Jump to content
IGNORED

What is the Evidence of Mutations and New Information


Guest shiloh357

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

6 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

But to the neutral observer, there is now doubt on radiometric dating and nearly every major phyla appeared abruptly in the fossil record in the late Ediacaran and really Cambrian without any fossil evidence where they came from. 

Again, millions of years may be "sudden" to a paleontologist, but the time span is still vast. Regarding the diversity seen in the Cambrian explosion, here is a quote from the link I provided earlier:

Quote

Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999). 

Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record. 

And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today. 

Claims have exaggerated the actual presence of today's phyla that have been seen in Cambrian fossils.

Have a good day, ARGOSY (or night, in your case?) I'd better get some work done before I call it a day ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  35
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,743
  • Content Per Day:  1.18
  • Reputation:   249
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/04/2015
  • Status:  Offline

On 10/17/2018 at 9:11 PM, shiloh357 said:

No, we don't have a common ancestor with chimps.  That is just nonsense.   Evolutionists point to the fact that are something like 98% similar in DNA with chimps.   But most of that has to do with biological functions.   The critical 2% DNA that makes chimps, chimps and humans, humans is radically different and defies any possibility that we are the same or that we are descended from chimps.  

We are 60% identical in DNA to bananas, but I don't think anyone would argue that we share a common ancestor with bananas.

Virtually all biologists agree that we share a common ancestor with bananas. And with all life forms. Trees, fungi, bacteria, etc.I am not sure what your point is and why you say that nobody would argue for that, when that has been de-facto scientific orthodoxy for more than 100 years.

Science is not really your forte, right? :)

:) siegi :)

 

 

Edited by siegi91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,026
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   964
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

On 10/29/2018 at 1:40 PM, one.opinion said:

the fossil record shows nearly every major phyla appearing suddenly in the Ediacaran and Early Cambrian

The Ediacaran Period ( /iː. diˈæk. ... rən/ ee-dee-AK-ə-rən) is a geological period that spans 94 million years from the end of the Cryogenian Period 635 million years ago (Mya), to the beginning of the Cambrian Period 541 Mya.

https://www.google.com/search?channel=cus5&client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Ediacaran+

One can accurately describe 94,000,000 years in a lot of different ways, but "sudden" is not one of them.  Add about 10 million years for the early C.ambrian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  286
  • Content Per Day:  0.11
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/16/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 8/21/2018 at 5:10 PM, Guest shiloh357 said:

If Evolution is true, and birds came from dinosaurs, then what is the evidence that mutations create brand new information in the genes of living organisms causing them to evolve into a completely different species?

It isn't true...and there is no evidence for it because it isn't true!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  286
  • Content Per Day:  0.11
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/16/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 12/22/2021 at 9:00 AM, The Barbarian said:

The Ediacaran Period ( /iː. diˈæk. ... rən/ ee-dee-AK-ə-rən) is a geological period that spans 94 million years from the end of the Cryogenian Period 635 million years ago (Mya), to the beginning of the Cambrian Period 541 Mya.

https://www.google.com/search?channel=cus5&client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Ediacaran+

One can accurately describe 94,000,000 years in a lot of different ways, but "sudden" is not one of them.  Add about 10 million years for the early C.ambrian.

Except for the FACT that the earth is not millions of years old. The geological record is horribly misinterpreted when the world-wide flood is not taken into account, and when fossil markers are utilized by geologists (according to evolutionist's false time scales) in order to determine the age of strata.

The current geological strata column is wholly man made up in order to support the false time scale claims of evolutionists. When Dawkins says that all we have to do is imagine as many millions of years as we need to in order to imagine something in the evolutionary story-telling to come about through "evolutionary processes," he takes evolutionary theory outside of the scientific arena.

Science is NOT about imagining what it would take, and how long it might take for organism A to speciate into organism B...science is about facts divorced from speculation in the end so that only the facts remain. TOE has no facts supporting it, and all claims that it is nothing but facts are found to be outright lies when they get called out on those lies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,026
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   964
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

6 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

If Evolution is true, and birds came from dinosaurs, then what is the evidence that mutations create brand new information in the genes of living organisms causing them to evolve into a completely different species?

Birds are dinosaurs.   And understanding how new infomation appears, that would require you to learn about information theory.  The formula for information is:

shannon_equation-66391558.jpg.0642eeccfc884b3d7749f34b5eea5ca6.jpg

Where p is the frequency of a given allele of a gene in the population.    Let's take a simple case.  Suppose that there are two alleles (version of the gene) in a population, each with a frequency of 0.5.    The information for that gene is then about 0.3.   Then suppose mutation produces a new allele and eventually each allele has a frequency of about 0.333 in the population.    The information is then about 0.48.   And so it has increased.

It's not controversial.   Even many creationist organizations admit that speciation is an observed fact.

Would you like me to show you?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,026
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   964
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

6 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

Except for the FACT that the earth is not millions of years old.

It's billions of years old.   The evidence is quite plain.   And the Bible does not say that it isn't that old.

6 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

The current geological strata column is wholly man made up in order to support the false time scale claims of evolutionists.

No, that's wrong too.   It even still exists in several places in the world where every age is preserved in the geological column.   Would you like me to show you that?

6 hours ago, SwordMaster said:

TOE has no facts supporting it,

As you might know, we observe it happening all around us.  Perhaps you don't know what the definition of "evolution" is.   What do you think it is?   With even most creationist organizatons admitting the evolution of new species, genera, and so on, there's really no longer any point in denying the fact.    If you doubt this, tell us which of Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory are not confirmed.    You'll find that each one is verified to be true.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  286
  • Content Per Day:  0.11
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/16/2017
  • Status:  Offline

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It's billions of years old.   The evidence is quite plain.   And the Bible does not say that it isn't that old.

No, that's wrong too.   It even still exists in several places in the world where every age is preserved in the geological column.   Would you like me to show you that?

As you might know, we observe it happening all around us.  Perhaps you don't know what the definition of "evolution" is.   What do you think it is?   With even most creationist organizatons admitting the evolution of new species, genera, and so on, there's really no longer any point in denying the fact.    If you doubt this, tell us which of Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory are not confirmed.    You'll find that each one is verified to be true.

 

Again...when it comes to age dating, not one of those methods used by evolutionists are accurate to any degree...and they refuse to acknowledge the more factual age dating methods like gravity and so forth because they demonstrate how geologists play fast and loose with the actual data and its outcomes.

Living mollusk shells have been dated at being millions of years old...and any brain child that thinks a living creature can be millions of years old has some serious intellectual issues.

And again, whether you accept it or not because you allow your bias to run your brain and thinking processes, there is not one "quite plain" piece of evidence for billions of years of age for anything...but you go ahead and keep believing that nonsense and see where it gets you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  286
  • Content Per Day:  0.11
  • Reputation:   49
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/16/2017
  • Status:  Offline

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Birds are dinosaurs.   And understanding how new infomation appears, that would require you to learn about information theory.  The formula for information is:

shannon_equation-66391558.jpg.0642eeccfc884b3d7749f34b5eea5ca6.jpg

Where p is the frequency of a given allele of a gene in the population.    Let's take a simple case.  Suppose that there are two alleles (version of the gene) in a population, each with a frequency of 0.5.    The information for that gene is then about 0.3.   Then suppose mutation produces a new allele and eventually each allele has a frequency of about 0.333 in the population.    The information is then about 0.48.   And so it has increased.

It's not controversial.   Even many creationist organizations admit that speciation is an observed fact.

Would you like me to show you?

 

First...you can't even see clearly. I did not say the quote that you quoted me as saying. Try again...

 

Secondly, birds are not dinosaurs.

thirdly, "new information" does NOT appear in genetic systems, only genes that were previously unexpressed...as numerous papers have demonstrated. 

You believe in lies by liars seeking to live outside of God's plan. Guess what, they deceive themselves...and apparently you along with them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  27
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5,026
  • Content Per Day:  0.66
  • Reputation:   964
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/20/2003
  • Status:  Offline

32 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

First...you can't even see clearly. I did not say the quote that you quoted me as saying. Try again...

I quoted you directly.   Your words.  But if you feel I missed the meaning, by all means, go ahead and tell us about it.

32 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

Secondly, birds are not dinosaurs.

That's a testable belief.   Tell me something true of birds that is not true of any other dinosaur.   What do you have?

32 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

thirdly, "new information" does NOT appear in genetic systems, only genes that were previously unexpressed...

Sorry, that's false.   The Milano mutation, for example, came about in one person.   We have been able to identify him by genetic analysis.   It began with him and didn't exist before him.

32 minutes ago, SwordMaster said:

You believe in lies by liars seeking to live outside of God's plan.

You've merely attempted to replace God's word with the words of men, who aren't willing to accept His scripture as it is.    Which doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't a Christian or that you aren't saved.  It merely means you are in error on something that is not in any way a salvation issue.   Most creationists are as good and devout Christians as the rest of us.

And you were going to tell us which of the four points of Darwin's theory have been refuted.   Can you do that, now?

 

 

Edited by The Barbarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...