29 Aug 11
Originally posted by divegeesterA mutation is a change. The result of that change, is genetic information that it wasn't before, ie new genetic information. It is true by definition.
A mutation is a change; the "definition" does not demand an addition. However, as it is so nonsensical to you perhaps you can find an example where genetic mutation has added information to the genome?
The only way you can wriggle out of it is by having rather restrictive definitions for 'information' or 'addition'. Maybe you should restate your claim with those words clarified.
But even with very restrictive definitions, (eg where the total number of genes after the mutation must be greater than the number before the mutation) you will probably find your claim is still false (addition of genes due to mutations is common place and well documented).
29 Aug 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe maybe you can answer the question Mr. Dawkins did not answer.
A mutation is a change. The result of that change, is genetic information that it wasn't before, ie new genetic information. It is true by definition.
The only way you can wriggle out of it is by having rather restrictive definitions for 'information' or 'addition'. Maybe you should restate your claim with those words clarified.
But even with very res ...[text shortened]... im is still false (addition of genes due to mutations is common place and well documented).
Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary
process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
29 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsWill you please for the love of god read this link.
The maybe you can answer the question Mr. Dawkins did not answer.
Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary
process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?
http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/
This is an answer to the very question you are asking written at length by a
leading evolutionary expert.
29 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThere are plenty of examples, but one that you are probably familiar with is Downs Syndrome that results in a whole new Chromosome.
Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary
process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo you are saying that a Downs Syndrome person has 47 Chromosomes
There are plenty of examples, but one that you are probably familiar with is Downs Syndrome that results in a whole new Chromosome.
instead of the normal 46. Is that right?
If so, that extra chromosome doesn't seem to have helped. In fact,
it seems to be a hinderance since the Downs Syndrome person has
an IQ of about 50 or 60. I would like to see evidence where the
mutation or evolutionary process was helpful. Then I might have
cause to reconsider the theory of evolution.
29 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsBacteria which evolved the ability to digest nylon.
So you are saying that a Downs Syndrome person has 47 Chromosomes
instead of the normal 46. Is that right?
If so, that extra chromosome doesn't seem to have helped. In fact,
it seems to be a hinderance since the Downs Syndrome person has
an IQ of about 50 or 60. I would like to see evidence where the
mutation or evolutionary process was helpful. Then I might have
cause to reconsider the theory of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
29 Aug 11
[i]Originally pos cience at the beginning of the article, but it becomesAnd yet, since the introduction of the equation 50 years ago, we've started finding all those exoplanets out there...
disappointing at the end to find that it is only science fiction.[/b]
'Data from the Kepler mission has been used to estimate that there are at least 50 billion planets in our own galaxy.[3]'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planet
And three of those factors in the Drake equation aren't needed to address the OP.
29 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsYes, I believe so.
So you are saying that a Downs Syndrome person has 47 Chromosomes
instead of the normal 46. Is that right?
If so, that extra chromosome doesn't seem to have helped.
Correct again. But the question I was answering said nothing about whether the extra information helps or not. You just asked for an example of a mutation that results in extra information so I grabbed the first that came to mind that was well documented and indisputably results in a greater amount of information.
I would like to see evidence where the mutation or evolutionary process was helpful. Then I might have
cause to reconsider the theory of evolution.
Now we both know that isn't true. You wont reconsider the theory of evolution regardless of how much you learn about it or whether or not it make sense to you. You have religious reasons for disputing it not logical ones.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116952
29 Aug 11
Originally posted by menace71Or maybe bigger brains to figure out how to cope with all the pollution that scientific advancement in energy has created. Or maybe better band-aids to cope with all the wounds all the new weapons (created by scientists) have inflicted on us. Science sucks.
Ok so let's say evolution is true is man still evolving ? So like in another 100-million years we will have snouts to filter out the polluted atmosphere we made? Eyes that are evolved into UV filters like perfect sunglasses? LOL
Manny
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116952
29 Aug 11
Originally posted by divegeesterHey shut it Bible believing religious freak - you suck.
Or maybe bigger brains to figure out how to cope with all the pollution that scientific advancement in energy has created. Or maybe better band-aids to cope with all the wounds all the new weapons (created by scientists) have inflicted on us. Science sucks.
29 Aug 11
Originally posted by divegeesterLOL
Or maybe bigger brains to figure out how to cope with all the pollution that scientific advancement in energy has created. Or maybe better band-aids to cope with all the wounds all the new weapons (created by scientists) have inflicted on us. Science sucks.
😉