Creationist threatens academic science standards group with words of Jesus

by Gopher 129 Replies latest social current

• 

  rem

  hooberus,

  Claiming that duplication and point mutations do not create new infomation is simply ridiculous. It shows great ignorance about how DNA works. DNA creates proteins. Duplications and point mutations cause DNA segments to manufacture different protiens in addition to the originals that still exist. How can you claim this is not adding information? Here is an example:

  GATA -> GATAGATA -> GATAGGTA

  Was information lost here? Is there no new information?

  Also, the fact that point mutations often times revert back to the original is proof that information is not lost. If it were, then it would be impossible to get back to where you started from. For example:

  GATA -> GTTA -> GATA

  Was any information lost in these two mutations?

  Note that these are not just theoretical notions. This is observed in nature.

  rem
• 

  hooberus

  rem, the creation of new and different DNA sequences is not the same as the creation of new functional genetic information (like the DNA that codes for the photoreceptor). Also the genetic information for photoreceptors could be accidently duplicated, thus having twice as much "eye information DNA", however this is not really the generation of new information in the genome, but only existing information duplicated.

  Keep in mind that even if one can provide examples of true information gaining mutations, this would still be a far cry from extrapolating that all of the massive genetic information that we see in the genome today actually came about by this process. One would not only have to show that true information gaining mutations are possible, but one would also have to show that that they happen frequently enough and are preserved by selection frequently enough to account for the genetic information content of the genome. These issues have caused the neo-darwinean theory of mutation and slection to come under fire even from evolutionists.
• 

  rem

  hooberus,

  Ah, so now we are moving the goal posts. What else do you think DNA does? Its job is to create protiens. What those protiens end up doing is what we see as different functions. Changing and adding to the list of protiens that a DNA sequence manufactures most assuredly does create new functionality in an organism.

  Also the genetic information for photoreceptors could be accidently duplicated, thus having twice as much "eye information DNA", however this is not really the generation of new information in the genome, but only existing information duplicated.

  This is simply ridiculous! Not only is the sequence important, but where the sequence exists on the DNA segment is important. A DNA sequence that codes for a photoreceptor (or part of one) in one part of the sequence could code for something completely different in another area. Hence, information is added.

  It think it is clear for all to see the lack of intellectual honesty in accepting this point.

  As to your second point, there is absolutely no reason to believe that information gaining mutations need be any more common than is observed in nature. There would have to be some extraordinary evidence provided to back this claim.

  rem
• 

  Beans

  rem, you make it so easy to understand, always a pleasure reading your posts on science!

  Beans
• 

  drwtsn32

  beans: You got that right... rem is kickin' some booty.
• 

  hooberus

  rem, I have made some statements on this post in response to your bringinng up the subject of micro-evolution. Here are the satatements:

  "micro-evolution" primarily involves change by the loss of genetic information (or the recombination of existing genetic information) whereas macro-evolution involves the creation of new useful genetic information. Thus, it is difficlut to say that the one is the other extrapolated over time.

  "Also the genetic information for photoreceptors could be accidently duplicated, thus having twice as much "eye information DNA", however this is not really the generation of new information in the genome, but only existing information duplicated."

  You have responded to these statements with comments such as "Simply not true. . . " and "This is simply ridiculous! . . . "

  I believe that my statements are accurate and I hope to show why they are (I hope to do this later on on this thread when I have more time). For now, I think that rather than digressing into more technicalities on the micro-evolution being extrapolated concept, it would be better to continue discussion on the main subject of this thread to which I have some observations.

  There are three basic options for biological structures and creatures:

  1. evolution

  2. creation

  3. some combination of the previous two.

  Evolutionists wish to a priori exclude from classrooms options #2 and #3. They normally do this by saying that these options are not falsifiable or testable.

  However I think that the general theory of evolution itself has become in many ways unfalsifiable. Looking at the basic evidences presented for evolution it becomes apparent that evolution is difficult to falsify by these.

  • For example the fossil record. If proposed transitional forms are found between two types of creatures, it is said to be proof of gradual evolution, if no transitional forms are found (or if the previous proposed candidates are rejected) it is said to be evidence of rapid evolution or of an incomplete fossil record. either way whether fossils are found of not, evolution survives.

  • The same is true for embryology. If embroys are similar between mammals and reptiles it is said to be evidence of common ancestry. if the embryos of mammals and reptiles are later shown to be different it is said to be evidence of decent with modification. either way whether embryos are similar or different evolution survives.

  • The same is true of homology. If animals share a common feature it is said to be evidence of a shared common ancestor. If later it is shown that the shared similarity could not have come about through a common ancestor, it is said to be evidence of convergent evolution, parallel evolution, etc. either way evolution survies.

  • The same is true of mechanisms. if evolutionist come up with a possible mechanism it is said to be evidence of the possibility of evolution. However even if all proposed mechanisms were disproven it is said that the proposed mechanisms are only theories while evolution is a fact. either way evolution survives.

  It seems to me that no matter what the data turns out to be, evolutionists simply reinterpret it within some sort of evolutionary framework. Thus, while sub theories within macro-evolution can be falsified, the general theory of macro-evolution itself is really not very falsifiable.
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,

  This is because you are confusing a very important concept:

  Evolution is an observed fact. Observed facts are not 'falsifiable'.

  The theories that explain how evolution works are falsifiable. But falsifying a particular theory that no longer works and modifying it or creating a new one that fits the observed facts does not falsify the fact of evolution.

  There are hundreds, maybe thousands of theories that are interwoven into the general 'theory' of evolution. The general theory does not stand or fall on any of these sub theories alone. Certain fundamental facts would have to be shown to be completely misinterpreted to falsify the general theory of evolution - such as nested heirarchies and the fossil record (animals would have to be exactly the same today as they were millions of years ago, ergo no evolution).

  The fact that life has evolved over the eons is not in dispute. Some theories that form the tapestry of the general theory of evolution may need to be modified as knowledge increases. Rather than being a cause for concern about the theory of evolution, it is actually a testament to the scientific method.

  How has the creation model changed in the face of new facts? If there is any rationalizing of a theory it is creationism because that 'theory' has not been modified to fit the observed facts since its inception. There is no perfect theory that never has to be modified - even Newtonian Physics, Relativity, and QM have and continue to be improved upon.

  rem
• 

  hooberus

  Hooberus,

  This is because you are confusing a very important concept:

  Evolution is an observed fact. Observed facts are not 'falsifiable'.

  Some forms of evolution are an observed fact, however macro-evolution (fish to humans) was not subject to observation and it does not appear to be very falsifiable (see my above post).

  The theories that explain how evolution works are falsifiable. But falsifying a particular theory that no longer works and modifying it or creating a new one that fits the observed facts does not falsify the fact of evolution.

  This comment seems to agree with my above conclusion: "It seems to me that no matter what the data turns out to be, evolutionists simply reinterpret it within some sort of evolutionary framework. Thus, while sub theories within macro-evolution can be falsified, the general theory of macro-evolution itself is really not very falsifiable."
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,

  The general theory of evolution is falsifiable, but only if one of it's foundations are falsified - not higher level theories such as punctuated equilibria or recapitulation (which are also falsifiable theories themselves). Like I said before, the general theory, which includes what you call "macro-evolution" would be falsified if, for example, there were no change observed in the fossil record, the change in the fossil record was not in order, organisms did not fit into a nested heirarchy, etc.

  To say that because certain higher level theories have had to have been modified that the general theory is not falsifiable is similar to saying that since a Heliocentric solar system theory would work no matter what direction the planets orbited the Sun it can't be falsified*. Obviously such a theory about the direction the planets would orbit is not central to the heliocentric theory, and at this point only contrary direct observation of the planets and the sun revolving around the earth could falsify the theory.

  rem

  *Also remember that the mathematics in predicting the planet movements worked pretty much equally well within each model in Copernicus' day. The heliocentric model was created as a mathematical convenience at first - at least that was the cover story to the church at the time. The heliocentric model was not non-falsifiable just because the equations worked out either way.
• 

  hooberus

  Hooberus,
  

  The general theory of evolution is falsifiable, but only if one of it's foundations are falsified - not higher level theories such as punctuated equilibria or recapitulation (which are also falsifiable theories themselves). Like I said before, the general theory, which includes what you call "macro-evolution" would be falsified if, for example, there were no change observed in the fossil record, the change in the fossil record was not in order, organisms did not fit into a nested heirarchy, etc.

  Since the nested hierarchy was a known fact before the modern theory of evolution, (indeed evolution is said to have been deduced from it), the nested hierarchy cannot be a true falsification test for evolution. Evolution is said to explain the cause of the pre-existing heirarchy. Just as creation by typology (which was also deduced from the heirarchy) was said to explain the cause of the pre-existing heirarchy.

  Evolutionists say that the general order of the fossil record (by general order I an referring to the basic geologic systems, ) was a known fact before the modern theory of evolution, so the general order (relationship of basic geologic systems) of the fossil record cannot be a true falsification test for evolution. Evolution can be said to explain it, though it was also explained by some as a result of progressive creationism. The general theory of evolution can still survive with only the relative order of the basic geologic systems (which evolutioninsts say was a known fact before the theory). They would still have fish coming before amphibians, reptiles before mammals, etc. A total lack of proposed candidates between these basic systems would not sink the general theory of evolution as an incomplete fossil record or a rapid form of evolution could be used to explain the gaps. macro-evolution would still be said to be a fact.

  To say that because certain higher level theories have had to have been modified that the general theory is not falsifiable is similar to saying that since a Heliocentric solar system theory would work no matter what direction the planets orbited the Sun it can't be falsified*. Obviously such a theory about the direction the planets would orbit is not central to the heliocentric theory, and at this point only contrary direct observation of the planets and the sun revolving around the earth could falsify the theory.

  I never wished to imply "that because certain higher level theories have had to have been modified that the general theory is not falsifiable"

  My point is that the general theory of evolution is not falsifiable because no matter what happens to higher lever theories, the general theory will survive.