SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION

[Lewis]

Morning gentlemen. I will respond to your posts but I'm pushed for time over the next day or two. I wouldn't want you to think I was running away.

You need to appreciate that it's hard for me to keep up with you. It only takes a moment for you to cut and paste an article from another site and it takes me some time to respond to it.

Lewis, I may get to read your peppered moth article but I must say this would be a more productive discussion if you could comment on some of my responses rather than just cut and pasting another article. If nothing else it would confirm that you actually do understand the material we're discussing.

Bronzesnake, you've done a little more work on your post, but it is essentially a copy and paste job from Foolish Faith by Judah Ettinger.

http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_mutations.asp
Brother Bob, I will cut and paste, when someone else can explain and has a better expertise than I do on a subject, now sometimes I don't need it, but when I do, I will use the cut and paste, in a instant. Now lets start with this, what is wrong with the my last post the update on the Moth, and we will go from there.
Now it may be that you are Judah Ettinger, but if you aren't then this violates point 9 of the Terms of Service. At least Lewis tends to acknowledge his sources.

As I said, I'll respond when I have time.

 

[logical bob]

Bronzesnake - Ok, the main question seems to be this: if mutations involve the loss of genetic material then how can natural processes make the genome longer?

You may be aware that only about 3% of the human genome actually does anything. If you could somehow have the other 97% removed you probably wouldn't notice any difference. The 97% is effectively spam, genetic material that doesn't code for a protein. Where did it come from?

Some of it comes in chunks that look very similar to virus DNA. It seems to have been implanted in the past by micro-organisms in the way you described in your post, and once it's in it gets copied to all the descendents of the original host. That's one way the genome gets longer.

Lots of the 97% spam consists of multiple copies of certain chunks of genetic material. The most common is called LINE-1. Humans can have hundreds of thousands of copies of LINE-1 in multiple places throughout their genome and it makes up over 14% of the total. DNA is a recipe for proteins, but it is also itself a complex protein. DNA is self-replicating - it contains the instructions for making new copies of itself. LINE-1 is also like this. It codes for it's own repetition, hijacking the DNA to make copies of itself. There's so much of it because it's very good at getting itself copied.

LINE-1 is the one that takes up the largest proportion of the genome but there are many others that copy themselves multiple times. The number of repeats is different in every individual, and that's what gives us our unique genetic fingerprint. They’re like computer viruses – pieces of code that are good at getting copies of themselves made.

Where did the first spam DNA come from? One common type, which makes up about 10% of the genome, looks very like a proper gene that we actually use. There’s just a small chunk missing. It seems that it originated from that gene by mutation and then started getting multiply copied. Perhaps the others also mutated from older genes or retroviruses.

This spam DNA provides powerful evidence for common descent. Some of the types are included in just about all living things (you share 50% of your DNA with a banana after all). Most are also found in monkeys. A subset of those are found only in primates, one only in humans and chimpanzees one just in humans. They can be used to build family trees showing where the different species branched off from each other.

In these ways, genomes do get much longer over time. The kind of mutation you mentioned, involving skipping out some material, acts on this mass of spam. As there are only 4 “letters†in the genetic code these mutations can sometimes give rise to new genes that code for a protein and actually have an effect on the finished organism. It is these changes that are subject to natural selection.

 

[logical bob]

Now lets start with this, what is wrong with the my last post the update on the Moth, and we will go from there.

Actually there's not much wrong with it, although it doesn't really say a great deal. It's a lot better than most of your articles in that I only spotted one blatant falsehood on a first read-through - Stephen Jay Gould wasn't a Marxist (although his father was, he expressly said his own politics were very different).

But what does it actually say? Everyone agrees that the moth population changed as a result of natural selection. Creationists don't accept that this is evidence of macroevolution. OK, fine. If the peppered moth was all the evidence there was then this might be an issue. But the moth was only ever a simple and easy to check example used to explain how natural selection works. That's what makes it good for text books. Darwin found his evidence in his observations of animals and their environments in the Galapagos. Today, the evidence is in physiology and paleontology and above all in genetics.

There is so much evidence that getting hung up on whether or not the moth counts as one more piece is a pointless distraction. It's evidence that populations change due to natural selection. Beyond that you can make of it what you will.

I brought up the moth in this thread because one of your articles said that nobody has observed evolution. As you're now conceding that we do observe genetic changes due to natural selection I'm happy and I see no point getting bogged down in the semantics of whether that constitutes evolution or not.

Your article ends on the same point as Bronzesnake's - that information allegedly can't be added to the genome. I've addressed that in my previous post.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hi Bob

Bronzesnake - Ok, the main question seems to be this: if mutations involve the loss of genetic material then how can natural processes make the genome longer?

Actually no, that is not the question.
The question was how can we get from the so called simple single cell to human beings without the addition of “new†DNA?

New DNA has never been observed Bob, only reshuffling, copying or outright loss has ever been found.
Here’s the problem by way of a challenge which will illustrate the issue.

From the following sentence...
“Bob is wise†shuffle any of those letters – copy any of those letters, or subtract any of those letters in order to come out with the following sentence...
“Once there was a way to get back homeward, once there was a way to get back home, sleep pretty darling do not cry and I will sing a lullabyâ€
You may not add any new letters.

Take care
Bronzesnake

 

[Bronzesnake]

But what does it actually say? Everyone agrees that the moth population changed as a result of natural selection. Creationists don't accept that this is evidence of macroevolution.

Because it is not an example of macro evolution.

OK, fine. If the peppered moth was all the evidence there was then this might be an issue. But the moth was only ever a simple and easy to check example used to explain how natural selection works.

That’s not true Bob.
With all respect the peppered moth is used as an example of Darwinian evolution - as an inference to macro evolution just as every other example of micro evolution is.
Remember the Darwin Finches?
These finches were, and are still used as an inferred example of macro evolution.

These micro examples are exclusively used as inferred examples of macro evolution because there are no real examples of macro evolution to be found.
Which is very curious because if Darwinian evolution were factual then the great majority of fossils and living species should be in transition, but as Steven J Gould, Eldridge and others have lamented, the evidence is just not here?

Darwin found his evidence in his observations of animals and their environments in the Galapagos.

Sorry Bob, but again, with all due respect Darwin did not. Darwin was in fact perplexed at the lack of macro evolutionary fossils in his day, and stated so by adding the reason there was no evidence was because evolutionary archaeology was in it’s infancy, and in due course the evidence would be found, otherwise he stated, his theory would be dead.
Well it’s about a century and a half later and there are no more examples of macro evolution today than there was in Darwin’s time.

Today, the evidence is in physiology and palaeontology and above all in genetics

Could you point out a single empirical example which shows macro evolution please?

Actually there are many scientists who have changed their minds about Darwinian evolution today. This is due to the discovery of just how mind boggling complicated DNA has been found to be. Geneticists are shocked at the utter complexity of DNA, and even though these same scientists may not be rushing to the nearest church (some are), they are not gullible enough to believe in Darwin’s theory as fact either.
There is a lot of rethinking going on in the scientific community these days.

There is so much evidence that getting hung up on whether or not the moth counts as one more piece is a pointless distraction. It's evidence that populations change due to natural selection.

Bob, no one is arguing against micro evolution. We agree on this fact. Micro evolution fits in perfectly with creation. The problem is when evolutionists try to fool an uneducated population into believing in Darwinian evolution by presenting examples such as Darwin’s finches and the peppered moth as examples of macro evolution.

The good news is that more and more Christians and secular peoples are becoming educated and realising they have been fooled and misinformed by a religious scientific sect that’s hell bent on killing God.

Take care my friend

John bronzesnake

 

[John]

But what does it actually say? Everyone agrees that the moth population changed as a result of natural selection

No. I think most people recognize the peppered moth story as a fraud.

 

[Bronzesnake]

But what does it actually say? Everyone agrees that the moth population changed as a result of natural selection

No. I think most people recognize the peppered moth story as a fraud.

Well actually you're correct because the moth population did not in fact change at all.
Both varities of the peppered moth were alive at the same time, and both varities are still alive today, so there was no change at all, just a reduction of one of the varities.

Bronzesnake

 

[logical bob]

Hi Bob

Hello John.

The question was how can we get from the so called simple single cell to human beings without the addition of “new†DNA?

New DNA has never been observed Bob, only reshuffling, copying or outright loss has ever been found.
Here’s the problem by way of a challenge which will illustrate the issue.

From the following sentence...
“Bob is wise†shuffle any of those letters – copy any of those letters, or subtract any of those letters in order to come out with the following sentence...
“Once there was a way to get back homeward, once there was a way to get back home, sleep pretty darling do not cry and I will sing a lullabyâ€
You may not add any new letters.

I think you may be confused regarding this "new" DNA. There are only 4 DNA letters: C, G, A and T. All four are present in the simplest organisms and only those four are used in the human genome. No new letters exist.

...but as Steven J Gould, Eldridge and others have lamented, the evidence is just not here

I wish you guys would stop claiming Gould as support. He dedicated much time to opposing creationism and ID. His theory of punctuated equilibrium wasn't shared by many other scientists so he had disagreements about details, but that debate took place in the context of both sides accepting the reality of evolution.

Darwin was in fact perplexed at the lack of macro evolutionary fossils in his day

Yes, that's true. I said he found his evidence in observing (non-fossilised) animals in their environment.

Could you point out a single empirical example which shows macro evolution please?

As I discussed two posts ago, the best evidence is the presence of the same junk DNA markers in multiple species, distributed in a way that corresponds to an evolutionary family tree. For instance, there are some markers present in all monkeys, and some present in Old World but not New World monkeys. Humans have all the Old World examples and none of the New World ones. There's evidence like this for every species whose genome has been studied.

Actually there are many scientists who have changed their minds about Darwinian evolution today.

Could you name some of them please?

...the moth population did not in fact change at all. Both varities of the peppered moth were alive at the same time, and both varities are still alive today, so there was no change at all, just a reduction of one of the varities.

A change in the proportion of the two varieties is a change in the population. What would you expect population change to look like?

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello Bob.
Bronzesnake wrote; The question was how can we get from the so called simple single cell to human beings without the addition of “new†DNA?

New DNA has never been observed Bob, only reshuffling, copying or outright loss has ever been found.
Here’s the problem by way of a challenge which will illustrate the issue.

From the following sentence...
“Bob is wise†shuffle any of those letters – copy any of those letters, or subtract any of those letters in order to come out with the following sentence...
“Once there was a way to get back homeward, once there was a way to get back home, sleep pretty darling do not cry and I will sing a lullabyâ€
You may not add any new letters.

I think you may be confused regarding this "new" DNA. There are only 4 DNA letters: C, G, A and T. All four are present in the simplest organisms and only those four are used in the human genome. No new letters exist.

You’re being coy Bob... :yes
I’m pretty sure you know what I mean.

The examples already posted here – the wingless beetle and the peppered moth, have shown that beneficial mutations do occur, but the mutation is a result of a reshuffling , duplication or complete loss of existing genes. There has never been an example where a mutation has improved the genetic code by adding new information, new genes or new instructions for building a new physical trait.

To quote from the book “Foolish Faith†by Judah Etinger...
Scientist, Dr. Ian Macreadie, winner of several scientific awards for outstanding contributions to molecular biological research, affirms that “all you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information). . . . But you never see any new information arising in a cell . . . we just don’t observe it happening. It’s hard to see how any serious scientist could believe that real information can arise just by itself, from nothing.â€

"But because examples such as the wingless beetles and the peppered moths show physical changes in living creatures, they are still repeatedly used by evolutionists to promote the idea that primitive bacteria have changed so much in the distant past that today they have become people. Yet such examples simply do not support evolution — all observed examples of change are either genetically neutral or genetically downhill, being losses of information instead of the required gains. Losing bits of genetic information a little at a time surely does not help explain how the genetic code was built in the first place; one can’t build a business by losing a little bit of money at a time."

Bronzesnake wrote;...but as Steven J Gould, Eldridge and others have lamented, the evidence is just not here

I wish you guys would stop claiming Gould as support. He dedicated much time to opposing creationism and ID. His theory of punctuated equilibrium wasn't shared by many other scientists so he had disagreements about details, but that debate took place in the context of both sides accepting the reality of evolution.

I never said he was a creation supporter, that’s what makes his observations all the more devastating Bob.
Gould and others such as Eldridge were honest enough and had the courage to state the ugly truth in regards to the complete lack of any graduated transitional fossils.
He came up with an outrageous substitute as we know, P.E. which he basically explained by saying Darwinian evolution happened so slowly that we could not observe it so he propagated his new theory P.E. which says that evolution happens so fast that we can’t observe it!
This is not science my friend.

Bronzesnake wroteDarwin was in fact perplexed at the lack of macro evolutionary fossils in his day

Yes, that's true. I said he found his evidence in observing (non-fossilised) animals in their environment.

What? Exactly what “evidence†are you referring to please Bob? I hope it’s not the aquatic iguanas, Darwin’s “imps of darkness†because this is yet another example of micro evolution being used to infer macro evolution.

Bronzesnake wrote; Could you point out a single empirical example which shows macro evolution please?

As I discussed two posts ago, the best evidence is the presence of the same junk DNA markers in multiple species, distributed in a way that corresponds to an evolutionary family tree. For instance, there are some markers present in all monkeys, and some present in Old World but not New World monkeys. Humans have all the Old World examples and none of the New World ones. There's evidence like this for every species whose genome has been studied.

OK first of all this so called "evolutionary tree" is hypothetical and theorised by evolutionists, and yet we see it being used as though it is empirical fact.
This is not evidence for macro evolution Bob. It’s evidence for a creator.
You know as well as I do that if Darwinian evolution were fact, the huge and vastly overwhelming body of fossils would have to be transitions and yet there are none.
If Darwinian evolution is real then show me the transitions Bob.
Don’t try and cloud the water with inferred “proof†by using so called “junk†DNA as though it were some kind of empirical evidence for macro evolution.
It’s called “junk†DNA not because it’s actually useless junk, but because scientists don’t know what it does yet. We only use about 10% of our brain capacity is the other 90% junk? If so why not go and get it removed?

Bronzesnake wrote; Actually there are many scientists who have changed their minds about Darwinian evolution today.

Could you name some of them please?

Why? Do you want to look them up on your next vacation? ;)
Dr. Ariel A Roth – B.A. degree in biology from Pacific Union Collage, a master’s degree in biology and a Ph.D. in zoology. He has additional training in geology, mathematics and radiation biology as well.
He’s a former director of the Geoscience Research Institute In Loma Linda California.
He has held numerous university positions including professor of biology and chairman Loma Lima University where he directed a university team for under water research on coral which was sponsored by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He has authored over 150 articles on origins issues and for 23 years edited the journal Origins (GRI)

OK, I could go on but I think it’s fairly arrogant for evolutionists to presume that somehow all creationists’ scientists are just a bunch of backwoods idiots who have no “real†scientific training.
I would never ask you for your sources Bob, please give us (creationists) a little respect my friend.
There are thousands of highly educated creation scientists Bob, as difficult as that may be for you to believe, and some of them started out in the other camp. They are trained at the very same universities as the evolution scientists Bob and are extremely intelligent and stable in spite of the fact you don’t agree with their conclusions.
They research the exact same samples as do your folks. The only difference is they start out with different preconceptions than do evolutionists and they interpret the evidence based on that the same as your people base their conclusions around their own preconceptions and assumptions.

Bronzesnake wrote;...the moth population did not in fact change at all. Both varieties of the peppered moth were alive at the same time, and both varieties are still alive today, so there was no change at all, just a reduction of one of the varieties.

A change in the proportion of the two varieties is a change in the population. What would you expect population change to look like?

I guess you are forced to take what you can at this point.
No new traits were developed and there certainly was no speciation.

Thank you for being respectful Bob, all except the wee glitch in asking for the scientist’s name, you have been a pleasure to debate with.

John Bronzesnake

 

[happyjoy]

Why doesn't the observable and obvious micro evolution infer macro evolution? Also, why even break evolution into two theories at all? Its the same scientific theory.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Why doesn't the observable and obvious micro evolution infer macro evolution? Also, why even break evolution into two theories at all? Its the same scientific theory.

Because no one disputes that life forms adapt to conform to their surroundings.

There is a huge difference between Darwinian evolution, which is “macro†evolution and adaptation within a species which although it has been tagged with the "evolution" label "micro evolution" it actually is not evolution at all.

Please refer to this example for an illustration by creationist scientists of how genetic information is lost, rather than gained, as creatures adapt to their environment.

Hope this helps.

John Bronzesnake

 

[happyjoy]

Information is not always lost.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... ation.html

...Biologists are uncovering thousands of examples of how mutations lead to new traits and even new species. This claim not only flies in the face of the evidence, it is also a logical impossibility

Most people lose the ability to digest milk by their teens. A few thousand years ago, however, after the domestication of cattle, several groups of people in Europe and Africa independently acquired mutations that allow them to continue digesting milk into adulthood. Genetic studies show there has been very strong selection for these mutations, so they were clearly very beneficial....

 

[Bronzesnake]

Information is not always lost.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... ation.html

...Biologists are uncovering thousands of examples of how mutations lead to new traits and even new species. This claim not only flies in the face of the evidence, it is also a logical impossibility

Most people lose the ability to digest milk by their teens. A few thousand years ago, however, after the domestication of cattle, several groups of people in Europe and Africa independently acquired mutations that allow them to continue digesting milk into adulthood. Genetic studies show there has been very strong selection for these mutations, so they were clearly very beneficial....

Ummm...I never said that mutations can only destroy information. Please read my posts carefully.

Here’s a direct quote from a genetic scientist...
Scientist, Dr. Ian Macreadie, winner of several scientific awards for outstanding contributions to molecular biological research, affirms that “all you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information). . . . But you never see any new information arising in a cell . . . we just don’t observe it happening. It’s hard to see how any serious scientist could believe that real information can arise just by itself, from nothing.â€

I agree that mutations can lead to new traits, and can in rare instances be beneficial, in the case of the wingless beetles for example, there was a complete LOSS of genetic information which caused the beetle to lose its wings which is the exact opposite of what Darwinian evolution needs, however this is one of those rare cases where a destructive mutation was beneficial in that the beetles were able to survive longer because they weren’t being caught in flight by the wind and blown out to sea. The beetle did not become a new species it was still a beetle. It's a fact that speciation has never been observed in the fossils. So once again, no one is debating micro evolution, it happens all the time.

With respect, you don't seem to have a full understanding of the difference between micro and macro evolution my friend.
The examples you gave are clearly micro evolution. Mutations that allow people to digest milk are very different from mutations that would say,change a human into a goat.

Take care

John Bronzesnake

 

[happyjoy]

Ummm...I never said that mutations can only destroy information. Please read my posts carefully.

Here’s a direct quote from a genetic scientist...
Scientist, Dr. Ian Macreadie, winner of several scientific awards for outstanding contributions to molecular biological research, affirms that “all you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information). . . . But you never see any new information arising in a cell . . . we just don’t observe it happening. It’s hard to see how any serious scientist could believe that real information can arise just by itself, from nothing.â€

I agree that mutations can lead to new traits, and can in rare instances be beneficial, in the case of the wingless beetles for example, there was a complete LOSS of genetic information which caused the beetle to lose its wings which is the exact opposite of what Darwinian evolution needs, however this is one of those rare cases where a destructive mutation was beneficial in that the beetles were able to survive longer because they weren’t being caught in flight by the wind and blown out to sea. The beetle did not become a new species it was still a beetle. It's a fact that speciation has never been observed in the fossils. So once again, no one is debating micro evolution, it happens all the time.

With respect, you don't seem to have a full understanding of the difference between micro and macro evolution my friend.
The examples you gave are clearly micro evolution. Mutations that allow people to digest milk are very different from mutations that would say,change a human into a goat.

Take care

John Bronzesnake

Ok you said information is not always destroyed, are you saying information can not be added?

It is my understanding that the changes that occur in micro evolution add up, and after hundreds of thousands or millions of years, and that the animals or plants are indeed different species from their Great times 1000 grandparents.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello my friend.

It is my understanding that the changes that occur in micro evolution add up, and after hundreds of thousands or millions of years, and that the animals or plants are indeed different species from their Great times 1000 grandparents.

Well that is the "theory" of Darwinian evolution. The reality is quite different.
All that is ever found are fully formed life forms and never any transitional, or in between life forms.
We have examples of so called transitional fossils from so called "millions and millions" of years ago that were used in biology text books, which very inconveniently showed up alive and kicking in our lifetimes, and they have not changed one tid bit.
Apparently they forgot to evolve over the assumed millions of years.

The truth of the matter is that God told us exactly how life was created in Genesis and what we find in the fossil record and the living forms we have today fit in perfectly with that description.
Darwinian evolution is dead.
Some of evolutions brightest stars have admitted as much.
The best example of this happening is Steven J. Gould and his colleague Niles Eldrige.
Both these scientists were at the top of the pile as evolutionists scientists go, they were the Lennon and McCartney of evolutionary science, and yet they were honest and brave enough to admit there are zero transitional fossils to be found on the entire face of the planet!
Evolution apologists absolutely hate it when these men are quoted and with good reason. It exposes the "theory" as being dead. Now evolutionists have got to suck it up and admit the factual truth, but many of them simply cannot bring themselves to admit the party is over.

These men most certainly did not support creation, but at the same time they did not and would not support Darwinian evolution either.
Gould was so desperate to find some other explanation rather than admit there was even a possibility of a creator who he might be accountable to that he came up with a completely non scientific theory of his own. It's called punctuated equilibrium. P.E. states that changes from one species to another completely new species happen so fast that they cannot be observed!! What!!>?? That is not science my friends that's ludicrous!

John Bronzesnake

 

[happyjoy]

Hello my friend.

It is my understanding that the changes that occur in micro evolution add up, and after hundreds of thousands or millions of years, and that the animals or plants are indeed different species from their Great times 1000 grandparents.

Well that is the "theory" of Darwinian evolution. The reality is quite different.
All that is ever found are fully formed life forms and never any transitional, or in between life forms.
We have examples of so called transitional fossils from so called "millions and millions" of years ago that were used in biology text books, which very inconveniently showed up alive and kicking in our lifetimes, and they have not changed one tid bit.
Apparently they forgot to evolve over the assumed millions of years.

The truth of the matter is that God told us exactly how life was created in Genesis and what we find in the fossil record and the living forms we have today fit in perfectly with that description.
Darwinian evolution is dead.
Some of evolutions brightest stars have admitted as much.
The best example of this happening is Steven J. Gould and his colleague Niles Eldrige.
Both these scientists were at the top of the pile as evolutionists scientists go, they were the Lennon and McCartney of evolutionary science, and yet they were honest and brave enough to admit there are zero transitional fossils to be found on the entire face of the planet!
Evolution apologists absolutely hate it when these men are quoted and with good reason. It exposes the "theory" as being dead. Now evolutionists have got to suck it up and admit the factual truth, but many of them simply cannot bring themselves to admit the party is over.

These men most certainly did not support creation, but at the same time they did not and would not support Darwinian evolution either.
Gould was so desperate to find some other explanation rather than admit there was even a possibility of a creator who he might be accountable to that he came up with a completely non scientific theory of his own. It's called punctuated equilibrium. P.E. states that changes from one species to another completely new species happen so fast that they cannot be observed!! What!!>?? That is not science my friends that's ludicrous!

John Bronzesnake

So are you saying formation can't be added?

Also, why wouldn't the small changes that we know take place add up over time to be big changes?

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello again my friend...

So are you saying formation can't be added?

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Also, why wouldn't the small changes that we know take place add up over time to be big changes?

Well the same reason dust doesn't turn into gold i suppose. It just doesn't happen.
The reality is that God created us exactly as we are. The whole concept of the "theory" of evolution began to try and prove there was no God. Seeing as there most definitely is a God, we were created...evolution never happened. That’s the reality of it my friend.
hey, this is good news right? Because it means we will not have to die and then nothing right? That's what evolution gets you - death eternal. Creation gets you Jesus Christ, and salvation, eternal life in a Heavenly wonderland that's so glorious and beautiful there are no words in any language to describe it!
Cheer for joy my friend Jesus told us the truth, we're loved by God Himself and life is eternal!! Yeee haaa!!!!!

Why people long for evolution so bad is beyond me...evolution leads to a dead end literally. Life has no real purpose except to get as much as you can as soon as you can and to heck with everyone else. No consequences for any murderous deed as long as you get away with it, no reason to love except for selfish reasons, no real purpose nothing but a short life and then utter darkness in eternal death...sounds pretty good huh? yes, let's argue as hard as we can to prove evolution and it's deathly rewards! :gah

John Bronzesnake

 

[happyjoy]

Hello again my friend...

So are you saying formation can't be added?

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

John Bronzesnake

typo I mean information. Do you mean information can't be added?


Tetraploid orchids carry double the number of chromosomes found in the parent population. They also tend to be larger and have more robust structures. Because the physical appearance of the tetraploid orchid has changed from what the parent looked like, we know that the information which specified its phenotype also has changed. Now, we only need to figure out whether that change corresponds to an increase or a decrease in information. Because the change is accomplished by copies of information, the information can be seen to have increased rather than to have decreased. Consider an analogy to a workout program. Joe gets told to follow the instructions on a page listing various exercises, and to check off each one as he does it. On one day, Joe find five items on his page and does them. The next day, Joe finds that the page has ten items, where the first five are repeated twice, and he does those in the order given. The information content of Joe's exercise program doubled, even though the instructions included repeats. In the same way, the tetraploid orchid suddenly has two loci and four alleles which affect each trait where its parents only had one locus and two alleles. (Each trait could thus be "polygenic".) The tetraploid orchid's internal processes now perform more work in translating and instantiating the instructions of the genome. It makes a difference in the way the tetraploid orchid looks, though perhaps not in exactly the same way that Joe's longer workout makes Joe look different.
http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre ... ation.html

 

[happyjoy]

I think we should be specific here; macro evolution has never been observed.

John Bronzesnake

Speciation events have been observed in nature. One simple one is the evolution of the London Underground mosquito and the common mosquito. It has been shown both that they have difference overall genetic composition along with reproductive isolation This is an entirely artificial environment, there is not way the mosquito could have been there to start with and it has changed to the point where even if a male and a female mate, they don't have offspring. But, the underground mosquitoes do mate successfully with other mosquitoes in the underground and common mosquitoes do mate successfully with those above ground. Even if the populations become mixed at this point, they are separate and distinct.

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v82/n ... 4120a.html

 

[Lewis]

Hello again my friend...

So are you saying formation can't be added?

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

[quote:1iiypjd7]Also, why wouldn't the small changes that we know take place add up over time to be big changes?

Well the same reason dust doesn't turn into gold i suppose. It just doesn't happen.
The reality is that God created us exactly as we are. The whole concept of the "theory" of evolution began to try and prove there was no God. Seeing as there most definitely is a God, we were created...evolution never happened. That’s the reality of it my friend.
hey, this is good news right? Because it means we will not have to die and then nothing right? That's what evolution gets you - death eternal. Creation gets you Jesus Christ, and salvation, eternal life in a Heavenly wonderland that's so glorious and beautiful there are no words in any language to describe it!
Cheer for joy my friend Jesus told us the truth, we're loved by God Himself and life is eternal!! Yeee haaa!!!!!

Why people long for evolution so bad is beyond me...evolution leads to a dead end literally. Life has no real purpose except to get as much as you can as soon as you can and to heck with everyone else. No consequences for any murderous deed as long as you get away with it, no reason to love except for selfish reasons, no real purpose nothing but a short life and then utter darkness in eternal death...sounds pretty good huh? yes, let's argue as hard as we can to prove evolution and it's deathly rewards! :gah

John Bronzesnake[/quote:1iiypjd7]
Great post, a fantastic post. :P :yes :amen