14 reasons not to believe in Macro-Evolution

[wyguy]

And you can measure the "loss" and "gain" of this information how? What is your basic unit of measurement for "genetic information"? If you can't explain how you are measuring information "loss" in the genome how on earth do you expect anyone to believe your claims?

A loss of information is the loss of a function or an ability an organism once possessed. Like it a fly lost the ability to grow wings, or the ability to reproduce. Or an abnormality like a leg growing out of it's head. Again, things any "science teacher" like yourself would know.

You do realize that there are novel genes that arise via these natural mechanisms don't you?

Again, try READING the stuff you post!

From the link:

Molecular mechanisms such as illegitimate recombination and LINE element mediated 3' transduction underlying exon shuffling

It's what I've been saying the whole time! It's genetic shuffling! It has NOTHING to do with an increasing of information of the genetic code!

So. . .you're now saying that the basic unit of measurement for "genetic information" is the genetic code? First it was the sequence of nucleotides, next it was a single gene, now all you can give me is "genetic code"? If your claims about "information loss" are valid it shouldn't be this hard to define how you are measuring a loss of information.

Ok, now I actually wonder if you are pulling my leg. You cannot be serious.

The genetic code IS the genetic information!

The human genome. Your attempts to obscure the issue of your inability to even explain how you're measuring "information" in DNA are noted, but are ,ultimately, futile. I smell blood in the water.

It's your blood your smelling. Anyone reading this thread from where you and I began can see you are losing this debate with your continued "what IS information? Define what information IS!" rabbit trails. (Oh, and posting links to material you've obviously never read). Like I said, anyone with a 5th grade biology education knows what the genetic code is. Which is the information in the DNA.

Call it a colloquial usage of the term to refer to creationists who are against any science that supports an old earth and/or evolution.

I'll call it the way I see it. Unbiblical, atheistic garbage.

I don't think you are quite understanding the awesome scale upon which abiogenesis is trying to operate - we're talking about billions of years, hundreds of billions of stars, untold millions of planets, unimaginable variables from the heat of local stars to the distance to any given galactic center. To my understanding, nothing about the theory of abiogenesis is "easy".

From a biological standpoint, to hear the evolutionists tell it, all that is needed are the right chemicals, and a catalyst such as lightning, and, as you are so fond of saying, TA-DA! Life!

Save the fairy tales for bedtime.

[wyguy]

Ah, so we measure the amount of information "loss" by measuring the number of functions/abilities that are lost. There's two very striking problems with your new definition of how genetic information that would have been obvious if you weren't making this up as you go along; first, we can very easily take your definition at face value and then falsify your claims of universal information "loss" by looking at organisms that have new beneficial functions as a result of mutations such as gut structures in lizards and the ability to digest nylon in certain types of bacteria. Yes, I know, you're going to say that all that has happened is that bits and pieces of DNA that already existed where duplicated, mixed up, and strung back together and you're basically right. . .but it doesn't really matter since according to all three of your definitions for genetic information so far (nucleotide sequence, number of genes, & function) this still represents an increase in "information" (a different nucleotide sequence, a different number of genes, & a beneficial ability).

Wrong yet again, ST. I gave AN example of genetic informational loss and you decided to run with it. Not gonna work, homeboy. And as for the old, tired, "ability to digest nylon by bacteria" spiel, that has been answered a thousand times by scientists.

To Quote:

Genes of nylon-eating bacteria show that they have been degraded through mutation.

The gene that mutated to enable bacteria to metabolize nylon is on a small loop of exchangeable DNA. This gene, prior to its mutation, coded for a protein called EII with a special ability to break down small, circularized proteins. Though synthetic, nylon is very protein-like because inventor Wallace Carothers modeled the original fiber based on known protein chemistry. Thus, after the mutation, the new EII protein was able to interact with both circular and straightened-out nylon. This is a clear example of a loss of specification of the original enzyme. It is like damaging the interior of a lock so that more and different keys can now unlock it.

This degeneration of a protein-eating protein required both the specially-shaped protein and the pre-existence of its gene. The degeneration of a gene, even when it provides a new benefit to the bacteria, does not explain the origin of that gene. One cannot build a lock by damaging pre-existing locks.

The second problem I see is that you're failing to acknowledge environment as a variable here: whether or not a mutation is beneficial, neutral, or harmful can depend on the environment

This arguement is pointless, as we are talking about whether there is any genetic informational gain through mutation. And, as all have seen, there is not.

Well, if we can create a new function/ability (or, presumably, enhance an existing function/ability) by your definition we will have increased the amount of "information". As far as evolution is concerned however, all you really need is variation powerful enough for natural selection to act on, which has been observed.

No. Yet again, (and again, and again) it is simple gene shuffling or activation of dormant genes. All through access of the existing genetic code. No informational increase, and no "chance" selection.

Great! Also, not what I'm asking for. Yes, the genetic code IS the place where genetic information is located, I was asking how you are measuring that information. It's kind of like you making claims about the length of a blue whale; I'm asking how you're measuring its length (centimeters, inches, miles, feet, meters?) and you keep telling me that the blue whale HAS length.

I will compliment you on this, you are a master ot the "rabbit trail."

It's measured by the amount of chains in the DNA molecule. And the amount of DNA in the genome. Yet, once more, something any "science teacher" would know.

Since detailed overviews of DNA aren't part of elementary science curriculums in most states I'd actually doubt that. . .though I do find myself pleasantly surprised by occasional and exceptionally bright student. In any event, there is no such thing as a 5th grade "biology" student since "biology" as a class won't be taught until high school.

Nice nit-pick. Biology is indeed taught in 5th grade middle school. Elementary schools in your state go up the 5th grade, aye?

Even after the earth became somewhat suitable for life to form it still took about half a billion years for life to form according to abiogenesis.

Yeah, typical evolutionary statement. Have a problem? Just throw a few more million years at it! Time does not equal the ability of life to create itself from dead matter.

Give scientists the same amount of time and I'm fairly sure they'd come up with something interesting.

Here's some advice......don't hold your breath.

[wyguy]

Yeah, your ICR/AIG article is simply wrong. Nylonase is very specific as it doesn't act on anything other than nylon, nor does the Nylonase gene appear to have any relationship to any of the available protease. Even if you were correct, however, this still represents a "gain of information" as you are presently defining it (I say "presently" because, as we can see even in this post alone, your definition of "information" seems to be constantly changing) as a loss/gain of function. At best you can try to say that all function/ability gains are necessarily accompanied by an equal amount of function/ability loss. . .but I don't think that's a case that can be made, nor would evolutionary theory particularly care. Again, all that evolution requires is variation producing the occasional beneficial trait that natural selection can act upon, it's not important at all to evolution that an organism hold on to obsolete traits. Did this bacteria adapt to it's environment via a mutation which produced a beneficial trait? Yes! Did natural selection select for this trait resulting in the mutated bacteria replacing their non-nylonase counterparts? Yes! Ta-da; evolution.

What you seem to have forgotten in that whole tirade is that the chemical properties that make up nylon are nothing new in nature. And are acted upon as such.

Ta-da; Genetic code.

You are presently defining "genetic information" gain/loss as dependent on function/ability. This will vary depending on the environment; for example people with sickle cell anemia in a malarial zone have the ability to resist contracting malaria at a higher rate than their non-sickle celled counterparts. That ability disappears outside those malarial zones. This gain/loss of ability is strong enough to be acted upon by natural selection and can be clearly seen by looking at the distribution of sickle cell anemia and comparing it to historic malarial zones.

If we then use your present definition of genetic "information" as the loss/gain of an ability then we need to take environment into account, something you are clearly not doing.

What I'm trying to get through to you, is the fact that there are active and dormant genes that already contain the information for coping with environmental change. Such as when a thinly furred animal developes thicker fur when it's environment grows colder. God has seen fit to store all the information needed for such changes in the DNA.

If genetic "information" is simply a matter of creating new abilities it doesn't really matter. . .additionally, mutations are not simply a matter of "shuffling" and "activation", as has been explained to you previously things like gene duplication can result in completely new genes using spliced together parts of old ones. In any event, according to your present definition as long as a new ability is being added it doesn't matter if we're just re-using old bits and pieces.

Any genetic "splicing" is, again, a result of a command via the already encoded information in a gene's DNA. Your "it just happens by chance!" mantra is the absolute height of ignorance.

Ahhh. So we're redefining "information" yet again? From nucleotide sequence to number of genes to function/ability and now to the amount of "chains" in the DNA molecule and the amount of DNA in the genome? What, exactly, do you mean by "the amount of chains in the DNA molecule"? I'm assuming you're not suggesting that there are more than two so this kind of seems like a re-packaging of your "number of genes" definition from a while back

What I'm doing is explaining it from different angles in response to your continued "what IS information?" smokescreen you keep trying to throw up in an attempt to lead away from the obvious onto another one of your rabbit trails. You already know what genetic information is. You know it, and I know it. You've known it from the beginning of our conversation. You keep attacking the definition because you are well aware there are no informational increases in a genome. You know it, and your attempts to prove it by posting links to pages you haven't even bothered to read (as I've used the information from those links against you by showing they actually back up what I've been saying all along). And when you get caught with your pants down, you simply ignore it and try your "define information" attack again.

It's not gonna work, Sparky. It never has, and never will. Try something new - it's getting boring.

[wyguy]

Nylon is a synthetic polymer, neither the nylon polymer or the amide bonds that bind its subunits together are found in nature.

Wrong. Nobody invented a chemical property from anything that is not found in nature.

We actually can look at strains of this bacteria that lack this mutation - there isn't a dormant nylonase gene waiting around to be activated. The saddest part about this exchange is that you actually think that last statement makes sense.

Again, there are no property that man has invented that does not have it's foundation in nature. You can take a chemical, add another and make something "new," but it's basic chemical properties exist in nature. What the bacteria is reacting to are the base chemical properties. And from what you just said it's obvious you didn't really bother to read the information I posted on the subject. The mutation is a loss of genetic information, not an increase that you keep claiming.

So now you're saying that gene duplication is actually intentional? Are you entirely sure this is the road you want to go down?

I'm taking about "alternative splicing." I figured, as a "science teacher," you'd pick up on that. My mistake. And yet again, the "splicing" are results of transcription.

Of course I already know what genetic information is, it was one of the many things I learned about biology when I expanded my horizon's beyond AIG. That being said, for the purpose of this debate I'm asking you how you are defining genetic information though I do this knowing full well you don't have any way to consistently define genetic information that can support your claims of universal information loss.

Yet again, mutations do not result in new genetic information. Which has been the bone of contention between us.

I keep questioning your definitions because, even taken at face value, they don't support your claims. Before a theory can be applicable externally it needs to be internally consistent, something your claims are not. You've tried to define "information" in several very interesting ways (nucleotide sequence, number of genes, function/ability, and the amount of chains in a DNA molecule [which I'd still like clarification on before you come up with something else]), and none of them actually support your claims of information loss. In point of fact every definition of information you've cooked up still results in information "gain" through observed events such as gene duplication and polyploidy. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions, and your ability to simply ignore such explanations has not managed to add up to a counter-argument.

Wrong, Scooby. Not one of the things you've tried to pass off as an informational increase, was, in fact, a genetic informational increase. It was very easy to pick apart the links you posted because you never bothered to read them before you posted them. And when I showed, from the links themselves, that they weren't claiming what you said they were, you ignored them and hopped down another rabbit trail.

Don't you think it's curious that 99.99% of biologists, you know - the professionals who study these things for a living, disagree with you about this.

Wow, you've spoken to, or read the writings of, 99.99% of the biologists in the world? You really must get around. Where did you find the time?

The "argument from authority" is as old as the hills, and also dishonest, as there are thousands of Christian scientists with just as many PhD's as their atheistic counterparts, who aren't buying what you are selling either. Nobody with even common sense is ever going to believe life created itself from dead matter, infused itself with enough genetic information in that first "primitive" cell to know how to separate itself from the water around it, take in food, expel waste, use food to make energy to do it's work, have a means to retain this information and duplicate it, and reproduce itself. Without all the information to do those things already in place within that first cell, there never would have been a second cell. But, golly gosh, according to you, not only was it, but it was all there by "chance." And "chance" also makes fish into reptiles, and reptiles into birds, and primates into people simply by trial and error! Wow! "chance" sure seems to be pretty smart! To go from a "simple" cell into the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell that is the informational equivalent of 1,000 books of encyclopedia size. To where it would take a person typing 60 words a minute, eight hours a day, almost 50 years to type the human genome. To where if all the DNA in your body's 100 trillion cells was put end to end, it would reach the 90 million mile away sun, and back, over 600 times.

Yep, that "chance" sure is a marvel!

[wyguy]

This is the saddest part of these debates; you've obviously run out of talking points and are now just making things up using "sciency" words. No, I'm not wrong - nylon is synthetic. Furthermore, we certainly can create chemical properties from things not found in nature, I was doing this by my sophmore year of high school. Find much aluminum foil growing on trees? How about industrial strength lye? Neither of these are found "in nature" yet I can still combine them with water and produce hydrogen which is lighter than air and highly flammable which are properties neither aluminum foil nor lye possess.

By the way, one of the many problems with your above statement is that "chemical property" doesn't mean what you seem think it does. A chemical property is a characteristic of a substance that presents itself via a chemical reaction, as opposed to a physical property which is any aspect of a substance that can be observed or measured without causing a chemical reaction.

Nobody, I repeat, nobody could be this ignorant.

So, what you are actually saying is you are making things right out of thin air without utilizing any base properties found in nature? Are you out of your mind? EVERYTHING that is made, synthetic or not, is made from basic properties that already exist! You are not creating ONE THING that does not have it's origin in a natural substance!

Sometimes I wonder if I'm debating with a 10 year old.

Even if we take your convoluted thinking on "chemical properties" at face value, so what? That doesn't change the fact that there was no nylon prior to 1935, this is a new material which required these bacteria to evolve a new trait (the ability to digest that new material). Neither does this change the fact that there was no dormant nylonase gene floating around waiting to be activated. You are still completely wrong on all points here.

Those bacteria strains were always there. And they are reacting to properties already found in nature - period. Evolution of a new trait always involves an increase in genetic information, and NO mutation EVER increases genetic mutation. Mutations are copying errors that result in a genetic loss, NOT an increase. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it.

Mutations can only modify or eliminate existing structures, they cannot create new ones.

Yet with no way of predicting what genes will be duplicated where this process remains "random" even if the mechanism for putting the mutated pieces of the genetic puzzle back together are directed.

It's ALL directed. The errors existing due to copying mistakes of the genetic code from a directed command.

According to every definition you've given me so far about how you're measuring genetic information (all four of them) then yes, they do. . .unless you've got yet another way to measure information loss and gain.

You have yet to provide even one example of an increase in the genetic code. All the stuff you tried to pass off, I (unlike you) actually read. And all informational increase claims were completely speculative. Not one ounce of actual proof.

The Discovery Institute has been actively trying to get scientists to sign their "Dissent from Darwinism" list for nine years now, so far only about 150 biologists have signed on to it even though it is a relatively mild statement against some aspects of evolution (if you had a stronger statement like "mutations don't produce beneficial traits/increased information" your numbers would be even lower). As of 1999 there were about 955,300 biological scientists in the U.S. which gives us a percentage of 98.43%. If we then account for an increased number of biologists over the following 10 years accompanied by the removal of numerous scientists who have taken their names off the list we easily get to 99.99% of biologists who disagree with even a much much milder statement against evolution than you are attempting here

That was your lamest attempt yet.

First of all, not all biologists are even aware of the "Dissent from Darwinism" project. And even those that are aware of it, and agree with what is said, are not going to take the chance of losing their jobs over signing the document. There are many, many scientists that are closet creationists, who know full well the firestorm that will arise over the fact they do not agree with the evolutionary position. It's the same reason creationists do not get published in peer-reviewed journals. Those journals are manned by evolutionists that will not tolerate a paper from any scientist they suspect is a creationist - so they deny them peer-review. And thus, they can claim the old, "if the creationists had credible science, they would be getting published in the peer-reviewed journals."

You don't get tenure by bucking the evolutionary dictators in charge.

And again, it's nice to know you managed to somehow talk to 99.9% of all biologists to get their personal take on evolution.

That's abiogenesis, not evolution.

Again Scooter, without the foundation, you got no house.

It's not exactly "chance" as you're talking about it here. The mechanism for variation may be "random" but evolution is driven by very real and discernable forces such as natural selection.

Are you serious????

If evolution is directed by an intelligence, it's then not random or chance. If, as you claim, it is undirected and random, then it is ALL BY CHANCE.

[wyguy]

Sorry it's taken me so long to answer your last post(s) but with the holidays in full swing, I've been one busy beaver.

Okay, that being said, let's see what you've been up to....

No one is saying that we make things out of thin air, what I am saying is that the terms you are using do not mean what you think they mean. Even if you don't agree with me, at the very least you should be taking some of these tips to heart if nothing else than to avoid being crushed by non-believers on this topic who will likely not be as gentle with you as I have been.

That was you being gentle? Gee, I guess I'd better thank my lucky stars, aye?

Furthermore, saying that the basic building blocks of synthetic materials are found somewhere in nature is completely irrelevant.

Actually, that's the whole point. What the bacteria is reacting to, is what it has already been exposed to in nature.

Again, nylon is a synthetic polymer; neither it nor the amide bonds that hold together its subunits are found anywhere in nature without human beings dumping them there as an industrial byproduct.

It seems you missed this part of what I last quoted on the subject:

"The gene that mutated to enable bacteria to metabolize nylon is on a small loop of exchangeable DNA. This gene, prior to its mutation, coded for a protein called EII with a special ability to break down small, circularized proteins. Though synthetic, nylon is very protein-like because inventor Wallace Carothers modeled the original fiber based on known protein chemistry."

Sorry to burst your bubble there fella.

And yet they consistently do. I don't really see what you're expecting to gain here by constantly railing against reality, it's not as though reality is going to change course to fit your opinion about how it should behave. Here's a great example of the evolution of a new structure,

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

"Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves

[wyguy]

I'll address the rest of your post later, because this jumped right out at me and I want to bring it out in the open:

The whole Christ dying for my sins thing.

The whole Christ dying for my sins "Thing?"

Your answer seems rather flippant.

Let me ask you, why do you believe Jesus died for your sins? Where did you get the idea? The Bible?

The very Bible you continue, day after day, to deny?

You do realize that you have no basis for believing what Jesus said about himself and salvation when you claim He was lying (or ignorant) about the creation and the flood, don't you? Jesus said Adam and Eve existed, and were created by HIMSELF in the very beginning. ("For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him." Colossians 1:16).

"But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them." Mark 10:6.

But, according to you, there was no Adam and Eve in the beginning, but an evolution of man from a common primate ancestor.

According to you, we have a creator who has no idea how He actually created!

With evolution you have millions of years of bloodshed before Adam and Eve, which makes the atonement pointless. For, the Bible says that death came because of Adam's SIN.

If there were millions of years of pain, blood, suffering, disease, thorns, struggle and extinction BEFORE Adam sinned, and God called it all "very good," then IT IS ALL GOD'S FAULT and NOT man's sin for the mess this world is in! Why even pray for RELIEF from pain, disease and suffering if God said in the beginning it was GOOD???

How could Jesus atone for the Fall when there was no Adam who fell??? How could Jesus die for sin that brought death and suffering, if there was no Adam and Eve TO sin?

And that means there is no basis for believing in a virgin birth or a bodily resurrection of Christ. The whole reason Jesus came was to die for the sins of mankind brought about by the fall of Adam and Eve in the beginning!

Romans 5:12-21 says:

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the One to come.

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

And:

1 Timothy 2:13, "For Adam was first formed, then Eve."

Oops, looks like Paul got it all wrong too!

And in Luke 3:23-38, Luke TRACES the descendants of ADAM to JESUS!

Oops! Looks like Luke got it wrong as well!

By tossing out the book of Genesis as you do, there is no moral basis for right and wrong, no basis for marriage being between a man and a woman, no basis for saying a human being has any worth - that we were NOT created in the image of God. If Genesis is not literal truth, then we have no basis for ANY doctrine in the Bible.

When you deny God's Holy Word as you do, you are calling God a LIAR, because it is God who inspired the Bible, and you are also calling the Scriptures WORTHLESS.

Why is it that we never see you defending God or His Word? All we see you doing here is attacking anyone who DARES to take the Bible literally and seriously.

Is there even a post of you offering to pray for anyone?

Jesus said this, and I think he had people like you in mind when he said it:

"I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" John 3:12.

You don't believe Jesus when he said Adam and Eve were real people created in the beginning, or that the flood was an actual event. And by doing so, you have no foundation, or right, to believe Him when he speaks of salvation.

So again, why do you believe Jesus died for your sins?

[MorningGlory]

The whole Christ dying for my sins thing. Happy Holidays.

Wow....no one would accuse you of being on fire, would they?

[MorningGlory]

It was kind of a stupid question seeing as we've covered this issue before and seeing as the doctrine of salvation in Christianity is ridiculously simple. Unfortunately I am not always able to raise my answers above the level of the questions they answer.

Here we have the height of arrogance and self-aggrandizement. Lurker actually saying that his really dumb answers are the fault of those questioning him. Okay, I've seen it all now; nothing can surprise me after this.

[Guest]

.... It's not exactly "chance" as you're talking about it here. The mechanism for variation may be "random" but evolution is driven by very real and discernable forces such as natural selection ....