Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[Greg Jennings]

Greg or Jose,
How is genetic information measured to say it increases?

Not a clue. I'm trusting in people much smarter and more qualified that they aren't lying to me and the rest of the world.

I'm interested in hearing 6days's explanation of how he is certain that genetic information can only decrease. He must have a method of gathering this "genetic information" if he is saying that info never increases

 

[6days]

Ok since we have now confirmed that you believe that genetic information cannot increase. If that is so, then how is genetic information measured so that you know it cannot increase? And what exactly constitutes this genetic information?

Hmmmmmm Perhaps we should start with why you MUST believe that genetic information increases.

Darwinian evolution absolutely requires that complex functional information increases on average over the course of time. If Genetic info doesn't increase..... their theory falls.

Anyways Greg, as to your question... Most if not all knowledgeable evolutionists admit that natural selection eliminates existing genetic information.

Ex..... ""Negative frequency dependant selection) is one of the few forms of natural selection that can act to preserve genetic variation,[/b]*most forms of natural selection lead to the loss of genetic variation*as unfit alleles are "weeded out" of the population.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios101/Selexio.htm

So...... Perhaps you should ask your question to these evolutionists...... Genetic information obviously provides variation... How are they determining that natural selection eliminates genetic information / variation? The answer seems fairly easy, but it might be easier to accept from fellow evolutionists?

Yet.... You must believe that somehow....'Please let evolution be true'... that genetic information increases... BUT HOW??? Gene duplication caused by mutations? These are overwhelmingly harmful.

Evolutionists have no mechanism to increase genetic information.... but put their faith in mutations.

World renowned geneticist John Sanford with 80 peer reviewed articles says geneticists have been looking for examples of information increasing mutations but he is unaware of a single clear example. I posted this here previously... "The overwhelmingly deleterious nature of mutations can be seen by the incredible scarcity of clear cases of information creating mutations. It must be understood that scientists have a very sensitive and extensive network for detecting information creating mutations, and most geneticists are diligently keeping their eyes open for them all the time. This has been true for about 100 years. The sensitivity of this observational network is such that even if only one mutation out of a million unambiguously creates new information apart from fine tuning, the literature would be overflowing with reports of this happening. Yet I am still not convinced there is a single crystal clear example of a known mutation which unambiguously Created information"

 

[6days]

Greg or Jose,
This article if I understand it is saying Evolution can increase or decrease information.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...al-selection-leads-to-ever-greater-complexity


Is that right? But I don't see how it is measured. Number of chromosomes would be the same, no?
The genes would turn off but remain as "junk"?

Is it measured by external traits alone ?

I don't think the article says evolution increases or decreases??
Your article from my quick glance seems to support the Biblical model, yet they try to fit the data into the evolutionary belief system.

As to measuring....... They are pretty clear that information decreases...... We see it all the time such as in breeding programs that eliminate variation. Yet there are ways to truly measure exact information since geneticists don't gully understand how its even read yet. (It seems there are overlaying layers of complexity and that some DNA is also read backward. How would you quantify that?)

 

[alwight]

Hmmmmmm Perhaps we should start with why you MUST believe that genetic information increases.

Misdirection, I'm quite sure by now that even you do understand that genetic information CAN increase (e.g. gene duplication) because you don't seem to be able to provide any rational reasoning for whatever mechanism it is that you think stops it, nor indeed quantify how much information actually exists.
Face it 6days your overriding concern is how to support daft ideas like "Original Sin" and "The Fall" by any means available, science being typically something of an inconvenience to that goal and thus something to automatically oppose when it contradicts a literal Genesis, why you're almost like a mini AiG or Discovery Institute.

 

[Stripe]

So what is a "Biblical kind"?

This question has been answered multiple times over many years.

 

[exminister]

Sorry. Double post.

 

[exminister]

I don't think the article says evolution increases or decreases??
Your article from my quick glance seems to support the Biblical model, yet they try to fit the data into the evolutionary belief system.

As to measuring....... They are pretty clear that information decreases...... We see it all the time such as in breeding programs that eliminate variation. Yet there are ways to truly measure exact information since geneticists don't gully understand how its even read yet. (It seems there are overlaying layers of complexity and that some DNA is also read backward. How would you quantify that?)

I linked this article because it was stating its a myth that evolution only increases complexity. It can also go the other way, decreased complexity, which is the only direction for kinds.

I agree while scientist can read the genome, how to read it they have got a long way to go. Saying it increased or decreased is hard to define genetically.

I read Wiki on nylonase. Bacteria in Japan found in 1975 had developed the ability to eat this newly synthetic material unknown before 1935. Proponents of evolution stated it was increased info, a positive and repeatable mutation. Creationist said it was a combining of existing material, already in the design related to transposase genes and not a mutation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

...had come about from the combination of a gene duplication event with a frameshift mutation. Ohno suggested that many unique new genes have evolved this way.

http://creation.mobi/the-adaptation-of-bacteria-to-feeding-on-nylon-waste

Oh, I see. God at creation said it was very good and nothing can improve after sin. Therefore a mutation can never be good and the news (information) is always bad. Perhaps a bit flippant, but I see the intersect requirement, even demand, of theology and science. Nothing new there for y'all. Just a light for me.

 

[Stripe]

I read Wiki on nylonase. Bacteria in Japan found in 1975 had developed the ability to eat this newly synthetic material unknown before 1935. Proponents of evolution stated it was increased info, a positive and repeatable mutation. Creationist said it was a combining of existing material, already in the design related to transposase genes and not a mutation.

There's no need to get into a debate over whether it is an increase or decrease in information — there's no simple way to measure such an idea anyway.

However, it is easy to show that evolution was not involved; there was no random mutation or natural selection.

 

[6days]

I linked this article because it was stating its a myth that evolution only increases complexity. It can also go the other way, decreased complexity, which is the only direction for kinds.

I agree while scientist can read the genome, how to read it they have got a long way to go. Saying it increased or decreased is hard to define genetically.

I read Wiki on nylonase. Bacteria in Japan found in 1975 had developed the ability to eat this newly synthetic material unknown before 1935. Proponents of evolution stated it was increased info, a positive and repeatable mutation. Creationist said it was a combining of existing material, already in the design related to transposase genes and not a mutation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria


http://creation.mobi/the-adaptation-of-bacteria-to-feeding-on-nylon-waste

Oh, I see. God at creation said it was very good and nothing can improve after sin. Therefore a mutation can never be good and the news (information) is always bad. Perhaps a bit flippant, but I see the intersect requirement, even demand, of theology and science. Nothing new there for y'all. Just a light for me.

Mutations can sometimes result in a beneficial outcome. But that is a slightly different topic than increase / decrease of genetic information. In the example you provided, a mutation caused a loss of specificity to a pre- existing enzyme.

 

[Stripe]

Mutations can sometimes result in a beneficial outcome. But that is a slightly different topic than increase / decrease of genetic information.

This might technically be correct, but the distinction is not worth introducing. Mutations can never improve information, thus any "benefit" will always be alongside a cost — which evolutionists will try to hide — that outweighs the advantage.

 

[Greg Jennings]

This question has been answered multiple times over many years.

So what "kind" is a panda according to your definition? Keep in mind they cannot interbreed with other bears

 

[Greg Jennings]

This might technically be correct, but the distinction is not worth introducing. Mutations can never improve information, thus any "benefit" will always be alongside a cost — which evolutionists will try to hide — that outweighs the advantage.

I'm sure an esteemed professor at a university told you that, and not a AiG "expert" right?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Hmmmmmm Perhaps we should start with why you MUST believe that genetic information increases.

Darwinian evolution absolutely requires that complex functional information increases on average over the course of time. If Genetic info doesn't increase..... their theory falls.

Anyways Greg, as to your question... Most if not all knowledgeable evolutionists admit that natural selection eliminates existing genetic information.

Ex..... ""Negative frequency dependant selection) is one of the few forms of natural selection that can act to preserve genetic variation,[/b]*most forms of natural selection lead to the loss of genetic variation*as unfit alleles are "weeded out" of the population.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios101/Selexio.htm

So...... Perhaps you should ask your question to these evolutionists...... Genetic information obviously provides variation... How are they determining that natural selection eliminates genetic information / variation? The answer seems fairly easy, but it might be easier to accept from fellow evolutionists?

Yet.... You must believe that somehow....'Please let evolution be true'... that genetic information increases... BUT HOW??? Gene duplication caused by mutations? These are overwhelmingly harmful.

Evolutionists have no mechanism to increase genetic information.... but put their faith in mutations.

World renowned geneticist John Sanford with 80 peer reviewed articles says geneticists have been looking for examples of information increasing mutations but he is unaware of a single clear example. I posted this here previously... "The overwhelmingly deleterious nature of mutations can be seen by the incredible scarcity of clear cases of information creating mutations. It must be understood that scientists have a very sensitive and extensive network for detecting information creating mutations, and most geneticists are diligently keeping their eyes open for them all the time. This has been true for about 100 years. The sensitivity of this observational network is such that even if only one mutation out of a million unambiguously creates new information apart from fine tuning, the literature would be overflowing with reports of this happening. Yet I am still not convinced there is a single crystal clear example of a known mutation which unambiguously Created information"

Any expert in evolution will tell you that beneficial mutations are rare. Very very very rare. That's common knowledge, 6.

You seem to have the same problem with this that you do with deep time: you simply can't fathom things like "every one mutation in 10,000,000 is beneficial and helps an organism" or "light traveled millions of years to reach us" when the statements are plainly true, and have been repeatedly shown to be. Numbers above 6,000 are an issue it would seem.


My recent re-familiarization with geology has once again made me see how utterly ridiculous your YEC positions are. My Christian professor has such a disdain for YECs because, as she puts it, "They aren't scientists because there is only one answer they will accept." Oh, and before you say something like "Christians are always neglected in geology," go take a look at the entire first 150 years of professional geology. All of the ideas are based on biblical Christianity originally, and one by one they all got disproven. For example, basalt deposits were originally thought to be laid down by the ocean and all sedimentary layers laid down during the Great Flood. But through actual science, geologists were able to determine that basalt is an igneous rock that comes from magma and that sedimentary layers could not have been laid down all at once due to the lateral incontinuitues in the layering, as well as fossils and sedimentary features that can't form without exposure to dry atmosphere (such as mudcrack "fossils").

Also, you never told me how you measure genetic information

 

[6days]

Any expert in evolution will tell you that beneficial mutations are rare. Very very very rare. That's common knowledge, 6.

Greg..... I would give up on this one if I were you. Admit you know little about genetics. We weren't discussing beneficial outcomes.... its a different topic. *But anyways... lets see what you have to say.

"every one mutation in 10,000,000 is beneficial and helps an organism"

Again..... you don't have a clue what you are talking about. For starters where did you get that number? Also.... since you seem to pin your hopes on a 1 in ten million shot at beneficial mutations; how are you handling the multiple deleterious mutations that are added to each succesive generation causing an overall gradual loss of fitness. Keep in mind.... you cannot call on natural selection as your Savior. It does not eliminate the vast majority of deleterious mutations.*

 

[Greg Jennings]

Greg..... I would give up on this one if I were you. Admit you know little about genetics. We weren't discussing beneficial outcomes.... its a different topic. *But anyways... lets see what you have to say.

Oh man, that's rich. Please please please let's put your AiG "knowledge" up against information gathered from actual college professors. Your confidence is somewhat amusing, though I'm 90% certain it is a front for the insecurity you feel regarding the validity of your favorite origins myth

Again..... you don't have a clue what you are talking about. For starters where did you get that number? Also.... since you seem to pin your hopes on a 1 in ten million shot at beneficial mutations; how are you handling the multiple deleterious mutations that are added to each succesive generation causing an overall gradual loss of fitness.

And again, you are in way over your head. The number was pulled from my head because I don't remember if it was one in a 1,000,000 or 10,000,000 or 100,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 and it doesn't really matter what the exact ratio is. The point is very very few mutations are anything but neutral, and most of those are negative.

Not that I haven't explained this to you ten times before, but I'll tell you why bad Justin's don't pile up. It's pretty simple: If a mutation is so negative that it impacts an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, it isn't going to last long. Is there a chance that it could be passed on from the original carrier to its offspring? Yes, but then remember that at least some of those offspring also now carry that negative mutation, and within a few short generations (at the absolute most) the organisms carrying the negative mutation will have been eliminated.

Let's illustrate this more: a bear is born with no claws. It is difficult for him to catch and kill large animals or to dig for roots, so his fitness is negatively impacted. He will likely die, but if there aren't any big environmental events (drought, flood, other problems) then he still might be able to get by eating bugs or honey or vegetation, though he won't be as strong as the other bears. If he does somehow live long enough to reproduce, his cubs are now also claw-less. They suffer the same deficiencies daddy bear did, but instead of the mild environmental conditions he had growing up, his cubs encounter a big drought in their third year. That drought wipes out all plants and bugs that the claw-less bears rely on, and then they starve. So within a few generations any physically debilitating mutations will be eliminated in the wild.

Keep in mind.... you cannot call on natural selection as your Savior. It does not eliminate the vast majority of deleterious mutations.*

Find me one geneticist who says that natural selection doesn't remove very harmful mutations from a population.

Why is it that you won't tell me how "genetic information" is gathered?



Also: which "kind" is a panda bear?

 

[exminister]

This might technically be correct, but the distinction is not worth introducing. Mutations can never improve information, thus any "benefit" will always be alongside a cost — which evolutionists will try to hide — that outweighs the advantage.

What kind of cost?

I read about there being trade offs in evolution. For example, rats could have better long lasting teeth, but something like their skeleton is weaker. Is that you you are referring to or is it something else?

 

[Jose Fly]

Greg or Jose,
How is genetic information measured to say it increases?

According to 6days, the answer is "don't know".

it can't be measured at present since we don't fully understand the overlaying layers of complexity in our DNA, and how its read​

Now, in the real world my understanding is that most geneticists think of "genetic information" as functional genetic sequences (setting aside the legal definition of "genetic information", which refers to information about your personal genome). If we go with that, then the question of whether evolutionary mechanisms can generate or increase genetic information/functional sequences is to be honest, pretty silly. It's something we see happen all the time.

 

[6days]

Why is it that you won't tell me how "genetic information" is gathered?

A bunch of geneticists go out into information fields with long rakes.*

Greg.... now try ask a smart question.*

Also: which "kind" is a panda bear?

I asked 5 year old Tyson just now what kind of animal a Panda is. He says its a bear.

Greg... try harder to ask smart questions.*

 

[6days]

Find me one geneticist who says that natural selection doesn't remove very harmful mutations from a population.

Unable to counter what was actually said, you once again resort to a strawman.*


I will give you another crack at what I actually said.

6days: "(natural selection)does not eliminate the vast majority of deleterious mutations."

 

[Jose Fly]

Hmmmmmm Perhaps we should start with why you MUST believe that genetic information increases.

Since you've admitted that you don't know how to measure genetic information, we'll stick with how it's commonly defined in genetics, i.e., genetic information = nucleotide sequences.

Thus, the question becomes: how do we know that evolution can increase or add to nucleotide sequences? The answer is ridiculously easy....we see it happen, all the time.

If Genetic info doesn't increase..... their theory falls.

Then it's a good thing we see it increase. :up:

Evolutionists have no mechanism to increase genetic information.... but put their faith in mutations.

Um...no. Genetic information = nucleotide sequences. Do we see evolution increase the number of nucleotides in a genome? Um....all the time! I mean, you might as well be arguing that it never rains.

World renowned geneticist John Sanford with 80 peer reviewed articles says...

I love it when you cite John Sanford! :up: I just wonder if you even understand how he serves as a perfect walking, breathing illustration of the utility of evolutionary theory and the vacuousness of creationism. Let's see...

Remember THIS INTERVIEW with Dr. Sanford you posted previously? I covered it before but you bailed on the thread without responding. Anyways, as Dr. Sanford explains, he used to be an "evolutionist" and that was when he did all his productive work, e.g., those 80 peer reviewed papers you like to cite as well as inventing the gene gun. Let's make no mistake...that's a very impressive body of work...all done while armed with the understanding of evolutionary theory. Then Dr. Sanford "came to believe in God" but kept contributing to science, until as he explains...

"still later, as I began to personally know and submit to Jesus, I started to be fundamentally changed—in every respect. This included my mind, and how I viewed science and history."​

Then he describes how he stopped doing science. He claimed at that time he was ready to re-enter the scientific world, but looking through the literature I don't see where he's contributed anything since his conversion.

So when we look at Dr. Sanford's history, we see...

Years as an "evolutionist" = steady production and contributions to science

Becomes a creationist = scientific contributions stop

Do you understand the significance of that? When he utilized evolutionary theory to inform him on how things are related, how they work, and how they came to be, he was extremely productive. But as soon as he dropped evolutionary theory and replaced it with (as you like to say) "in the beginning God created", his scientific productivity comes to a complete halt.

I don't know if anyone could have made up such a perfect illustration of just how useful evolutionary theory is, and how empty creationism is. Fortunately, we don't have to make up such a person....John Sanford is a living, breathing illustration of those things.