Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[Jose Fly]

This question has been answered multiple times over many years.

And do you remember the rest of that discussion? I asked...

How do you establish what is and isn't descended from a universal ancestral population?

How do different populations descend from a common ancestral population, if no population ever evolves?​

Your answer: "Genetics" and "They adapt".

And when I asked what in genetics you would look at and what mechanisms were behind this adaptation, you answered ":idunno:" (literally, the smiley was the full extent of your answer).

Thanks for linking to that! It was funny then, and still is now. It also serves as a good illustration of the extent of creationism...

:idunno:

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

It's good to see you and 6days agree that neither of you have any idea how to measure genetic information. At least we cleared that up.

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

6days says natural selection is part of the "Biblical model of creation". Is he wrong?

 

[User Name]

Mutations can never improve information, thus any "benefit" will always be alongside a cost — which evolutionists will try to hide — that outweighs the advantage.

Viruses (such as the flu virus) constantly mutate and change over time. If it were true that mutations come at a cost, shouldn't such viruses have mutated themselves out of existence?

 

[6days]

Viruses (such as the flu virus) constantly mutate and change over time. If it were true that mutations come at a cost, shouldn't such viruses have mutated themselves out of existence?

Yup... they sometimes do. The mutated population is often less fit than the parent population. You might compare it to an island population highly adapted to a specific envioronment. They can't survive a sudden change of environment since they no longer have the diverse genome of previous populations.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yup... they sometimes do. The mutated population is often less fit than the parent population. You might compare it to an island population highly adapted to a specific envioronment. They can't survive a sudden change of environment since they no longer have the diverse genome of previous populations.

It's funny to see how your talking points conflict, all of which you seem to be completely oblivious to. In other cases you argued that loss of specificity was a negative evolutionary step for a species, now here you're saying that an increase of specificity is a negative evolutionary step for a species.

Gee....it's almost like you just say whatever you think works at any given time, without ever worrying about having an actual consistent, coherent point of view.

 

[User Name]

Viruses (such as the flu virus) constantly mutate and change over time. If it were true that mutations come at a cost, shouldn't such viruses have mutated themselves out of existence?

Yup... they sometimes do. The mutated population is often less fit than the parent population. You might compare it to an island population highly adapted to a specific envioronment. They can't survive a sudden change of environment since they no longer have the diverse genome of previous populations.

Many viruses, in particular RNA viruses, have short generation times and relatively high mutation rates (on the order of one point mutation or more per genome per round of replication for RNA viruses). This elevated mutation rate, when combined with natural selection, allows viruses to quickly adapt to changes in their host environment...The rapidity of viral mutation also causes problems in the development of successful vaccines and antiviral drugs, as resistant mutations often appear within weeks or months after the beginning of the treatment...Viruses evolve through changes in their RNA (or DNA), some quite rapidly, and the best adapted mutants quickly outnumber their less fit counterparts. In this sense their evolution is Darwinian, just like that of their host organisms. The way viruses reproduce in their host cells makes them particularly susceptible to the genetic changes that help to drive their evolution. The RNA viruses are especially prone to mutations. In host cells there are mechanisms for correcting mistakes when DNA replicates and these kick in whenever cells divide. These important mechanisms prevent potentially lethal mutations from being passed on to offspring. But these mechanisms do not work for RNA and when an RNA virus replicates in its host cell, changes in their genes are occasionally introduced in error, some of which are lethal. One virus particle can produce millions of progeny viruses in just one cycle of replication, therefore the production of a few "dud" viruses is not a problem. Most mutations are "silent" and do not result in any obvious changes to the progeny viruses, but others confer advantages that increase the fitness of the viruses in the environment.

-- Wikipedia: Viral evolution

 

[6days]

In other cases you argued thatloss*of specificity was a negative evolutionary step for a species, now here you're saying that an*increase*of specificity is a negative evolutionary step for a species.

Jose.... it might help you to be more honest if you provide quotes and context instead of fabricating.*

 

[6days]

...but others confer advantages that increase the fitness of the viruses in the environment.
Wikipedia

User....there is little I would disagree with in that. It isn't much different from what I said. . The mutated virus is often less fit than the parent population...only more fit in a very specific environment.

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose.... it might help you to be more honest if you provide quotes and context instead of fabricating.*

So you deny that when presented examples of the evolution of antibiotic resistance, you replied that they involved "loss of specificity" with the thought that such a thing was a net negative for the species?

 

[6days]

So you deny that when presented examples of the evolution of antibiotic resistance, you replied that they involved "loss of specificity" with the thought that such a thing was a net negative for the species?

Yes Jose... you are fabricating stuff

 

[Jose Fly]

Gee, I wonder who posted this?

Now in gaining an anti-oxidant activity, the protein has lost a lot of activity for making HDLs. So the mutant protein has sacrificed specificity. Since antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants), it would seem that the result of this mutation has been a net loss of specificity, or, in other words, information.

Does that come across as someone who thinks loss of specificity is a good thing or a bad thing?

Shall we continue?

 

[Jose Fly]

Or hey, let's be more specific (HA!) to exactly what I was talking about (your citation of "loss of specificity" regarding antibiotic resistance, since the last quote of yours I posted was actually about a mutation in humans)...

"Most, if not all mutations with a beneficial outcome have destroyed pre-existing information. For example in chromosomal mutations that lead to antibiotic resistance in bacteria, cell *function is routinely lost.(Such as a loss of specificity of an enzyme)."

LINK

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh yeah, and how about that Dr. John Sanford? Pretty cool, eh? :thumb:

 

[Greg Jennings]

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

So you say you're certain that genetic information cannot increase.......yet you haven't the foggiest idea of how you gather or measure it. Nice.

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


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.*

Oh goodie. I was hoping you'd say that. Fun fact of the day #2: Pandas can't interbreed with any other bear species. How can they be a bear "kind" if they cannot interbreed with other species within their "kind"?

 

[6days]

Pandas can't interbreed with any other bear species. How can they be a bear "kind" if they cannot interbreed with other species within their "kind"?

DUH.

 

[Greg Jennings]

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."

Ok. Then find me a geneticist who agrees with that. Prove you aren't just making this all up

 

[6days]

There....the answer to the question "how do we measure genetic information" is "don't know".

What I actually said is 'Jose does not understand genetics, or he would realize his question is still stupid'.. O explained "(evolutionists) 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 fully 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?)"

As I said, if you believe copying, changing, and rearranging things can't generate new information, then by that logic....

Strawmam.... mutations certainly generate "new" info. Corrupted information is new.*

As your answer shows, Talk Origins was right.* Despite all your grandiose claims about "genetic information", you don't what it is or how to measure it.

Again... you have fallen for a silly atheist argument. Although evolutionists can't measure how much information is in DNA, they still seem to understand / admit that natural selection and mutations destroy pre-exiating genetic information.*

I'll make sure and save your post just in case you forget.

In case I forget? Jose....as Stripe pointed out *today, you are the forgetful one. You cry over and over that your silly questions haven't been answered. Both he and I have now shown that your claims are dishonest.*

 

[Greg Jennings]

DUH.

So is a panda, which you just said was a member of the bear "kind" on the last page, a part of that group or isn't it?

 

[Jose Fly]

What I actually said is 'Jose does not understand genetics, or he would realize his question is still stupid'.. O explained "(evolutionists) 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 fully 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?)"

What in the world is wrong with you? Not only are you responding to a post in a different thread, you're ignoring quite a bit of what was said. This is what you said regarding genetic information...

But essentially, 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​

Do you stand by that or not?

Strawmam.... mutations certainly generate "new" info. Corrupted information is new.*

Then we agree...mutations certainly generate new information.

Again... you have fallen for a silly atheist argument.

What are you talking about? Yesterday you said that genetic information can't be measured, despite all the claims you've made over the years about relative amounts of it. That's exactly what Talk Origins said creationists do, i.e., "Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting."

Although evolutionists can't measure how much information is in DNA, they still seem to understand / admit that natural selection and mutations destroy pre-exiating genetic information.*

No, selection eliminates some harmful genetic sequences, but it also promotes and spreads some beneficial sequences. It's very telling that you leave the second part of that out all the time. We know that because not only do we see it happen all the time, we also manipulate the process for our own benefit.

In case I forget? Jose....as Stripe pointed out *today, you are the forgetful one. You cry over and over that your silly questions haven't been answered. Both he and I have now shown that your claims are dishonest.*

Really? So you'd previously told me that genetic information can't be measured? Where?

 

[6days]

Ok. Then find me a geneticist who agrees with that. {That*natural selection does not eliminate the vast majority of deleterious mutations.}Prove you aren't just making this all up

Greg.... if you knew just a wee bit you could be dangerous! You really don't know what you are talking about. Why do you think geneticists write articles about genetic burden (various names). It is because several deleterious mutations are added to our genome with each successive generation. Natural selection eliminates little. It is the savior of evolutionists it but it is such a week impotent Savior.


There are many articles I could refer you to. For ex. Kondrashov in 1995 wrote "Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: Why we have not died 100 times over? Published in theoretical biology


In that article he is only talking about slightly deleterious mutations. He is not considering the more harmful mutations that are not eliminated by natural selection. Would you like to learn about them?