Blue eye gene

[MorningGlory]

And you wonder why I don't bother posting physical evidence. You haven't even acknowledged my example of speciation. Do you or do you not accept that this is an example of speciation:

"A group of scientists exposed D. melanogaster (a type of fruit fly) populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating (the tendency for the creatures to mate with creatures like themselves in preference to others). These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of evolution due to the differing environments. (Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 34:730-737.)

The populations were subjected to different environments for an extended period of time and were no longer able to interbreed. That is clearly speciation."

I'd say that sounds like an example of speciation. I thought I actually did respond to that post but then....too many irons in the fire. Okay, given the extremely short life spans of fruit flies, what time period would the several years represent if translated into an experiment involving primates?? I'm trying to figure out how many generations passed before speciation occurred.

[MorningGlory]

Glory2000

I'd say that sounds like an example of speciation. I thought I actually did respond to that post but then....too many irons in the fire. Okay, given the extremely short life spans of fruit flies, what time period would the several years represent if translated into an experiment involving primates?? I'm trying to figure out how many generations passed before speciation occurred.

Evolutionary rates vary wildly depending on things like how accurate the species' duplication mechanisms are, how strongly their changes are being pushed by their environment and a host of other unquantifiable things. Such calculations would be meaningless.

So you accept speciation now, after claiming so vehemently it wasn't true?

I didn't say I absolutely accept it but....I'm not opposed to learning new things and how they work. Of course, I see everything from a different place than you but that doesn't mean I can't come to the same conclusion. I need to read more about this....and I will. Interesting stuff.

[artsylady]

No, information theory is pretty widely accepted. Evolutionists accept that information is routinely added to DNA, so I doubt they'd have any problems with my above proof of this fact.

Hello Cache: Sorry for my absense.

Evolutionists accept that information is routinely added to the dna. I agree that they believe this. They HAVE to if you're going to believe that fish became humans. But do the majority also believe that the mechanism is the information theory that you are putting forth here?

And we might as well get to this at some point - may as well be now. Where is the proof?

[artsylady]

artsylady

Do you agree with this? I thought you did.

Genetic duplication is not a particularly important factor in evolution.

I thought it was, according to you. I thought the information theory that you are proporting is all about duplication.

There seems to be some communication problems between us.

There was a quote from AIG stating that if information is added, then primitive creatures SHOULD be shown to have LESS information, which you agreed with, right?

However, then you stated a few times that this was not the ONLY mechanism by which information is added.

If this process was the only one evolution used, then we would expect more complex organisms to have larger genomes. However, this process is not the only one evolution uses, so to borrow some terms from propositional logic, the argument is valid but not sound. If the premise were true the conclusion would be, but it's not.

It seems to be saying that there are even MORE methods by which information is added, which only serves to prove that by your standards, primitive creatures should have less information in the DNA.

As I said before, you assume for some reason that the amount of information in DNA is proportional to the complexity of the creature.

No, I don't believe this at all. I think that YOU should believe this, if you believe that information is ADDED by various means to the dna.

QUOTE

artsylady

I agree. What evolutionists would call 'less complex' really aren't. There is the same amount of information. So why is anyone calling them 'less complex' or 'primiitive'? They're just smaller.

Well the amount of information has nothing to do with the creature's size either. Information content is just a measurement of how many letters are in the sequence (well it's a little more complicated than that but this is pretty accurate). It is just a measurement of the size of the DNA and has nothing to do with the size of the creature or how complex it is.

So do you agree that primitive (or older) creatures are equally as complex? I think you have to, considering what was revealed by scientists in the SHOCKED thread, now that they realize early creatures are quite complex.

Do you agree that the first creatures were complex?

When I have time to read through the rest of that thread I will point out there too that the article is about the first animals, not the first creatures. The first living things were not animals, but prokaryotes.

Call them what you will. Are they less complex?

[artsylady]

I think the confusion around speciation is this.

Speciation does occur, but what constitutes a new species? There may be a hundred species of the fly, and observed new species over the years evolving, but what constitutues a new species? What are the parameters to call it 'new'? And in the end, it is still a fly.

The Bible speaks of 'kind' which is not the same as 'species'. The classification for what constitutes a species was created long after the Bible (be a Creation scientist, mind you).

Now, according to what creation scientists define as 'kind' are animals that can reproduce and create offspring. A dog and cat cannot. They are two different KINDS, although certainly different species of cats can reproduce together and different species of dogs can reproduce together.

So, yes, speciation occurs, but the problem with evolution is that there are obvious limits as to what can occur, according to what we've OBSERVED. We can observe various species reproducing together and with the shuffling of genes and the environment, new species can occur. But no matter how many various species of fly reproduce, there won't be a fly that can make honey or eject poison or grow quills to shoot, or change colours, or give off a scent like the skunk, because that information is not in the genetic material that is being shuffled around.

So new species of the fly or the dog or the cat can occur, but they are still flies, dogs and cats. They are still the same 'kind'.

[MorningGlory]

I think the confusion around speciation is this.

Speciation does occur, but what constitutes a new species? There may be a hundred species of the fly, and observed new species over the years evolving, but what constitutues a new species? What are the parameters to call it 'new'? And in the end, it is still a fly.

The Bible speaks of 'kind' which is not the same as 'species'. The classification for what constitutes a species was created long after the Bible (be a Creation scientist, mind you).

Now, according to what creation scientists define as 'kind' are animals that can reproduce and create offspring. A dog and cat cannot. They are two different KINDS, although certainly different species of cats can reproduce together and different species of dogs can reproduce together.

So, yes, speciation occurs, but the problem with evolution is that there are obvious limits as to what can occur, according to what we've OBSERVED. We can observe various species reproducing together and with the shuffling of genes and the environment, new species can occur. But no matter how many various species of fly reproduce, there won't be a fly that can make honey or eject poison or grow quills to shoot, or change colours, or give off a scent like the skunk, because that information is not in the genetic material that is being shuffled around.

So new species of the fly or the dog or the cat can occur, but they are still flies, dogs and cats. They are still the same 'kind'.

Good point. I've been reading up on cache's posts about the speciation observed in fruit flies. It does appear that speciation occurred but in a limited sense. I'm still looking at information (there's a LOT of it out there!) but so far what I've learned is that the process is confined within 'kinds', it seems to have a purpose when it does occur (adaptation to climate change, available food supply, etc.) and it appears to have occurred fairly rapidly. I have to admit it's very interesting though.

[artsylady]

No, primitive creatures are less complex, but their DNA is not.

Do you think there is much difference in the amount of information in the dna of a primitive jellyfish and a modern jellyfish?

[artsylady]

To summarize this convoluted argument, you argued from these axioms:

1. The complexity of a creature is proportional to amount of information in its DNA.

Where did I state this? I don't believe this.

We are having serious communication problems here.

2. Information cannot be added to DNA.

Therefore, macroevolution (a significant increase in complexity of a species) cannot occur.

I have destroyed premise 2

When?

I do agree that this discussion is convaluted. I've never seen anything like it.

[VRSpock]

Ok...first of all, I want to disspell a great myth in the universe. That myth being "Micro-evoltuion".

Pharmecuetical companies have recently discovered that certain viruses are already immune to a brand new anti-biotic that they have developed that the virus HAS NEVER BEEN EXPOSED TO IN THE PAST, because prior to their initial experiments, the anti-biotic did not exist!

Upon close examination, they have discovered that what is happening with viruses and super viruses is NOT an adaptation to a new drug that secular scientists like to call "micro-evolution", but is instead a random mutation that has nothing to do with exposure to anything. Therefore, micro-evolution does NOT exist. The idea of micro-evolution suggests that organisms adapt to their surroundings at a molecular level and the recent discoveries made by pharmaceutical companies proves this to be a flawed concept.

I also want to disspell another great myth of the universe and that myth is that mankind has mastered human DNA.

We have not mastered anything of the sort. In fact, mankind has no idea what 99% of the protein sequences in human DNA actually do! To be able to clone something doesn't mean that one has mastered protein sequencing. I can copy/paste PHP code to my hearts content and make bits and peicies of programming code work together in a Frankensteinish manner, but that doesn't mean that I know squat about what the bits and pieces of code actually do.

I'm only talking about human DNA here...much less the DNA in animals, plants and all the other organisms in existence. True science, not the hollywood Jurassic Park science that we are finding in more and more school text books, does not assume anything, yet secular scientists speak as if they have great understanding of DNA molecules and can construct all of these fantasies about how life neatly evolved out of a puddle of goo, yet when they are questioned by others they end up falling all over themselves because they don't have any real data that they have collected, only speculations and assumptions.

Do blue-eyes prove anything? If I mix yellow and blue paint together does it evolve into green paint?

Of course not!

[artsylady]

Are you serious? I've shown conclusively that any form of genetic mutation that adds letters adds information many times. I'll repost the argument for you.

QUOTE

cache

Many forms of genetic mutation have been observed that add data to the genetic sequence and information theory says that this is an increase in information. As an example I pointed to genetic duplication which basically just copies segments of DNA. The response was that copying what's already there doesn't add information. However, if you accept this as true you get some nonsensical conclusions, like this one:

1. Copying segments of information doesn't not increase the amount of information.

2. All the English written works in all the libraries of the world contain just the letters of the alphabet and some punctuation.

Now, consider the sequence "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ1234567890,./\;'[]|<>?:"{}+_)(*&^%$#@!~`"

Since all the letters and all the punctuation (well I might have missed some punctuation marks but that's irrelevant) in all the English written works are contained in that sequence, all English literature can be created by duplicating segments of the sequence.

Therefore, that sequence contains exactly the same amount of information as all the written works of the English language.

Ok, so since the conclusion is self evidently false, you must reject one of the logical steps or one of the axioms. My logic is sound (as far as I can tell, point it out if it's not), so your only option is to reject one of the premises. Premise 2 is self evident, therefore premise 1 is false. Therefore information is added by genetic duplication. Therefore the information content of DNA can be routinely increased. Therefore microevolution is exactly the same as macroevolution (or at least Creationists need to look for a different reason they're not the same).

Are you actually trying to say that the above equation is proof that new information is able to find it's way into the dna cell of an animal or plant species?

Do you really find this to be acceptable proof?