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

[Adam]

Ooookay.....


Uh, after cross-referencing the name of that site, kofh2u, with your username, "cupid dave", I found a whole lot of discussion about your identity, Dave, over at christianforums.com, including some of the other names you have gone by ( David Judah Layb) and who you think you are regarding the coming messiah.


I really don't think I need to say more than that for you to know why I really have no reason to continue this conversation with you.

Good luck.

 

[Asyncritus]

Hey Adam, Barbarian (sorry to be slightly derailing here)

You guys owe me some explanation of the following:

However, as I hope people have seen, there is an enormous amount of evidence from instinctive behaviour which casts the lie in the teeth of evolution.

Just to remind you of some:

1 The migration of the Pacific Golden Plovers 2,800 miles each way

2 The migration of the Capistrano swallows 7,000 miles each way

3 The migration of the godwit 7000 miles each way

4 The migration of the European eels 3000 miles each way

5 The migration of the Monarch butterflies

Not one of those mighty phenomena can even begin to be accounted for by evolutionary theory, no matter how many absurd papers you cite.

Now this is heavy stuff.

If evolution theory can't account for any of these instincts, and instinct pervades the whole of life, then evolution theory is scientifically useless.

You might like to have a look here: www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com where the theory is given the coup de grace once for all.

Where considerably more detail is available.

 

[spartakis]

It is getting old discussing this with someone trying to deceive you.

Mostly, you're just denying the evidence you've been shown.

Oh you did not post false information claiming Shannon was a biologist?
I am sure you posted this knowing he was not. If you didn't know but try and use the equation you have a lot to learn.

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?

NO BIOLOGIST
Claude Elwood Shannon (April 30, 1916 – February 24, 2001) was an American mathematician, electronic engineer, and cryptographer known as "the father of information theory".[1][2]




In 1948 the promised memorandum appeared as "A Mathematical Theory of Communication", an article in two parts in the July and October issues of the Bell System Technical Journal. This work focuses on the problem of how best to encode the information a sender wants to transmit. In this fundamental work he used tools in probability theory, developed by Norbert Wiener, which were in their nascent stages of being applied to communication theory at that time. Shannon developed information entropy as a measure for the uncertainty in a message while essentially inventing the field of information theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon

It's the usual for creationists; they don't often have the scientific knowledge to know the evidence for, or even against evolution.

Opinions don't excuse you for not having facts for microbes to man. I know the evidence you use and it does not show evolution. The thing is you studied assuming the Bible is false and darwin is right, bad way to look at the evidence. Got a little blinded

Biologists use it, because it works. That's the way it is.

No they don't I provided links of biologist that state it has no use in biology. I guess if you lie to people telling them Shannon was a biologist they might try. Still would only be a hypothesis, but the whole theory of evolution is so don't really matter.

For evolution to be considered feasible you would need to see hole new genomes.

No. Entirely new genomes would be evidence for creationism. As you know, evolution procedes by modifying existing genomes.

And you talk about creationist not knowing the evidence and arguments. Creationist believe God created everything as he said he did. Why would we need new genomes and novel features to continue to develop. Do you not see all your contradictions in this post? Don't worry I am about to point them out.

As you have learned you believe everything evolved from the first cell.

So the evidence indicates.

No the evidence does not indicate. That's just your best assumption.

Obviously many genomes and features had to develop.

Yep. We still observe it happening.

No we do not. You could not show a new genome being produced. Plus this contradicts your other statement.

No. Entirely new genomes would be evidence for creationism. As you know, evolution procedes by modifying existing genomes.

Are them two not a contradiction? I believe so.

You're wrong about that. Most mutations don't do much of anything. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.

Most evidence for mutation is harmful. To act like we evolved from microbes with this process is not feasible.

and by definition can only change the sequence of DNA not add information.

I just showed you how it increases information.

No you did not. You showed an equation used for communication.

Libraries are free. Go and learn somethings about information theory and genetics, and biology, and then come back when you have something to offer.

I have plenty to offer and looks like you are the one that can't produce what you claim. If you look at my other post you left out a lot of information you was going to produce. Why? Because you can't

I don't think generic accusations are going to help you. What you need to to is learn something about the subject.

So now I am lying about what you are doing when the facts are right in front of you. I have seen you do this for more then 10 years under names like galatian and etc... Same type of post and it got you banned from about every forum you went to. How you get away with it here and not even get edited is beyond me::

Passion is no substitute for knowing what you're talking about.

I know what I am talking about, its just like an evolutionist to start calling the other person dumb because you can't produce evidenced

Contradictions

For evolution to be considered feasible you would need to see hole new genomes.

No. Entirely new genomes would be evidence for creationism. As you know, evolution procedes by modifying existing genomes.

:biglol

Obviously many genomes and features had to develop.

Yep. We still observe it happening.

 

[Asyncritus]

No. Entirely new genomes would be evidence for creationism. As you know, evolution procedes by modifying existing genomes.

I thought you were a catholic, and they believe in creation?

So where did the genome for the 'first cell' (Har-de-har!), which was the most advanced one conceivable, since it contained within itself the potential for all the life forms on the planet (plus the extinct ones!), come from, if it proceeded from an 'already existing genome'?

Yep. We still observe it happening.

Oh yeah?

You're wrong about that. Most mutations don't do much of anything. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.

That's a fair statement.

Now assuming its correctness (A very few are useful), what rate of speciation does it generate, and how does that rate of speciation account for the Cambrian explosion?

I just showed you how it increases information.

So damage to a genome increases information content, does it? Why then did Dawkins choke when asked for an example of it happening?

Libraries are free. Go and learn somethings about information theory and genetics, and biology, and then come back when you have something to offer.

The information used in the construction of computers and the human brain (as well as the many others), indicates categorically that higher degrees of intelligence are required to produce intelligence of any sort.

And that limited intelligence (or no intelligence at all, as in the case of evolutionary processes) cannot produce anything of higher intelligence than the starting point.

Since we are talking of a cell creeping (?) about in the slime (producing by evolutionary processes) intelligence of the order we now see in mankind, then we are talking nonsense.

Passion is no substitute for knowing what you're talking about.

So true!

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Mostly, you're just denying the evidence you've been shown.

Oh you did not post false information claiming Shannon was a biologist?

No, and the scientist who wrote the article wasn't being deceptive, either. He was pointing out that part of Shannon's theory has application only in biology, and that Shannon made a significant contribution to knowledge in biology. Which is the formal definition of "biologist."

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?

Biologists use it, because it works. That's the way it is.

No they don't

Well, let's take a look...

Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life presents a timely introduction to the use of information theory and coding theory in molecular biology. The genetical information system, because it is linear and digital, resembles the algorithmic language of computers. George Gamow pointed out that the application of Shannon's information theory breaks genetics and molecular biology out of the descriptive mode into the quantitative mode and Dr Yockey develops this theme, discussing how information theory and coding theory can be applied to molecular biology. He discusses how these tools for measuring the information in the sequences of the genome and the proteome are essential for our complete understanding of the nature and origin of life.
http://www.amazon.com/Information-Theory-Molecular-Biology-Hubert/dp/0521350050

Here's a population geneticist, using Shannon's equation to test the Hardy-Weinberg model:
http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol86No1/1.pdf

And a rather well-documented presentation on using information therory in studying biology:
http://www.menem.com/~ilya/wiki/images/6/65/LANL-all.pdf

I provided links of biologist that state it has no use in biology.

Surprise. And it's been that way for a long time. I used it in graduate school in the 70s.

For evolution to be considered feasible you would need to see hole new genomes.

Barbarian chuckles:
No. Entirely new genomes would be evidence for creationism. As you know, evolution procedes by modifying existing genomes.

Creationist believe God created everything as he said he did.

No, they object to the way He did it. (He doesn't say how He did it in the Bible)
An entirely new genome for each kind would be evidence of a common designer. But related genomes is evidence for a Creator who made nature to do His will.

As you have learned you believe everything evolved from the first cell.

So the evidence indicates.

No the evidence does not indicate.

You're wrong. As you learned, genetics, the nested hierarchy of taxa, transitionals, and many other things show common descent.

Obviously many genomes and features had to develop.

Barbarian oberves:
Yep. We still observe it happening.

No we do not.

You've seen that we do. Things like the nylon enzyme, immunity to HIV, blood proteins that reduce arteriosclerosis, and many other things directly observed. No point in denying it.

You could not show a new genome being produced.

As you learned, a new genome would falsify common descent. Everything we see is modified from earlier things.

Barbarian chuckles:
You're wrong about that. Most mutations don't do much of anything. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.

Most evidence for mutation is harmful.

Nope. You've been fooled again. The best estimate for mutation in humans is about 175 per generation, with about 3-4 being harmful:

Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304.
http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.full

and by definition can only change the sequence of DNA not add information.

Barbarian chuckles:
I just showed you how it increases information.

No you did not.

I even calculated it for you.

You showed an equation used for communication.

Not communication, information. Shannon purposely left communication out of his theory, to focus only on information.

Barbarian suggests:
Libraries are free. Go and learn somethings about information theory and genetics, and biology, and then come back when you have something to offer.

I have plenty to offer

Go back and look at all the disasters you've had here. You can't just google and edit quotes from people. You have to understand what you're talking about.

So now I am lying about what you are doing when the facts are right in front of you. I have seen you do this for more then 10 years under names like galatian and etc... Same type of post and it got you banned from about every forum you went to.

At least at Baptist Board, um? I was privy to some of the discussion about me, by the mods, and the decision wasn't unanimous. Suffice to say, it wasn't about the rules.

How you get away with it here and not even get edited is beyond me

I try to follow the rules, and I apologize and alter my behavior, if I do go out of line. It can keep you out of trouble, too.

Barbarian observes:
Passion is no substitute for knowing what you're talking about.

I know what I am talking about, its just like an evolutionist to start calling the other person dumb because you can't produce evidenced

That's what I'm talking about.

Contradictions
For evolution to be considered feasible you would need to see hole new genomes.
No. Entirely new genomes would be evidence for creationism. As you know, evolution procedes by modifying existing genomes.

Obviously many genomes and features had to develop.
Yep. We still observe it happening.

:

 

[zeke]

As you know, evolution procedes by modifying existing genomes.

But how exactly does random naturalistic processes 'modify' theropods so they can morph into birds? Please - no hand-waiving.

 

[Barbarian]

But how exactly does random naturalistic processes 'modify' theropods so they can morph into birds?

Couldn't. Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't random. Natural selection is the antithesis of randomness. What Darwin discovered was that natural selection tends to increase the fitness of a population to a particular environment.

That's all it takes. Would you like to try a simple simulation that shows how it works? You only need six dice and some graph paper.

First question: Do you think Archaeopteryx is a bird? If so, what features makes it a bird and not a dinosaur?

 

[Asyncritus]

Couldn't. Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't random. Natural selection is the antithesis of randomness. What Darwin discovered was that natural selection tends to increase the fitness of a population to a particular environment.

This is another of evolution's greatest cop-outs.

Here is a process, which depends absolutely on the occurrence of random mutations, being described as non-random. :toofunny

That's all it takes. Would you like to try a simple simulation that shows how it works? You only need six dice and some graph paper.

Graph paper, dice bear no relationship to the real world. And the results can be faked.

First question: Do you think Archaeopteryx is a bird? If so, what features makes it a bird and not a dinosaur?

Did it fly? Have feathers?

Then it's a bird - possessing all the flight instincts needed for flying with feathers.

Which said instincts were implanted fully-formed into the creature.
Because if they were half-formed, it was going nowhere besides downhill.

Now what does evolution say about instinct implantation?

BTW, speaking of birds:

However, as I hope people have seen, there is an enormous amount of evidence from instinctive behaviour which casts the lie in the teeth of evolution.

Just to remind you of some:

1 The migration of the Pacific Golden Plovers 2,800 miles each way

2 The migration of the Capistrano swallows 7,000 miles each way

3 The migration of the godwit 7000 miles each way

4 The migration of the European eels 3000 miles each way

5 The migration of the Monarch butterflies

Not one of those mighty phenomena can even begin to be accounted for by evolutionary theory, no matter how many absurd papers you cite.

???

 

[zeke]

Couldn't. Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't random. Natural selection is the antithesis of randomness.

LOL - what part of Darwinian randomness and accident are you missing?

"The process of natural selection feeds on randomness, it feeds on accident
and contingency, and it gradually improves the fit between whatever organisms
there are and the environment in which they're being selected. But there's no predictability about what particular accidents are going to be exploited in this process." (Daniel Dennett, Tufts University)​

Do you think Archaeopteryx is a bird?

Archaeopteryx "was, in a modern sense, a bird" (Feducia).

If so, what features makes it a bird and not a dinosaur?

Probably the same one that make it a bird and not a dog - species boundaries.

 

[Barbarian]

This is another of evolution's greatest cop-outs.

Here is a process, which depends absolutely on the occurrence of random mutations, being described as non-random.

Demonstrably so. Scientists often make predictions about the way changes in environments will affect the evolution of populations and they are most often right. How can that be? It's like asking if you have one marksman and one beginner shooting skeet, their scores will be the same, because the targets are released randomly. If you know what's wrong with that, then you'll know where you went wrong with your argument. A random process, plus a non-random process, is a non-random process. Would you like a demonstration?

That's all it takes. Would you like to try a simple simulation that shows how it works? You only need six dice and some graph paper.

Graph paper, dice bear no relationship to the real world. And the results can be faked.

So it's not about randomness any more? And sure, you could fake the results, but I'd know it, wouldn't I? How could I know that, if the dice were random? Again, if you can figure out how, then you know what's wrong with your argument.

Barbarian tests zeke's idea:
First question: Do you think Archaeopteryx is a bird? If so, what features makes it a bird and not a dinosaur?

It's a bird - possessing all the flight instincts needed for flying with feathers.

But it has a dinosaur's ribs and pelvis, not a bird's ribs and pelvis. It has a dinosaurs teeth and feet, and legs. And it has the skull of a dinosaur. And the tail is more like that of a dinosaur than like a bird. It was initially classified as a reptile, until one with feather imprints was found. In fact, many creationists argued that it was a dinosaur with faked feathers until the feather impressions were shown to be real. It lacks the large keeled sternum that lets birds fly well, but it probably was able to fly, albeit clumsily. It has asymmetrical feathers which are always associated with flight in birds. In other words, it's a transitional between birds and dinosaurs. The best estimate is that it's not an ancestor of today's birds, but is very close to the true ancestor of birds.

It has more dinosaur traits than bird traits. Remember, feathers are a trait for many dinosaurs. So you've pretty much set all your hopes on flying as the key.

Which said instincts were implanted fully-formed into the creature.

Show us.

Because if they were half-formed, it was going nowhere besides downhill.

Even today, some birds use feathers to parachute. So it's a possibility, although I think it probably could fly somewhat. Or maybe it couldn't stay aloft a long time, but it could fly enough to descend gently from trees.

Now what does evolution say about instinct implantation?

It says your imagination outruns your data, again.

BTW, speaking of birds:
However, as I hope people have seen, there is an enormous amount of evidence from instinctive behaviour which casts the lie in the teeth of evolution.

So far, every time we find out why an instinct happens, it turns out to have a heritable basis in genetics. So that's not a problem at all, is it?

 

[Barbarian]

LOL - what part of Darwinian randomness and accident are you missing?

I see you've answered your own question:

Dennet explains predictable analogies:

"The process of natural selection feeds on randomness, it feeds on accident and contingency, and it gradually improves the fit between whatever organisms
there are and the environment in which they're being selected. But there's no predictability about what particular accidents are going to be exploited in this process." (Daniel Dennett, Tufts University)

Dennett is pointing out that we can't know exactly what mutations will be used to make an organism more fit, but we can often predict what the phenotype will be. Hence, sharks and dolphins and icthyosaurs all look alike, but their structures are derived quite differently, because they have very different ancestors.

On the other hand, bats, horses, and moles all have very different appearances, but they are made of all the same parts, each adapted to a very different way of life. These are homologies, and they are so, because they all have a relatively recent common ancestor.

And as you see, the results are not random at all, even if the events on the way happen by chance. Surprise.

Do you think Archaeopteryx is a bird?
Archaeopteryx "was, in a modern sense, a bird" (Feducia).

Al Feduccia thinks birds and dinosaurs evolved from a common thecodont ancestor. You sure you want to tout him as a reliable source? BTW, he could just possibly be right.

But as you see, if he's right, it's hard to explain why Archie is more dinosaur than bird.

 

[zeke]

Dennett is pointing out that we can't know exactly what mutations will be used to make an organism more fit, but we can often predict what the phenotype will be.

Dennett is pointing out that the process of natural selection feeds on randomness. Remember, he (like Dawkins) will not allow a God in the process. How does that notion differ from your version of Darwinism?

Hence, sharks and dolphins and icthyosaurs all look alike, but their structures are derived quite differently, because they have very different ancestors.

I am not sure how alike sharks and dolphins 'look' but they are the way they are because they share a common designer.

And as you see, the results are not random at all, even if the events on the way happen by chance.

It is not random - God created them the way they are.

But as you see, if he's right, it's hard to explain why Archie is more dinosaur than bird.

But Archaeopteryx is all bird and dinosaurs are all dinosaurs and dogs are all dogs - remember those two word---*species boundaries*.

 

[cupid dave]

"For these reasons the fact that there are genetically differentiated populations does not necessarily validate the concept of race - since racial categorization of individuals is generally based on very broad criteria founded on arbitrary phenotypical characteristics such as skin color, which do not correlate well with geographic ancestry. "

"While acknowledging the correctness of Lewontin's observation that racial groups are genetically homogeneous, geneticist A. W. F. Edwards in the paper "Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy" (2003) argued that the conclusion that racial groups can not be genetically distinguished from each other is incorrect"


There's the context you left out, which does not agree at all with your conclusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Race_and_population_genetic_structure


And no, Edwards did not firmly hold onto the belief that man can be classified into 7 groups.
.

"We" I assume means you and the people who oppose scientific classifications into seven races because of the social implications.

But I and Dwakins are in agreement and believe the publication of the seven racial decisions is a matter of science, not Politically Correct cultural mandates:


Richard Dawkins (2005) agreed withEdwards' view, summarizing the argument against Lewontin as being:
"However small the racial partition of the total variationmay be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with otherracial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore oftaxonomic significance."[27]

(Did you note that statement in the link I provided???)

 

[cupid dave]

Originally Posted by cupid dave
Bacteria in the Two Kingdom System is classified as a Plant.

Reading Genesis literally the account clearly specifies only Plants and Animals.

Hence the Bible writers were using the option of a two Kingdom Classification System:








/////

That's not scientific, however.

You're reliying on a system that hasn't been used in 300 years. .

You ignore that the Bible clearly uses the Two kingdom System, (i.e.; Genesis only mentions plants and animals), which supports what it states as being correct with such a qualification.

But you apparently are unaware of the subjective nature of these various systems none of which can actually claim to be all inclusive.

(Read the legends beow the charts on this graphic which confirms the valid subject use of any one of these cclassification systems.)

(First life was bacteria, which have Cell Walls, the universality of that particular characteristic in ONLY plant cells suggests that further subdivisions of the plant kingdom were just arbitrary personal preferences of some biologists who would collect organisms without nuclear =mambranes altogether)..

 

[cupid dave]

There are two points abut the Genesis record that seem to have been missed.

1 The record is a grossly abbreviated SUMMARY of what happened, and to accuse it of inaccuracy because it omits many many things, is just a little silly.

2 If God had written 'cyanobacteria' in the record, guess how many people would have understood what He was talking about?
.

1) True.
At issue is ONLY whether what Genesis specifically states in true and unopposed directly by facts derived from science.

2) The issue of bacteria (or whatever life first Spontaneously Generated) is null, because the Hebrew word used for "grass" by the King James interpreters actually means, "the first sprouts of life on Earth."

The english apparently and erroneously assumed that would have been grass.


Gen. 1:11 And (Father Nature, Reality), “God,” said, Let the earth bring forth "grass"i.e.; ("deshe," in the Hebrew meaning "the first sprouts of the Earth, and, then)," the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.



Gen. 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, i.e.; ("deshe," in the Hebrew meaning "the first sprouts of the Earth)" and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and (Father Nature, Reality), “God,” saw that it was good.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Dennett is pointing out that we can't know exactly what mutations will be used to make an organism more fit, but we can often predict what the phenotype will be.

Dennett is pointing out that the process of natural selection feeds on randomness.

And yet is a predictable and non-random process. Which, for some reason is a difficult concept for you.

Remember, he (like Dawkins) will not allow a God in the process.

Atheistic physicists do that to physics, too. But Newton didn't allow a God in the equations, either. Remarkable.

How does that notion differ from your version of Darwinism?

I don't use God when calculating a Hardy-Weinberg equillibrium, either. Just like Newton.

Barbarian observes:
Hence, sharks and dolphins and icthyosaurs all look alike, but their structures are derived quite differently, because they have very different ancestors.

I am not sure how alike sharks and dolphins 'look'

There are pictures on the net, if you need to see.

but they are the way they are because they share a common designer.

I know you want us to believe that, but the evidence shows otherwise. Creator, yes, your "space alien" designer, no.

Barbarian observes:
And as you see, the results are not random at all, even if the events on the way happen by chance.

It is not random - God created them the way they are.

You'll admit that much, (sometimes). But you still won't accept the way He did it.

Barbarian observes:
But as you see, if he's right, it's hard to explain why Archie is more dinosaur than bird.

But Archaeopteryx is all bird

Nope. Instead of a beak, it has a dinosaur snout, with dinosaur teeth. It has dinosaur hips, tail, ribs, feet, and the arms are transitional between dinosaurs and birds. It's so obviously so that until they found one with feather impressions, it was classified as a reptile. C'mon. All you have is that it very likely could fly a little.

and dinosaurs are all dinosaurs and dogs are all dogs - remember those two word---*species boundaries*.

Even honest creationists admit the fact of speciation. Both AiG and the ICR admit that. The ICR claims that new species, genera, and families evolved. (they endorse the views of John Woodmorrappe, who confirmed to me in an e-mail conversation that is what he meant when he supposed sudden diversification of species after the "worldwide flood")

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No. Entirely new genomes would be evidence for creationism. As you know, evolution procedes by modifying existing genomes.

I thought you were a catholic, and they believe in creation?

As you know, YE creationism denies what God says about creation.

So where did the genome for the 'first cell' (Har-de-har!), which was the most advanced one conceivable, since it contained within itself the potential for all the life forms on the planet (plus the extinct ones!), come from, if it proceeded from an 'already existing genome'?

Turns out, some forms of RNA are self-catalyzing. So it's not a problem.

Barbarian, regarding favorable mutations:
Yep. We still observe it happening.

Oh yeah?

Yep.

Barbarian observes:
You're wrong about that. Most mutations don't do much of anything. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.

That's a fair statement.

Now assuming its correctness (A very few are useful), what rate of speciation does it generate, and how does that rate of speciation account for the Cambrian explosion?

Good question. First, you have to remember that natural selection does not necessarily cause evolution. If a population is highly fitted to an essentially unchanging environment, it can actually prevent evolution. (scientists call it "stabilizing selection") So we see a sudden increase in taxa when the environment changes, or some kind of breakthrough evolution makes it possible for organisms to take advantage of new ways of life. The sudden increase in the number of taxa during the Cambrian explosion is an extreme example, but there are many others, such as the explosion of mammal species after the K-T event that killed off most large land animals.

Barbarian observes:
I just showed you how it increases information.

So damage to a genome increases information content, does it?

Picture a perfectly round ceramic plate, of uniform thickness, flatness, material, and color. Think of the amount of information necessary to completely describe it.

The picture it dropped on a hard surface, where it shatters. How much information would it take to completely describe it then?

But I think it's rather pointless to call a favorable mutation "damage", don't you think?

Why then did Dawkins choke when asked for an example of it happening?

I don't read much Dawkins, but he appears to me to be the same sort of brittle ideologue we see so often among the creationists.

Libraries are free. Go and learn somethings about information theory and genetics, and biology, and then come back when you have something to offer.

The information used in the construction of computers and the human brain (as well as the many others), indicates categorically that higher degrees of intelligence are required to produce intelligence of any sort.

Show us that. In the sense that it is God making nature serve His purposes, it would be true, but I'm not aware of anyone being able to demonstrate it scientifically. Show us.

And that limited intelligence (or no intelligence at all, as in the case of evolutionary processes) cannot produce anything of higher intelligence than the starting point.

Turns out, God is a lot smarter than you thought.

 

[Adam]

You ignore that the Bible clearly uses the Two kingdom System, (i.e.; Genesis only mentions plants and animals), which supports what it states as being correct with such a qualification.

But you apparently are unaware of the subjective nature of these various systems none of which can actually claim to be all inclusive.

(Read the legends beow the charts on this graphic which confirms the valid subject use of any one of these cclassification systems.)

(First life was bacteria, which have Cell Walls, the universality of that particular characteristic in ONLY plant cells suggests that further subdivisions of the plant kingdom were just arbitrary personal preferences of some biologists who would collect organisms without nuclear =mambranes altogether)..

Dave, I am not going to talk about 1700s classifications with you as if they are relevant or as if anything you have to say has any meaning regarding modern science.

There is nothing we have to talk about.

 

[cupid dave]

Dave, I am not going to talk about 1700s classifications with you as if they are relevant or as if anything you have to say has any meaning regarding modern science.

There is nothing we have to talk about.

I assume had we lived in 1700 you would have accept this classification as the basis for Gen1:11???

You are wise to ignore my posts rather than just stone wall against these things I post.
For readers who lurk outside of our discussion I will respond to your own myopic statements in order to support things like this difference of opinion we hold about Genesis writers utilizing their own subjective preference for the Two Kingdom System.

As the source for the chart explains in the legend, such varied preferences are totally acceptable to the science commmunity.
A lurking reader might be dismayed had Genesis expanded the few verses written such as to specify members of seven classifications subjectively invented by users now.

 

[Adam]

Good luck with that.