gjcn.org— Evolutionists claim that animals, plants and humans evolved gradually over millions of years and that certain features, such as the eye, evolved as time went along. Is this really even logical?
May 22, 2009View in Crawl 4
"subsequent mutation does not make new information. It would just be a mix of information that is already there."Your assertion is not correct.The duplication of a genome itself creates a greater quantity of genetic material, but the total genetic information remains the same, as redundant information strings do not increase the total information of a system. However, if one of the duplicate genomes subsequently alters, the two genes will contain different information, and thus new information has occurred in the system.An example can be illustrated with the hypothetical string ACGTA. This string, if duplicated, produces ACGTAACGTA. The resulting string, wihle of double length, contains no new information, as it is simply the same data content repeated once. However, if this string were then altered, producing ACGTAATGTA, the resultant string contains more information, because the initial segment is no longer repeated, thus the second segment contains different, and thus new, information."Such as in flowers. You get different colors. But you'll never get say a wing, an eyeball or even a flower turn into another plant. You think just because it will make a color that this some how shows a change, yes change in color but not the type of plant it is."This does not address genetic duplication and mutation. There exists no justified expectation for any plant organism to produce wings or eyes."No new DNA is made."The DNA occurs as a result of replication, not because of any deliberate construction act." All the code is the same."Your assertion in this regard is demonstrably false. Any mutation results in an alteration of the "code" of DNA."The kinds of plants may change color or shape a bit but a sunflower will never turn into a tomato plant. A sunflower is always a sunflower."Your bare assertions do not alter the fundamental invalidity of the author's claim regarding the emergence of new genetic information. Additions of genetic information have been observed and documented: <a class="user" href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html">http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html</a> The author's assertion is, therefore, demonstrably false; the author is asserting that an event that has been directly observed is not possible. This demonstrates either that the author has conducted no research with respect to the subject of his writing or that the author is dishonest.
Genius. I love it, man. You explain it so that even I can understand it. Very well done. Why are you on Digg, and not out saving the world from ignorance?
@neosinn--FORGET Dimensio AND akaakc--They are just clones of Dawkins--They can't think for their own selves--they follow the world.Anyone with any intelligence at all would clearly see the fallacy behind this whole spiel.
Anyone with any intelligence at all would clearly see the fallacy behind the claims of Evolution's detractors.Evolution has mountains of evidence. Creationism has none. We have the fossils, we have the physics, we have the biology, we have the evidence.Creationism has... a book written ~1700 years ago by cattle herding primitives who though bats were birds, snakes could talk, goats would produce striped offspring if they copulate while looking at a striped pole, and that all the "kinds" of animals in the world were within walking distance of Noah's house.We win.
"No new DNA is made. All the code is the same."There is no mention of positive here. I just wanted to give an example that is so obvious that even an under-educated person could understand it.
dimensioMay 23, 2009
"subsequent mutation does not make new information. It would just be a mix of information that is already there."Your assertion is not correct.The duplication of a genome itself creates a greater quantity of genetic material, but the total genetic information remains the same, as redundant information strings do not increase the total information of a system. However, if one of the duplicate genomes subsequently alters, the two genes will contain different information, and thus new information has occurred in the system.An example can be illustrated with the hypothetical string ACGTA. This string, if duplicated, produces ACGTAACGTA. The resulting string, wihle of double length, contains no new information, as it is simply the same data content repeated once. However, if this string were then altered, producing ACGTAATGTA, the resultant string contains more information, because the initial segment is no longer repeated, thus the second segment contains different, and thus new, information."Such as in flowers. You get different colors. But you'll never get say a wing, an eyeball or even a flower turn into another plant. You think just because it will make a color that this some how shows a change, yes change in color but not the type of plant it is."This does not address genetic duplication and mutation. There exists no justified expectation for any plant organism to produce wings or eyes."No new DNA is made."The DNA occurs as a result of replication, not because of any deliberate construction act." All the code is the same."Your assertion in this regard is demonstrably false. Any mutation results in an alteration of the "code" of DNA."The kinds of plants may change color or shape a bit but a sunflower will never turn into a tomato plant. A sunflower is always a sunflower."Your bare assertions do not alter the fundamental invalidity of the author's claim regarding the emergence of new genetic information. Additions of genetic information have been observed and documented: <a class="user" href="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html">http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html</a> The author's assertion is, therefore, demonstrably false; the author is asserting that an event that has been directly observed is not possible. This demonstrates either that the author has conducted no research with respect to the subject of his writing or that the author is dishonest.
akaakcMay 23, 2009
Genius. I love it, man. You explain it so that even I can understand it. Very well done. Why are you on Digg, and not out saving the world from ignorance?
Closed AccountMay 25, 2009
@neosinn--FORGET Dimensio AND akaakc--They are just clones of Dawkins--They can't think for their own selves--they follow the world.Anyone with any intelligence at all would clearly see the fallacy behind this whole spiel.
dimensioMay 26, 2009
Your personal attacks and your appeal to the "poisoning the well" fallacy do not constitute a rational argument in support of your position.
mnementh2230May 26, 2009
"Anyone with any intelligence..."... says the person who has yet to demonstrate any.
mnementh2230May 26, 2009
Anyone with any intelligence at all would clearly see the fallacy behind the claims of Evolution's detractors.Evolution has mountains of evidence. Creationism has none. We have the fossils, we have the physics, we have the biology, we have the evidence.Creationism has... a book written ~1700 years ago by cattle herding primitives who though bats were birds, snakes could talk, goats would produce striped offspring if they copulate while looking at a striped pole, and that all the "kinds" of animals in the world were within walking distance of Noah's house.We win.
flip2tripMay 31, 2009
How is Cancer an example of a positive mutation?
mrukzMay 31, 2009
"No new DNA is made. All the code is the same."There is no mention of positive here. I just wanted to give an example that is so obvious that even an under-educated person could understand it.