Intelligent Design in Biology

Originally posted by humy
Well that is just stupid religious propaganda crap -a load of lies basically.
They show no valid evidence nor give any valid argument to support their absurd claims.
They also don't say anything there that would effectively counter-argue against any of my proofs so I don't know why you bothered posting that for it is clearly irrelevant.

So, back to the top ...[text shortened]... you admit that this is a proof that a mutation can add new information.
[/quote]


Well?

The Galapagos finch story is complicated by the fact that many of what were originally thought to be thirteen species are now interbreeding with each other -- even though Darwinian theory regards inability to interbreed as the distinguishing feature of separate species.

Quammen ignores the Cambrian explosion, in which many of the major groups ("phyla" ) of animals appeared in a geologically short time with no fossil evidence of common ancestry -- a fact that Darwin himself considered a "serious" problem that "may be truly urged as a valid argument against" his theory.

That embryos pass through earlier stages of their evolutionary history and thereby show us their ancestors -- is a restatement of German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel's notorious "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," a false doctrine that knowledgeable experts discarded over a century ago.

The principal evidence Quammen cites is antibiotic resistance. "There's no better or more immediate evidence supporting the Darwinian theory," Quammen writes, "than this process of forced transformation among our inimical germs."

Perhaps so; but then Darwin's theory is in serious trouble. Antibiotic resistance involves only minor changes within existing species. In plants and animals, such changes had been known for centuries before Darwin. Nobody doubts that they can occur, or that they can be produced by selection. But Darwin claimed much more, namely, that the process of selection could produce new species -- indeed, all species after the first.

Yet no one has ever observed the origin of a new species by selection, natural or otherwise. Bacteria should be the easiest organisms in which to observe this, because bacteria can produce thousands of generations in a matter of months, and they can be subjected to powerful mutation-causing agents and intense selection. Nevertheless, in over a century of research no new species of bacteria have emerged. Quammen cites Darwinian biologists who claim to have produced "incipient species," but this merely refers to different strains of the same species that the researchers believe -- on theoretical grounds -- might eventually become new species.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2292

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Galapagos finch story is complicated by the fact that many of what were originally thought to be thirteen species are now interbreeding with each other -- even though [b]Darwinian theory regards inability to interbreed as the distinguishing feature of separate species.

Quammen ignores the Cambrian explosion, in which many of the major groups ("phy unds -- might eventually become new species.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2292[/b]

So now you resort to completely changing the subject and hope we don't notice.
This is clearly an indication you have no counterargument to my proof and you must know you are wrong.

The proof remains completely unchallenged and clearly proves that a mutation CAN add new information and must, logically, surely occasionally do so.

The proof ( out of three ) that you have no answer for:

A mutation often consists of a “point mutation” where only one DNA base is changed.
If such a point mutation M1 occurs that results in a “loss” of information by, for example, preventing a fully functional protein being produced ( which is sometimes one of the effects of a point mutation ) by changing, say, a T base to a G base then that proves that that T base CAN mutate to a G base so what barrier exists that would make it impossible for that G base later on to mutate back to a T base? -answer, none.

Therefore, LOGICALLY, such a possible reverse mutation M2 that reverses a mutation M1 that represents a “loss” of information means that mutation M2 must represent a “gain” of information no matter how you look at it.

Originally posted by humy
So now you resort to completely changing the subject and hope we don't notice.
This is clearly an indication you have no counterargument to my proof and you must know you are wrong.

The proof remains completely unchallenged and clearly proves that a mutation CAN add new information and must, logically, surely occasionally do so.

The proof ( out of three ...[text shortened]... at mutation M2 must represent a “gain” of information no matter how you look at it.
[/quote]

I don't see your logic here. I understand you are trying to prove mutations can introduce new information into an organism that it never had before. You believe the best organism to illustrate this is bacteria. It is an accepted fact by biologists that mutations lose information. It is only conjecture and theory that they may gain new information.

As I understand it, you claim that when a bacteria has lost genetic information by a mutation, and when it has a so-called "reverse mutation", then it has gained new genetic information. My objection is that the net gain is zero and that what is gained equals exactly what was lost. There is nothing new, because the other bacteria in the colony that have not mutated, have this same genetic information, and it is not new to the species at all. And this mutation will have no effect on the bacteria changing to a different kind or species of bacteria. This is what is pointed out in the article that you think I was using to change the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_(biology)

Originally posted by RJHinds
.... It is an accepted fact by biologists that mutations lose information. It is only conjecture and theory that they may gain new information. ....

Bull.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't see your logic here. I understand you are trying to prove mutations can introduce new information into an organism that it never had before. You believe the best organism to illustrate this is bacteria. It is an accepted fact by biologists that mutations lose information. It is only conjecture and theory that they may gain new information.

As you think I was using to change the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_(biology)

It is an accepted fact by biologists that mutations lose information.

What? ALL mutations? If so, that is a lie and you know it. Biologists almost unanimously would say that a mutation can occur that can “add information”.

As I understand it, you claim that when a bacteria has lost genetic information by a mutation, and when it has a so-called "reverse mutation", then IT has gained new genetic information. (my emphasis)

“ IT” being the reverse mutation; yes, for that would be just a matter of logic. -“ IT” NOT being the combination of a mutation followed by a reverse mutation.

My objection is that the NET gain is zero (my emphasis)

irrelevant; the fact still remains that the reverse mutation adds information.
And, and this is the critical point you just seem to not get here;

if a mutation adds information that another earlier mutation just happened to take away then what barrier is there for a mutation occurring that also adds information but one that does NOT add back information that an earlier mutation just happened to take away?

-answer, no barrier of course!
-if you deny this, then explain to us exactly what this barrier is....

you still haven't given any effective argument against this proof so the proof still stands -it is proven that mutations can add new information and you are proven wrong.
And this is not even to mention the fact that you haven't made a case against any of the other proofs that mutations can add new information.

well?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Bull.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/

Look at who is writting this crap. Liars, just like their father the Devil.

Originally posted by humy

It is an accepted fact by biologists that mutations lose information.

What? ALL mutations? If so, that is a lie and you know it. Biologists almost unanimously would say that a mutation can occur that can “add information”.

[quote]
As I understand it, you claim that when a bacteria has lost genetic information by a mutation, and when it h ...[text shortened]... made a case against any of the other proofs that mutations can add new information.

well?

There is nothing new, because the other bacteria in the colony that have not mutated, have this same genetic information, and it is not new to the species at all. And this mutation will have no effect on the bacteria changing to a different kind or species of bacteria because God has put a program code in all organisms that want allow new information of that type to occur. And you are a liar if you say otherwise.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Look at who is writting this crap. Liars, just like their father the Devil.

You stated that "It is an accepted fact by biologists that mutations lose information."

I then presented an article written by a biologist expressing the views of mainstream
biology that flatly contradicts your statement.

Your statement was that biologists think X.

I proved that biologists think Not-X

You are thus wrong.


Whether you agree with what biologists think is irrelevant to the fact that what you said about
what they think is demonstrably wrong.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is nothing new, because the other bacteria in the colony that have not mutated, have this same genetic information, and it is not new to the species at all. And this mutation will have no effect on the bacteria changing to a different kind or species of bacteria because God has put a program code in all organisms that want allow new information of that type to occur. And you are a liar if you say otherwise.

God has put a program code in all organisms that want allow new information of that type to occur. And you are a liar if you say otherwise.

I am “a liar” if I say otherwise? What, I somehow KNOW that a 'god' has arranged this? HOW would I know this even if a 'god' DID arrange this? And how would I know there IS a 'god' to arrange this?

There is nothing new, because the other bacteria in the COLONY that have ...(my emphasis)

what “COLONY”? The proof doesn't mention any “COLONY”
Reminder of the proof:

A mutation often consists of a “point mutation” where only one DNA base is changed.
If such a point mutation M1 occurs that results in a “loss” of information by, for example, preventing a fully functional protein being produced ( which is sometimes one of the effects of a point mutation ) by changing, say, a T base to a G base then that proves that that T base CAN mutate to a G base so what barrier exists that would make it impossible for that G base later on to mutate back to a T base? -answer, none.

Therefore, LOGICALLY, such a possible reverse mutation M2 that reverses a mutation M1 that represents a “loss” of information means that mutation M2 must represent a “gain” of information no matter how you look at it.

...have not mutated, have this same genetic information,

how would you know this? Are you a scientist making the observations? -answer, NO.
So have you now desperately resorted to deny that there exists mutations? If so, then I can give you ample examples and proof of mutations. I have only have to mention various genetic diseases for example.

and it is not new to the species at all.

again, how would you know this? Are you a scientist making the observations? -answer, NO.
Just tell us what barrier is preventing a mutation occurring that has never occurred before in that species....

And this mutation will have no effect on the bacteria changing to a different kind or species of bacteria

now you have desperately resorted to a strawman; WHERE does that proof that a mutation can add information imply or say this has to do with “ the bacteria changing to a different kind or species of bacteria”? The fact that adding genetic information might result in the evolution of a new species has nothing to do with the proof and is an entirely separate issue.

-The proof still stands unchallenged -proof that a mutation can add new information.
Why don't to just admit the obvious now?

Just try and answer this:

If a mutation adds information that another earlier mutation just happened to take away then what barrier is there for a mutation occurring that also adds information but one that does NOT add back information that an earlier mutation just happened to take away?

-no real answer? I thought so.

Originally posted by humy

God has put a program code in all organisms that want allow new information of that type to occur. And you are a liar if you say otherwise.

I am “a liar” if I say otherwise? What, I somehow KNOW that a 'god' has arranged this? HOW would I know this even if a 'god' DID arrange this? And how would I know there IS a 'god' to arrange this?

[qu earlier mutation just happened to take away? [/quote]

-no real answer? I thought so.

just noticed a slight misprint I made there although I think it should be fairly obvious what was meant:

If a mutation adds information that another earlier mutation just happened to take away then what barrier is there for a mutation occurring that also adds information but one that does NOT add back information that an earlier mutation just happened to take away?

should have been:

If a mutation adds information that another earlier mutation just happened to take away then what barrier is there to stop a mutation occurring that also adds information but one that does NOT add back information that an earlier mutation just happened to take away?

Originally posted by googlefudge
You stated that "It is an accepted fact by biologists that mutations lose information."

I then presented an article written by a biologist expressing the views of mainstream
biology that flatly contradicts your statement.

Your statement was that biologists think X.

I proved that biologists think Not-X

You are thus wrong.


Whether you ag ...[text shortened]... nk is irrelevant to the fact that what you said about
what they think is demonstrably wrong.

I have given you links to videos on which there are biologists that say that mutations loose genetic information. You have only given me links to a skeptics website designed to support evolution with heretical ideas and blasphemy against God.

Originally posted by humy
just noticed a slight misprint I made there although I think it should be fairly obvious what was meant:

If a mutation adds information that another earlier mutation just happened to take away then what barrier is there [b]for a mutation occurring that also adds information but one that does NOT add back information that an earlier mutation just ...[text shortened]... that does NOT add back information that an earlier mutation just happened to take away?

[/b]

What information did it add?

Originally posted by RJHinds
What information did it add?

Of which mutation? A reverse mutation would add back whatever 'information' that was said to be “lost” from the first mutation.
If you are now talking about mutations in general, an assertion of an extra G base into a gene might, for example, result in a slightly more complex enzyme with extra functionality such as an improvement in efficiency. What barrier would be stopping such a mutation occurring?

I ask my question again:

If a mutation adds information that another earlier mutation just happened to take away then what barrier is there to stop a mutation occurring that also adds information but one that does NOT add back information that an earlier mutation just happened to take away?


And before you start talking about “colonies” yet again; Neither any of my above questions nor the proof mentions any “colony”
Reminder of the proof:

A mutation often consists of a “point mutation” where only one DNA base is changed.
If such a point mutation M1 occurs that results in a “loss” of information by, for example, preventing a fully functional protein being produced ( which is sometimes one of the effects of a point mutation ) by changing, say, a T base to a G base then that proves that that T base CAN mutate to a G base so what barrier exists that would make it impossible for that G base later on to mutate back to a T base? -answer, none.

Therefore, LOGICALLY, such a possible reverse mutation M2 that reverses a mutation M1 that represents a “loss” of information means that mutation M2 must represent a “gain” of information no matter how you look at it.

Originally posted by humy
Of which mutation? A reverse mutation would add back whatever 'information' that was said to be “lost” from the first mutation.
If you are now talking about mutations in general, an assertion of an extra G base into a gene might, for example, result in a slightly more complex enzyme with extra functionality such as an improvement in efficiency. What barrier wo ...[text shortened]... that mutation M2 must represent a “gain” of information no matter how you look at it. [/quote]

Again, if the reverse mutation adds back the same exact genetic information that was lost in the first place, there is no new genetic information gained. Also, there is no clear understanding of how this reverse mutation takes place and how it is able to get the exact genetic information that was previous lost and not some other genetic information. I think the logical explanation is that it came from a bacteria that had not lost that particular geneic information.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Again, if the reverse mutation adds back the same exact genetic information that was lost in the first place, there is no new genetic information gained. Also, there is no clear understanding of how this reverse mutation takes place and how it is able to get the exact genetic information that was previous lost and not some other genetic information. I thin ...[text shortened]... xplanation is that it came from a bacteria that had not lost that particular geneic information.

You can simplify it all you want but the real situation is so complex there is no simple answer. Bacteria can share genetic material non sexually, sideways evolution if you will, which I know you won't but genes are not the end of the story, just one page. New pages are being added all the time, such as codons and such that control gene expression from outside the gene pool. It is not as simple as you want to think.

For instance, it had been thought the genes we called "junk dna' is not so junkie after all.

In all the levels of life there has been a near infinite amount of different levels of stressors, like temperature, starvation, humidity, floods, earthquakes, volcanism and so forth. So life forms deal with that, at least the ones that survive, and have a slightly different gene set as a result. But subsequent changes can leave that gene set intact and so a million different environmental stresses over the last billion years leads to modern life forms with genetic memory of previous stresses and can have dna mods ready for a thousand different stresses, ready to deal with such stress pre planned, built in from a billion years of hard knocks.