Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Jose Fly]

Says science. Perhaps you'll be the first one in the history of science to prove otherwise. Go for it!

As I noted, evolutionary mechanisms generating functional genetic sequences that weren't there before is a repeatedly observed and documented fact.

The only other thing would be if God personally assembled every single genome in the universe, which brings us back to another one of those questions that you run from, i.e., whether or not God created the genetic sequences that allow pathogens to cause disease, and various organisms to cause suffering and death.

 

[Right Divider]

I never said it wasn't.

"in a manner of speaking".

I've just been pointing out to you that "increases in genetic information" is a repeatedly documented fact. So I'm not really sure what your point is.

Link me to your favorite one. I'll bet that you're go with a duplication error.

The moon is made of cheese.

See? Anyone can go into online forums and make empty assertions.

Are you going to the first one in the history of science to show that information can come from a non-intelligent source? Have at it!

Your beliefs about God's role in creation are irrelevant to you? How odd.

Until we can agree that the only known scientific source for information is intelligence, we cannot proceed.

But I guess this is consistent with your inability to answer questions.

I would imagine you're quite used to it by now.

And this from someone that thinks that information comes from the tooth fairy.

 

[Right Divider]

As I noted, evolutionary mechanisms generating functional genetic sequences that weren't there before is a repeatedly observed and documented fact.

The only other thing would be if God personally assembled every single genome in the universe, which brings us back to another one of those questions that you run from, i.e., whether or not God created the genetic sequences that allow pathogens to cause disease, and various organisms to cause suffering and death.

You just cannot help but attack the Creator, can you?

 

[Jose Fly]

Link me to your favorite one. I'll bet that you're go with a duplication error.

Duplication and divergence is a significant mechanism by which new genetic sequences are generated, as in THIS EXAMPLE. A strain of yeast was subjected to a nutrient-limited environment and in response evolved more than 3 new genes that increased their metabolic efficiency.

Now, if you're going to say that doesn't count because it's just copying and combining other sequences, then you must also believe that the alphabet contains all the information in the universe. Because after all, no matter what "information" exists, it is simply nothing more than copying and rearranging letters, right?

Are you going to the first one in the history of science to show that information can come from a non-intelligent source? Have at it!

It's called a pulsar.

Until we can agree that the only known scientific source for information is intelligence, we cannot proceed.

Another dodge.

And this from someone that thinks that information comes from the tooth fairy.

This may be difficult for you, but try and not come across as this thick.

You just cannot help but attack the Creator, can you?

Attack? I asked a question. You keep dodging it. Seems to be a habit of yours.

 

[SUTG]

Take text, say a cake recipe. Randomly change letters and numbers. Enter the resulting cakes in bake-offs.

Take the winning recipes and randomly change them.

Repeat as many times as you like.

Watch what happens.

So?

 

[SUTG]

Says science.

Science says that "random changes can never produce information"? Please do tell.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Are you going to the first one in the history of science to show that information can come from a non-intelligent source? Have at it!

Tons of information is obtainable from non-intelligent sources... Stars, rocks, liquids, you.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Tons of information is obtainable from non-intelligent sources... Stars, rocks, liquids, you.

Nope.

That would be tons of speculation.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Tons of information is obtainable from non-intelligent sources... Stars, rocks, liquids, you.

Nope.

Yep.

That would be tons of speculation.

Not even remotely... that is, unless we're discussing YOUR intelligence.

If you think non-intelligent sources DON'T contain information you're even dumber than Stripe and 6days.

 

[6days]

It's soooooo revealing that you see answering a basic question and explaining yourself as a set of "rules" that you have no intention of abiding by.

I predicted that you'd never say what "genetic information" is or how you're measuring it, and you've shown that I was correct.

You have been answered on this quite often in the past. It has been awhile so maybe you are just a bit forgetful? If I recall correctly I gave you links to articles and books from both secular evolutionists. and biblical creationists on the topic. Werner Gift has a couple good books on the topic. I have also given you answers on your questions. Perhaps we could use Bill Gates description of DNA, as part of the answer... "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Gates gets it.... DNA is a 4 dimensional four-dimensional information system where complex specific instruction are transmitted, read and understood, and acted upon. How to measure..... Hmmmm... not usually easy to measure biological information /Shannon info definition does not apply since often duplication mutations add more 'letters but corrupts the info. Mutations that destroy (for ex. Cancer) would obviously cause a loss of useful information. You could argue that cancer caused new info though... like a dent in my car is new, but not useful. To measure we could also try determine if there has been a gain...or a loss of the complex specified instructions. I don't have the quote handy but genetist J. Sandford who did work with plants and intentional mutations said that he is not aware of one single mutation that clearly showed a increase of complex specified instructions.

 

[6days]

Tell us what scientists say about calculating genetic information in a population of living things. How do your "scientists" say it's done?

We could start by looking at what geneticist say about mutations and the effect it has on information in the gene poo. But in order for us to have that discussion you would need to upgrade your genetic information by about 40 some years.

 

[6days]

Posting by voice sometimes gives interesting results.

 

[Jose Fly]

You have been answered on this quite often in the past. It has been awhile so maybe you are just a bit forgetful? If I recall correctly I gave you links to articles and books from both secular evolutionists. and biblical creationists on the topic. Werner Gift has a couple good books on the topic. I have also given you answers on your questions. Perhaps we could use Bill Gates description of DNA, as part of the answer... "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Gates gets it.... DNA is a 4 dimensional four-dimensional information system where complex specific instruction are transmitted, read and understood, and acted upon. How to measure..... Hmmmm... not usually easy to measure biological information /Shannon info definition does not apply since often duplication mutations add more 'letters but corrupts the info. Mutations that destroy (for ex. Cancer) would obviously cause a loss of useful information. You could argue that cancer caused new info though... like a dent in my car is new, but not useful. To measure we could also try determine if there has been a gain...or a loss of the complex specified instructions. I don't have the quote handy but genetist J. Sandford who did work with plants and intentional mutations said that he is not aware of one single mutation that clearly showed a increase of complex specified instructions.

Again, we all know the game....I ask what "genetic information" is and how you're measuring it, you dodge and avoid the question, wait a while, then claim you already answered, but never manage to say what that answer was or where you posted it.

It's boring, repetitive, and pointless, and I have no interest in doing it. Either you can say what "genetic information" is and how you're measuring it, or you can't.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's what should be a fairly simple question. If we have two genomes, how do we tell which has more information?

For what are obvious reasons, creationists can't answer.

 

[6days]

Again, we all know the game....I ask what "genetic information" is and how you're measuring it, you dodge and avoid the question, wait a while, then claim you already answered, but never manage to say what that answer was or where you posted it.

It's boring, repetitive, and pointless, and I have no interest in doing it. Either you can say what "genetic information" is and how you're measuring it, or you can't.

You don't like answers that challenge your belief system Jose. I gave you a very brief description of it. If you want more detailed definitions, read the books I have mentioned previously.

 

[Jose Fly]

You don't like answers that challenge your belief system Jose. I gave you a very brief description of it. If you want more detailed definitions, read the books I have mentioned previously.

Just like I said....either you can say what "genetic information" is and how you're measuring it, or you can't.

 

[6days]

Do you think that mutations create instructions?

Nope

Mutations overwhelming destroy. Geneticists refer to them as "near neutral" or "slightly deleterious" or "harmful" or "deleterious". Even secular geneticists say a mutation that confers a benefit (even though its a loss of info mutation, such as a loss of specificity to an enzyme)is rare...possibly 1 in several hundred thousand.

Mutations destroy the instruction manual. Evolutionists believe mutations can create instruction manuals.

 

[6days]

If you think non-intelligent sources DON'T contain information you're even dumber than Stripe and 6days.

A stop sign contains information. Bumps on a paper contain information (If you know Braille).

All "non-intelligent sources" that contain information that is sent/ received and requires action ALWAYS HAS AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER! Our DNA... the most sophisticated information system in existence is evidence of our Creator. "In the beginning, God..."

 

[Silent Hunter]

If you think non-intelligent sources DON'T contain information you're even dumber than Stripe and 6days.

A stop sign contains information. Bumps on a paper contain information (If you know Braille).

All "non-intelligent sources" that contain information that is sent/ received and requires action ALWAYS HAS AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER!

Do you move the goal posts often or is this your first time?

I rebutted Right Divider's assertion that information can ONLY come from an intelligent source.

A star's spectrum contains information.
The Sun's corona contains information.
Fossils contain information.
Layers of rock contain information.
Dead bodies contain information.
Blood contains information.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc. (as Yul Brenner would say)

Our DNA... the most sophisticated information system in existence is evidence of our Creator.

Well, no, actually, it isn't.

Your only evidence that "GODDIDIT!!!" is, "DNA is so incredibly complex it HAD to be, "GIDDIDIT!!!" Would you like to guess what logical fallacy you're guilty of here?

"In the beginning, God..."

... and you're STILL denying the only explanation you can muster isn't, "GODDIDIT!!!" (per our past conversations).

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
Tell us what scientists say about calculating genetic information in a population of living things. How do your "scientists" say it's done?

(6days has no idea)

We could start by looking at what geneticist say about mutations and the effect it has on information in the gene poo.

You have no idea at all, do you? :chuckle:

But in order for us to have that discussion you would need to upgrade your genetic information by about 40 some years.

Let's see what you know.

Suppose a population has only two alleles for a given gene locus, each with a frequency of 0.5. Suppose that a mutation produces a new allele which eventually leads to all three alleles having a frequency of about 0.3333. Show us what the information was for the first case, and what it was after the new allele.

Let's see what you can do. If you can't do it, I'll come back in a bit and show you.