the wing of a bat; the wing of a bird; the wing of an insect; the wing of a pterosaur. These are analogous features, because the common ancestor for any pair of these creatures had no wings--and the wings evolved separately in each lineage. Homologies are traits shared by common descent. The bones in the arm of the whale, the horse, the bat, and me are effectively the same topologically, but the whale swims, the bat flies, the horse runs and I gesticulate. Clearly, this is not a result of separate evolution for common function, but is a tie to history. We all have the same bones because we have common ancestors in mammals, which have this configuration.

For evolutionary biologists, homology has primacy. Homological similarity--similarity by history and descent--is overwhelmingly powerful. An analogous similarity--a convergence, as we call it--can never be anything other than superficial. You cannot get independent evolution of hundreds of similar features--it is just a mathematical probability argument. If you have complex similarity, it is homologous; and homology is, therefore, deep, and fundamental, and important.
Stephen Gould, keynote address given at the conference "In the Company of Animals" in New York City on April 6, 1995.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_n3_v62/ai_17909882/?tag=content;col1

Not exactly what they told you, um?

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian asked to say what the first living thing was like)

Depends on what you think "life" is. What, in your opinion, is the absolute lower limit of things a living thing needs to have in the way of structures?

(declines to answer)

Pity. So let's assume we can use the present definition of life as a cell. So that would mean two things. A membrane of lipid bilayers (which spontaneously form cells in nature) and some kind of pepides within (also known to form spontaneously).

If you'd like to move it up a step, to include nucleic acids, then it would include RNA (some forms of which self-catalyze).

I am going by what you believe waiting for your explanation. You claim we should not see any new novel features produced, but you claim that is how everything evolved.

Nope. So far, everything we see is a modification of something else.

Barbarian observes:
You're wrong. Homology is inexplicable in terms of creationism. But it makes perfect sense in light of the way God actually did it.

No I am sorry your wrong.

Denial won't help you. It's clear that no designer would make humans out of modified quadruped parts. But if we evolved from quadrupeds, then the reason is perfectly obvious.

Barbarian suggests:
Yep. Now show us, using the information equation why a new allele in a population increases the information in it.

(Declines to do it)

No surprise there. You don't even know what "information" means, do you?

Let's use something real from nature. But it doesn't matter what the allele is. Just calculate how the information will change if there's a new allele.

By definition, it is. And we know Shannon's equation works, because it lets us pack a maximum amount of information in a channel, with as little error as we care to have.

You've been misled about what "information" means. Perhaps you want to argue that there are no useful mutations, which is quite a different issue. Would you like to learn about that?

Your right lets use something from nature. I ll make it easy. Show me one example of a mutation adding new information to a genome.

Let's say an animal has two alleles for a particular enzyme, both with the same activity and the same (0.5) frequency. (one nucleotide substitution normally doesn't change the activity of a large enzyme at all). The information for that is about 0.30. Now let's suppose that a new allele appears by mutation. Let's suppose that it's neutral or slightly favorable, so that eventually there are three alleles, each with about 0.33 frequency.

Now, the information in the population is about 0.48. An increase. Surprise.

I show you what your buddy dawkins answer was.

Your buddy, not mine. He, like you, has an agenda to make science and God incompatible. But instead of endorsements, you can calculate the information yourself.

But I'm guessing that "information" isn't what you really want to talk about, is it?

Barbarian observes:
Actually, it is. Often gene duplication will result in a change in the organism. But most often, it happens by gene duplication, followed by mutation of one of the copies. And as you know, that is something new.

Gene duplication does not produce new information to a genome.

See the video.

Show me how the video proves that duplication plus mutation of one copy can't happen. I can show you some examples in which it did, if you like. Or if the video is just more unsupported denial, you can ignore my request.

Gene duplication only duplicates information already there.

If so, then "information" isn't necessary for evolution, because some kinds of gene duplication change phenotypes.

Barbarian on evolution:
Every time we've checked so far, it's been mutation and natural selection.

Yes that is the theory, but no empirical evidence.

Barry Hall, in his E. coli experiments directly observed it to produce a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Would you like me to show you that, again?

Considering natural selection and mutations can not add new information to genome.

See above. By definition, it does. Perhaps you mean something other than "information?"

It's all a hypothesis with big gaps.

Comes down to evidence. And as you see, that's what the evidence shows.

 

[Asyncritus]

How can anyone possibly think such nonsense as this:

because evolution has produced, independently, pretty much the same form over and over again: the wing of a bat; the wing of a bird; the wing of an insect; the wing of a pterosaur.

Each of these structures is fundamentally different: first anatomically, secondly, in functional terms, third in physiological terms, fourth in instinctive requirement terms for starters.

But never mind such trifles. The fact is, evolution did occur, and since it did, then all these structures MUST have evolved!

Isn't that marvellous? Yea,verily! :bigfrown

 

[Asyncritus]

Barry Hall, in his E. coli experiments directly observed it to produce a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Would you like me to show you that, again?

Yes, I would. And while you're at it, can you find out what Michael Behe's comments were on the matter?

Thanks.

 

[Barbarian]

How can anyone possibly think such nonsense as this:

Evidence. Science is about facts, not beliefs.

because evolution has produced, independently, pretty much the same form over and over again: the wing of a bat; the wing of a bird; the wing of an insect; the wing of a pterosaur.

This is analogy. What you refer to as "similarities." They are functionally alike, but anatomically and genetically, they are quite different and evolved from different things.

Each of these structures is fundamentally different: first anatomically, secondly, in functional terms, third in physiological terms, fourth in instinctive requirement terms for starters.

Which is why we know they aren't homologous. Same function, different structures.

But never mind such trifles.

It's not a trifle. It's what keeps embarrassing you here.

The fact is, evolution did occur, and since it did, then all these structures MUST have evolved!

Comes down to evidence. And as you learned, it's abundant.

 

[spartakis]

(Barbarian asked to say what the first living thing was like)

Depends on what you think "life" is. What, in your opinion, is the absolute lower limit of things a living thing needs to have in the way of structures?

(declines to answer)

Pity. So let's assume we can use the present definition of life as a cell. So that would mean two things. A membrane of lipid bilayers (which spontaneously form cells in nature) and some kind of pepides within (also known to form spontaneously).

If you'd like to move it up a step, to include nucleic acids, then it would include RNA (some forms of which self-catalyze).

No I did answer. Asked for you to use what you believe the 1st life form was. Since your beliefs are what we are going by. Remember we have different beliefs. I believe God created everything in six days. The universe all animals of their kind and Man.

Nope. So far, everything we see is a modification of something else.

You believe microbes to man, so that first life you describe had to develop these features. I guess this is the part you keep dodging the question and try to get it off topic. Your answers contradict themselves. Everything is a modification of what is already there, but everything evolved from the first life form which did not have these features.

Denial won't help you. It's clear that no designer would make humans out of modified quadruped parts. But if we evolved from quadrupeds, then the reason is perfectly obvious.

Your correct, but he didn't use modified quadruped parts. He made everything with their own parts. Some parts may be similar is design.

Barbarian suggests:
Yep. Now show us, using the information equation why a new allele in a population increases the information in it.

(Declines to do it)

No surprise there. You don't even know what "information" means, do you?

See now you go and try and insult my intelligence. And why would I answer a question I asked you with a math equation. The answer is pretty simply, did you not watch the video.

Let's use something real from nature. But it doesn't matter what the allele is. Just calculate how the information will change if there's a new allele.

By definition, it is. And we know Shannon's equation works, because it lets us pack a maximum amount of information in a channel, with as little error as we care to have.

You've been misled about what "information" means. Perhaps you want to argue that there are no useful mutations, which is quite a different issue. Would you like to learn about that?

Let's say an animal has two alleles for a particular enzyme, both with the same activity and the same (0.5) frequency. (one nucleotide substitution normally doesn't change the activity of a large enzyme at all). The information for that is about 0.30. Now let's suppose that a new allele appears by mutation. Let's suppose that it's neutral or slightly favorable, so that eventually there are three alleles, each with about 0.33 frequency.

Now, the information in the population is about 0.48. An increase. Surprise.



Your buddy, not mine. He, like you, has an agenda to make science and God incompatible. But instead of endorsements, you can calculate the information yourself.

But I'm guessing that "information" isn't what you really want to talk about, is it?

No he would be your buddy, and he is correct. Like I said darwin christianity is an oxymoron

Please inform me of what I would like to talk about


The German biologist G. Osche [O3] sketches the unsuitability of Shannon’s theory from a biological viewpoint, and also emphasizes the nonmaterial nature of information: “While matter and energy are the concerns of physics, the description of biological phenomena typically involves information in a functional capacity. In cybernetics, the general information concept quantitatively expresses the information content of a given set of symbols by employing the probability distribution of all possible permutations of the symbols. But the information content of biological systems (genetic information) is concerned with its ‘value’ and its ‘functional meaning,’ and thus with the semantic aspect of information, with its quality.”
Hans-Joachim Flechtner, a German cyberneticist, referred to the fact that information is of a mental nature, both because of its contents and because of the encoding process. This aspect is, however, frequently underrated [F3]: “When a message is composed, it involves the coding of its mental content, but the message itself is not concerned about whether the contents are important or unimportant, valuable, useful, or meaningless. Only the recipient can evaluate the message after decoding it.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/itbwi/information-fundamental-entity
Thats about as much time as I have for your equation.

Barbarian observes:
Actually, it is. Often gene duplication will result in a change in the organism. But most often, it happens by gene duplication, followed by mutation of one of the copies. And as you know, that is something new.

So something that is not new like a gene duplication, then has a mutation which does not produce any new information to a genome, but somehow it is considered new. And that is how everything evolved all these new feature? Wait no new features developed since the first life. Everything is just a modification of that first life.

Show me how the video proves that duplication plus mutation of one copy can't happen. I can show you some examples in which it did, if you like. Or if the video is just more unsupported denial, you can ignore my request.

The video shows you the answer to my question without making it into 5 pages of garbage.

Have you declined to show me an example of new information of a genome? Dawkins could't but you can

Barry Hall, in his E. coli experiments directly observed it to produce a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Would you like me to show you that, again?

This can explain it better than me, and I don't have time to write an explanation for you when it will get dodged or changed.

Now the popularist treatments of this research (e.g. in New Scientist) give the impression that the E. coli developed the ability to metabolize citrate, whereas it supposedly could not do so before. However, this is clearly not the case, because the citric acid, tricarboxcylic acid (TCA), or Krebs, cycle (all names for the same thing) generates and utilizes citrate in its normal oxidative metabolism of glucose and other carbohydrates.5

Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell.6 This suite of genes (operon) is normally only activated under anaerobic conditions.

So what happened? It is not yet clear from the published information, but a likely scenario is that mutations jammed the regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produce citrate transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacterium’s environment (that is, it is permanently switched on). This can be likened to having a light that switches on when the sun goes down—a sensor detects the lack of light and turns the light on. A fault in the sensor could result in the light being on all the time. That is the sort of change we are talking about.

Another possibility is that an existing transporter gene, such as the one that normally takes up tartrate,3 which does not normally transport citrate, mutated such that it lost specificity and could then transport citrate into the cell. Such a loss of specificity is also an expected outcome of random mutations. A loss of specificity equals a loss of information, but evolution is supposed to account for the creation of new information; information that specifies the enzymes and cofactors in new biochemical pathways, how to make feathers and bone, nerves, or the components and assembly of complex motors such as ATP synthase, for example.

http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli

Comes down to evidence. And as you see, that's what the evidence shows.

No that is not what the evidence shows. You may interpret the evidence like that. When you can not show new information being added to genome (which would be what evolution is based on) you can not come close to prove it happening. You can make a hypothesis though.

And I asked you to show all the missing links from animals like sharks, bats, seals, sea lions, and etc... and you declined and asked for me to provide the common ancestor? Do you not know what the common ancestors should be?

Can you answer the question your buddy Dawkins couldn't? No because there are no examples.

 

[zeke]

Evidence. Science is about facts, not beliefs.

Can you provide the transitionals on this thread in chronological order that demonstrates man and chimp have a common ancestor? Remember, science is about facts, not circularity and speculation. You're up, Barb...

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian asks Spartikus what he thought the simplest form of life would be like)

(He declines to answer)

No I did answer.

Nope. You declined to say and asked me to answer for you.'

Remember we have different beliefs.

Yep, you and your buddy Dawkins want to make evolution inconsistent with God.

I believe God created everything in six days.

Fortunately for you, it's not a salvation issue.

Barbarian regarding the idea of "novel" features:
Nope. So far, everything we see is a modification of something else.

You believe microbes to man

Actually, humans evolved from other apes. Just saying...

so that first life you describe had to develop these features.

So now it's time for you to show us which step couldn't evolve that way.

I guess this is the part you keep dodging the question and try to get it off topic. Your answers contradict themselves. Everything is a modification of what is already there, but everything evolved from the first life form which did not have these features.

Here's you chance. What features could not have evolved. BTW, eukaryotes took about 2 billion years to evolve, and seem to have done so by endosymbiosis. Would you like to learn the evidence for that?

Barbarian observes:
Denial won't help you. It's clear that no designer would make humans out of modified quadruped parts. But if we evolved from quadrupeds, then the reason is perfectly obvious.

Your correct, but he didn't use modified quadruped parts.

That's a testable claim. Show us something in the human skeleton that's not found in the skeleton of any quadruped. Good luck.

He made everything with their own parts. Some parts may be similar is design.

Barbarian suggests:
Yep. Now show us, using the information equation why a new allele in a population increases the information in it.

(Declines to do it)

No surprise there. You don't even know what "information" means, do you?

See now you go and try and insult my intelligence.

Ignorance isn't stupidity. You just don't know, do you?

And why would I answer a question I asked you with a math equation.

That's how it's measured.

did you not watch the video.

So just tell us what the video says. If you don't understand it well enough to explain it, how do you know it's right?

Barbarian suggests:
Let's use something real from nature. But it doesn't matter what the allele is. Just calculate how the information will change if there's a new allele.

You've been misled about what "information" means. Perhaps you want to argue that there are no useful mutations, which is quite a different issue. Would you like to learn about that?

Let's say an animal has two alleles for a particular enzyme, both with the same activity and the same (0.5) frequency. (one nucleotide substitution normally doesn't change the activity of a large enzyme at all). The information for that is about 0.30. Now let's suppose that a new allele appears by mutation. Let's suppose that it's neutral or slightly favorable, so that eventually there are three alleles, each with about 0.33 frequency.

Now, the information in the population is about 0.48. An increase. Surprise.

But I'm guessing that "information" isn't what you really want to talk about, is it?

Spartikus, regarding his buddy, Dawkins:
No he would be your buddy, and he is correct.

You and the atheists are wrong about God and creation. No way to sugar coat it for you. If you're smart, you'll stop taking direction from atheists.

The German biologist G. Osche [O3] sketches the unsuitability of Shannon’s theory from a biological viewpoint

Gunther is apparently unaware that biology uses Shannon's equation to accurately measure information in populations. Why do they use Shannon's equation instead of Gunther's idea?

It works. That's a big deal in science. It's why Gunther's idea isn't used in biology.

Surprise.

I realize math may not be your thing. But if you don't understand Shannon's equation and why it works, you can't hope to understand information.

Actually, it is. Often gene duplication will result in a change in the organism. But most often, it happens by gene duplication, followed by mutation of one of the copies. And as you know, that is something new.

So something that is not new like a gene duplication

But is is new. The genome is measurably different.

then has a mutation which does not produce any new information to a genome,

As you just learned, all mutations add information to a population.

And that is how everything evolved all these new feature?

One way. Would you like to learn about some examples?

Wait no new features developed since the first life. Everything is just a modification of that first life.

So far, everything we see is a modification of something already there. You saw that with lungs, for example.

Barbarian suggests:
Show me how the video proves that duplication plus mutation of one copy can't happen. I can show you some examples in which it did, if you like. Or if the video is just more unsupported denial, you can ignore my request.

(request denied)

O.K. We understand.

Have you declined to show me an example of new information of a genome? Dawkins could't but you can

I showed you one, and even calculated the change of information for you.

Barry Hall, in his E. coli experiments directly observed it to produce a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Would you like me to show you that, again?

This can explain it better than me, and I don't have time to write an explanation for you when it will get dodged or changed.

So if you don't understand the argument, what makes you think it's right?

Now the popularist treatments of this research (e.g. in New Scientist) give the impression that the E. coli developed the ability to metabolize citrate, whereas it supposedly could not do so before.

Wrong research. It's not about citric acid cycle.

No that is not what the evidence shows. You may interpret the evidence like that.

Sorry, the postmodern notion that reality is whatever we think it is, doesn't play with me. Try again.

When you can not show new information being added to genome

I even calculated the change in information for you. C'mon, everyone saw it.

(which would be what evolution is based on)

No. Sometimes evolution involves a reduction in information. Would you like to see how?

you can not come close to prove it happening.

It's directly observed. Can't do better than that.

And I asked you to show all the missing links from animals like sharks, bats, seals, sea lions, and etc... and you declined

You refused to name two groups said to be evolutionarily connected. Can you do that, now?

and asked for me to provide the common ancestor?

You asked me to name the first living thing, and I asked you to tell me what the absolute minimum for a living thing would be. And you refused to say. So I showed you an example.

Do you not know what the common ancestors should be?

Prokaryote capable of using ATP for energy (Krebs cycle). We have a pretty good idea of what the last common ancestor was, since all living things have a great many genes in common.

Your buddy Dawkins couldn't answer the question? I find that amusing, since you can't either. Tell him that genetics can tell us a great deal about the last common ancestor.

 

[zeke]

Yep, you and your buddy Dawkins want to make evolution inconsistent with God.

But classical Darwinism is atheism and atheism is inconsistent with God.

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine​

 

[spartakis]

(Barbarian asks Spartikus what he thought the simplest form of life would be like)

(He declines to answer)



Nope. You declined to say and asked me to answer for you.'

Nope i told you to use whatever you want to use considering you was going to be explaining how all these genus and species came to be from a single cell life form when you claim evolution only modifies whats already present. But this single cell life form had to produce a lot of new information to evolve into all the species present today and man. Which you have declined to do so. Like I said I am sure this will be dodged and changed to a different topic.

Yep, you and your buddy Dawkins want to make evolution inconsistent with God.

Fortunately for you, it's not a salvation issue.

Well you and Dawkins both believe man got here through the process of evolution, it is so inconsistent with Christianity you have deny the whole book of Genesis and Jesus words that if you can't believe Genesis how can you believe him. Creation is taught in the Bible not evolution. Man has dominion over the animals and did not evolve from the animals. Along with everything else I have mentioned in this thread.

Remember we have different beliefs there also. I believe my salvation comes from the grace of God and not something I can earn. But believing in evolution I guess you can't believe that Christ actually paid your payment for sin on the cross, since the penalty of sin is death. But evolution declares man came from millions of years of death and suffering. If your salvation hangs on the judgment of the nations post trib you should really read the thread you asked me to start about what Jesus says about salvation in context of salvation.

Barbarian regarding the idea of "novel" features:
Nope. So far, everything we see is a modification of something else.

Actually, humans evolved from other apes. Just saying...

Well did they evolve from apes or do they all share a common ancestor? And where did that ancestor evolve from? Just saying.

So now it's time for you to show us which step couldn't evolve that way.

Here's you chance. What features could not have evolved. BTW, eukaryotes took about 2 billion years to evolve, and seem to have done so by endosymbiosis. Would you like to learn the evidence for that?

So I guess this is the part where you start dodging the question and trying to get me to waste my time. I believe God created all species after their kind. In other words all the novel features we see today were created. Can you show empirical evidence of evolution of any novel feature. That means no assumption.

Barbarian observes:
Denial won't help you. It's clear that no designer would make humans out of modified quadruped parts. But if we evolved from quadrupeds, then the reason is perfectly obvious.

That's a testable claim. Show us something in the human skeleton that's not found in the skeleton of any quadruped. Good luck.

Show me why God who created everything could not of used similar design. Big gaps from a quadruped that walks on all 4s and a lot of differences. Are you saying they are identical to humans? Is that your missing link

Barbarian suggests:
Yep. Now show us, using the information equation why a new allele in a population increases the information in it.

(Declines to do it)

No surprise there You don't even know what "information" means, do you?
Ignorance isn't stupidity. You just don't know, do you?

That's how it's measured.e. You don't even know what "information" means, do you?

I am not trying to measure how quick information can be transmitted on a blog. How many times do I need to show you this has no usefulness in biology.

We conclude that information-theoretic calculations of the present level of sophistication do not provide any useful insights into molecular biological sequences.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519305800542

I understand this is your way of dodging the question. Your buddy Dawkins could not answer this question for your guys hypothesis either.
You keep insisting to use something from nature, I am awaiting this example.

So just tell us what the video says. If you don't understand it well enough to explain it, how do you know it's right?

Barbarian suggests:
Let's use something real from nature. But it doesn't matter what the allele is. Just calculate how the information will change if there's a new allele.

You've been misled about what "information" means. Perhaps you want to argue that there are no useful mutations, which is quite a different issue. Would you like to learn about that?

Let's say an animal has two alleles for a particular enzyme, both with the same activity and the same (0.5) frequency. (one nucleotide substitution normally doesn't change the activity of a large enzyme at all). The information for that is about 0.30. Now let's suppose that a new allele appears by mutation. Let's suppose that it's neutral or slightly favorable, so that eventually there are three alleles, each with about 0.33 frequency.

Now, the information in the population is about 0.48. An increase. Surprise.

But I'm guessing that "information" isn't what you really want to talk about, is it?

Spartikus, regarding his buddy, Dawkins:
No he would be your buddy, and he is correct.

You and the atheists are wrong about God and creation. No way to sugar coat it for you. If you're smart, you'll stop taking direction from atheists.

So now I am to dumb to understand a simply question and the fact evolutionist can not show any examples I will post the video again because I don't think you watched it.
[video=youtube;9W4e4MwogLo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo[/video]

Taking advice from atheist, no. Simply installing the fact he has no answer to a problem for evolution that can not be answered, and would need to be answered to prove it is close to feasible.

Gunther is apparently unaware that biology uses Shannon's equation to accurately measure information in populations. Why do they use Shannon's equation instead of Gunther's idea?

It works. That's a big deal in science. It's why Gunther's idea isn't used in biology.

Surprise.

I realize math may not be your thing. But if you don't understand Shannon's equation and why it works, you can't hope to understand information.

No math was my favorite subject. Once again that equation has no use here. How many times do we need to go through this.

We conclude that information-theoretic calculations of the present level of sophistication do not provide any useful insights into molecular biological sequences.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519305800542

Actually, it is. Often gene duplication will result in a change in the organism. But most often, it happens by gene duplication, followed by mutation of one of the copies. And as you know, that is something new.

But is is new. The genome is measurably different.

As you just learned, all mutations add information to a population.

As you just learned mutations change the sequence of DNA
http://creationwiki.org/Mutation

Mutation can result in several different types of change in sequences; these can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

One way. Would you like to learn about some examples?

So far, everything we see is a modification of something already there. You saw that with lungs, for example.

Barbarian suggests:
Show me how the video proves that duplication plus mutation of one copy can't happen. I can show you some examples in which it did, if you like. Or if the video is just more unsupported denial, you can ignore my request.

(request denied)

O.K. We understand.

I showed you one, and even calculated the change of information for you.

You continue to say everything is a modification of something already there but can not show where these features developed. See question above. I seen nothing of how lungs first developed. You have empirical evidence of lung evolution please show me, or direct me to the post. I do not have time for assumptions though. And would this not need new information for these lungs to produce themselves from the first life form. This is a process you can not show.

Barry Hall, in his E. coli experiments directly observed it to produce a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Would you like me to show you that, again?

Please do and explain why it is empirical evidence for microbes to man.

So if you don't understand the argument, what makes you think it's right?

Wrong research. It's not about citric acid cycle.

I understand the argument, just new it new it would be a waste of my time to explain it to you. Looks like I was right

Sorry, the postmodern notion that reality is whatever we think it is, doesn't play with me. Try again.

No evidence shows what reality is, sure don't show microbes to men. Shows God's creation well though.

I even calculated the change in information for you. C'mon, everyone saw it.

And everybody seen that equation does not hold up in biology, posted twice here and once in that post. Can you not show an example in nature Dawkins couldn't it's okay to admit it.

It's directly observed. Can't do better than that.

You can not show new information being added. Please do. Even honest evolutionist like Dawkins will admit it.

You refused to name two groups said to be evolutionarily connected. Can you do that, now?

I have told you many groups. They all go back to a missing common ancestor and even further back to that first life form that developed all these features. Do you decline to show these links, is it because you can't? Not going to continue to post these groups for a dodge of the question.

You asked me to name the first living thing, and I asked you to tell me what the absolute minimum for a living thing would be. And you refused to say. So I showed you an example.

Prokaryote capable of using ATP for energy (Krebs cycle). We have a pretty good idea of what the last common ancestor was, since all living things have a great many genes in common.

Now show how this developed all these species and novel features.

Your buddy Dawkins couldn't answer the question? I find that amusing, since you can't either. Tell him that genetics can tell us a great deal about the last common ancestor.

Are you saying you know more about evolution then dawkins
A banana has 50% the same DNA as humans, are we part banana. You can use anything as an assumption of common ancestor, but big gaps and no empirical evidence. Everything goes together well for a common design by God our creator. I guess since he didn't make everything perfectly indifferent he is thrown out the picture.

If you can answer the question that dawkins couldn't (which is a huge problem for evolution) then please do we all are waiting. No assumption, but empirical evidence. When you do we will get a hold of dawkins and maybe get you some interviews on a T.V. program. Take your time. By the way in for a busy week and will be traveling half of it, so please no time wasting answers and questions. I will not answer them this week. I am interested in your example of empirical evidence to the question I stated and was stated to darwin.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Yep, you and your buddy Dawkins want to make evolution inconsistent with God.

But classical Darwinism is atheism

Odd then, that Darwin suggested that God created the first living things. Sounds like you were fooled once again.

and atheism is inconsistent with God.

That's something you and Dawkins will have to work out for yourselves.

 

[Barbarian]

(Spartikus again declines to say what he thinks the simplest living thing would be like)

Nope

Yep, you even admitted it here:

i told you to use whatever you want to use

So I gave you one you possibly agree with. And again you declined to say. Dodging is pretty much all you can do here, it seems.

Barbarian observes:
Yep, you and your buddy Dawkins want to make evolution inconsistent with God.

Fortunately for you, it's not a salvation issue.

Well you and Dawkins both believe man got here through the process of evolution

No.

"You don't have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis

it is so inconsistent with Christianity you have deny the whole book of Genesis and Jesus words that if you can't believe Genesis how can you believe him.

As you learned, evolution is consistent with Genesis, but YE creationism denies God's word in Genesis.

There is nothing in Genesis that denies evolution, but it explicitly denies the "life ex nihilo" believe of YE creationism.

Remember we have different beliefs there also. I believe my salvation comes from the grace of God and not something I can earn.

I'm glad you accept that. But why then won't you also accept God's word that we are justified by works as well as by faith? Cafeteria Christians are lukewarm, in their faith.

But believing in evolution I guess you can't believe that Christ actually paid your payment for sin on the cross, since the penalty of sin is death.

You conclude that because you have failed to understand what God told Adam. If you accept it God's way you'd know what that death was, and why it was necessary for Jesus to die to save us. Again, lukewarm isn't what you need to be.

If you want to continue this somewhere else, start a thread in the right forum. I understand it's a concern for you, but I have already fully accepted His word in this.

Barbarian regarding the idea of "novel" features:
Nope. So far, everything we see is a modification of something else.

Actually, humans evolved from other apes. Just saying...

And where did that ancestor evolve from?

Primitive primate. Would you like to see the evidence for that?

Barbarian suggests:
So now it's time for you to show us which step couldn't evolve that way.

Here's you chance. What features could not have evolved. BTW, eukaryotes took about 2 billion years to evolve, and seem to have done so by endosymbiosis. Would you like to learn the evidence for that?

Spartikus dodges the question:
So I guess this is the part where you start dodging the question and trying to get me to waste my time.

You made an assertion. I'm asking you to support it. If you don't want to do that, we'll move on.

I believe God created all species after their kind.

If you'll go that far, why not also accept the way He did it?

Can you show empirical evidence of evolution of any novel feature.

Sure. The evolution of the ability to utilize nylon by a species of bacteria. Directly observed. The evolution of a new enzyme that provides, in humans, almost complete immunity to hardening of the arteries. It happened a rather short time ago, and so we were able to trace that mutation back to a single individual who lived about a hundred years ago.

How many would you like to see?

Barbarian observes:
Denial won't help you. It's clear that no designer would make humans out of modified quadruped parts. But if we evolved from quadrupeds, then the reason is perfectly obvious.

(denial)

That's a testable claim. Show us something in the human skeleton that's not found in the skeleton of any quadruped. Good luck.

(declines to provide one)

Neither can anyone else. Surprise.

Barbarian suggests:
Yep. Now show us, using the information equation why a new allele in a population increases the information in it.

(Declines to do it)

No surprise there You don't even know what "information" means, do you?
Ignorance isn't stupidity. You just don't know, do you?

That's how it's measured.e. You don't even know what "information" means, do you?

I am not trying to measure how quick information can be transmitted on a blog. How many times do I need to show you this has no usefulness in biology.

It's not about how quick it can be transmitted. It's about how much information is there. That's how it's used in biology. BTW, Shannon was aware that it was about biological information:


Claude Shannon: Biologist
The Founder of Information Theory Used Biology to Formulate the Channel Capacity

Claude Shannon founded information theory in the 1940s. The theory has long been known to be closely related to thermodynamics and physics through the similarity of Shannon's uncertainty measure to the entropy function. Recent work using information theory to understand molecular biology has unearthed a curious fact: Shannon's channel capacity theorem only applies to living organisms and their products, such as communications channels and molecular machines that make choices from several possibilities. Information theory is therefore a theory about biology, and Shannon was a biologist.

IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 2006; 25(1): 30–33.

Surprise. How did you suppose a biologist would know so much about information theory?

We conclude that information-theoretic calculations of the present level of sophistication do not provide any useful insights into molecular biological sequences.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...22519305800542

Well, let's take a look...

Information theory in molecular biology
Christoph Adami (KGI, Caltech)
Subjects: Biomolecules (q-bio.BM); Populations and Evolution (q-bio.PE)
Journal reference: Physics of Life Reviews 1 (2004) 3-22

This article introduces the physics of information in the context of molecular biology and genomics. Entropy and information, the two central concepts of Shannon's theory of information and communication, are often confused with each other but play transparent roles when applied to statistical ensembles (i.e., identically prepared sets) of symbolic sequences. Such an approach can distinguish between entropy and information in genes, predict the secondary structure of ribozymes, and detect the covariation between residues in folded proteins. We also review applications to molecular sequence and structure analysis, and introduce new tools in the characterization of resistance mutations, and in drug design.

I understand this is your way of dodging the question. Your buddy Dawkins doesn't understand the field very well, and of course, it seems as though it's a complete mystery to you. It's fairly new to molecular biology, because molecular biology is fairly new. It's been long used in population genetics; I was in graduate school in the late 70s, and it was being appled then.

Barbarian suggests:
So just tell us what the video says. If you don't understand it well enough to explain it, how do you know it's right?

(he dodges)

Let's use something real from nature. But it doesn't matter what the allele is. Just calculate how the information will change if there's a new allele.

(he dodges)

You've been misled about what "information" means. Perhaps you want to argue that there are no useful mutations, which is quite a different issue. Would you like to learn about that?

(he dodges)

Let's say an animal has two alleles for a particular enzyme, both with the same activity and the same (0.5) frequency. (one nucleotide substitution normally doesn't change the activity of a large enzyme at all). The information for that is about 0.30. Now let's suppose that a new allele appears by mutation. Let's suppose that it's neutral or slightly favorable, so that eventually there are three alleles, each with about 0.33 frequency.

Now, the information in the population is about 0.48. An increase. Surprise.

But I'm guessing that "information" isn't what you really want to talk about, is it?

Spartikus, regarding his buddy, Dawkins:

No he would be your buddy, and he is correct.

Barbarian chuckles:
You and the atheists are wrong about God and creation. No way to sugar coat it for you. If you're smart, you'll stop taking direction from atheists.

So now I am to dumb to understand a simply question

I'm suggesting that if you don't understand a video enough to explain what it means, you can't know if it's right or not.

Taking advice from atheist, no.

I just noted that you and your buddy agree on the subject. You keep bringing him in to support your beliefs.

Barbarian chuckles:
Gunther is apparently unaware that biology uses Shannon's equation to accurately measure information in populations. Why do they use Shannon's equation instead of Gunther's idea?

It works. That's a big deal in science. It's why Gunther's idea isn't used in biology.

Surprise.

I realize math may not be your thing. But if you don't understand Shannon's equation and why it works, you can't hope to understand information.

No math was my favorite subject.

And yet you are mystified by summation notation. Odd.

Actually, it is. Often gene duplication will result in a change in the organism. But most often, it happens by gene duplication, followed by mutation of one of the copies. And as you know, that is something new.

Barbarian suggests:
Show me how the video proves that duplication plus mutation of one copy can't happen. I can show you some examples in which it did, if you like. Or if the video is just more unsupported denial, you can ignore my request.

(request denied)

O.K. We understand.

You continue to say everything is a modification of something already there but can not show where these features developed.

That's a testable claim. Pick some feature, and we'll see. There are things out there that we don't know yet, so you might get lucky. Let's see what you choose.

Barbarian observes:
Barry Hall, in his E. coli experiments directly observed it to produce a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Would you like me to show you that, again?

(confuses the lac operon with the Krebs cycle)

Barbarian chuckles:
Wrong research. It's not about citric acid cycle.

I understand the argument, just new it new it would be a waste of my time to explain it to you.

Ah, well, perhaps others here are smarter than the dumb old Barbarian. Show us for them.

More later...

 

[spartakis]

Wow talk about dodging questions and cherry picking. You cut just about all my answers in half to try and destroy my character. All the questions of yours have been answered yet you continue to dodge the main questions asked to you.

So go back and answer the responses fully. Without chopping then in half to make it look like I did not explain myself.
And to call someone lukewarm when you no nothing about them is pretty sad. You really need a lesson in theology but you dodge that thread.

The main questions can you show empirical evidence and example in nature of information being added to a genome?

Nylon eating bacteria
Recent research into the genes behind these traits indicates that no evolution has taken place. 2 In fact,the genes of nylon-eating bacteria show that they have been degraded through mutation.

The gene that mutated to enable bacteria to metabolize nylon is on a small loop of exchangeable DNA. 3 This gene,prior to its mutation,coded for a protein called EII with a special ability to break down small, circularized proteins. Though synthetic, nylon is very protein-like because inventor Wallace Carothers modeled the original fiber based on known protein chemistry. Thus,after the mutation,the new EII protein was able to interact with both circular and straightened-out nylon. This is a clear example of a loss of specification of the original enzyme. It is like damaging the interior of a lock so that more and different keys can now unlock it.

This degeneration of a protein-eating protein required both the specially-shaped protein and the pre-existence of its gene. The degeneration of a gene,even when it provides a new benefit to the bacteria,does not explain the origin of that gene. One cannot build a lock by damaging pre-existing locks. Nylon-eating bacteria actually exemplify microevolution (adaptation),not macroevolution. Science continues to reveal,though,how benevolent is our Creator God,who permits bacteria to benefit from degradation,and man also to benefit from bacteria that can recycle synthetic waste back into the environment.
http://www.icr.org/article/4089/296/

Dawkins knew better than to use that.

Can you show the links for sharks, bats, seal's, sea lions, back to their common ancestors. The list could go on but we will start there.

And whatever novel feature you want to use to show empirical evidence of it's evolution from a single cell organism will work. But I would like to see you explain the evolution of the reproduction system. Simultaneously in your ideal of the first life form with them.


And also answer the question above you keep dodging that was in the video you claim to have the answer to.


All these questions have been asked more then once. Please stop cutting what I say in half to try and make it look like I have not explained myself you should also correct what you did on my last post by doing that.

By the way I did create a new thread for your theology that you have declined to respond in.

 

[zeke]

Odd then, that Darwin suggested that God created the first living things. Sounds like you were fooled once again.

Darwin went to his grave an agnostic-atheist and classical Darwinism is atheism, thus Will Provine can easily and correctly say, "evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented". Where does that leave you?

 

[Barbarian]

Darwin went to his grave an agnostic-atheist

Late in life he said he was best described as "agnostic." You've fudged the truth a bit.

And as you know, he was an orthodox Anglican when he wrote The Origin of Species. He even suggested that God just created the first organisms.

and classical Darwinism is atheism

See above. You've been fooled once again.

Provine can easily and correctly say, "evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented".

In fact, as Glenn Morton made clear, YE creationism is an efficient atheist-maker. He notes numerous ICR graduates, who lost their faith when they realized creationism could not be true. Their assumption that creationism is the same thing as Christianity doomed them. It almost happened to him.

Where does that leave you?

Shaking my head sadly, at your gullibility.

 

[zeke]

Late in life he said he was best described as "agnostic." You've fudged the truth a bit.

No fudge at all my friend---atheist vs agnostic - no difference other that semantic games. Godless is Godless and Darwin died rejecting a Creator-God.

And as you know, he was an orthodox Anglican when he wrote The Origin of Species.

I don't think he was "orthodox Anglican" at any time during his adult life - he appears to have followed in the steps of his granddaddy - from a young age.

Why do your think Will Provine stated, "evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented"? Is it because Darwin's intent from the beginning was to present Darwinism as atheism?

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’ ~ Michael Ruse, Darwinist - former professor of philosophy and zoology (University of Guelph)​

What 'religion' are you pushing on this forum? The Darwinists have sold you a bill of goods.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding Darwin's religious beliefs:
Late in life he said he was best described as "agnostic." You've fudged the truth a bit.

No fudge at all my friend---atheist vs agnostic - no difference other that semantic games.

I never thought I'd hear a Christian say something like that. You know better.

Darwin died rejecting a Creator-God.

Nope. At the end, he acknowledged not knowing for sure.

And as you know, he was an orthodox Anglican when he wrote The Origin of Species.

I don't think he was "orthodox Anglican" at any time during his adult life

Then it's odd that the officers of the Beagle kidded him about his orthodoxy. Reality, remember?

Why do your think Will Provine stated, "evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented"?

Wishful thinking. You seem to be taking your instruction from atheists a lot. I notice that he doesn't offer any evidence, while Glenn Morton presents evidence and examples of creationism as an effective atheist-maker. This is the major evil of creationism; it causes people to lose their faith in God.

Is it because Darwin's intent from the beginning was to present Darwinism as atheism?

If so, it would be difficult to explain why he suggested that God created the first living things. Creationists and atheists strive to convince people that science is atheistic, because they share a common agenda.

What 'religion' are you pushing on this forum?

Not the one you and atheists are selling. I'm a Christian. You should be, too.

The Darwinists have sold you a bill of goods.

Comes down to evidence. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth. What about the truth frightens you so, Zeke? Are you concerned that God might be bigger and more powerful than you're comfortable with?

You don't have to worry about that. He cares about you, and wants you to be happy with Him for eternity. Just let Him be God, and accept His grace and forgiveness.

 

[zeke]

I never thought I'd hear a Christian say something like that.

Again, a godless belief system is godless any way you wish to spin it and that was the worldview of Darwin when he entered eternity. Sad for him.

You seem to be taking your instruction from atheists a lot. I notice that he doesn't offer any evidence...

I am simply pointing out the truth that Provine understands quite well - evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. This fact is self-evident. Provine, like Ruse understands the historical fact - evolution came into being as a secular ideology, explicitly as a substitute for Christianity. You continue to miss the boat on this easy concept. Why?

A Christian should never be afraid of the truth. What about the truth frightens you so, Zeke?

Oh, I understand the truth my friend and I have no fear regarding that truth. Classical Darwinism has always been atheism presented in a new dress and high heels. I am, however disappointed that you cannot see this truth - but that remains your burden. Remember, we are dealing with reality and Provide and Ruse understand that reality - you do not.