Blue eye gene

[artsylady]

As far as language evolution, can we agree yet, that what has been OBSERVED, (feral children and the fact that linguists believe all languages began as one) fits better with the creation model than with evolution?

Can we agree that legends of floods, a man saving animals on a boat fits better with creation than evolution?

[artsylady]

I assume that you accept that copying occurs.

QUOTE

artsylady

By copying, do you mean copying information already in the dna? I would think you have to mean that.

Yes, this is exactly what I mean. And information theory shows that this is exactly the same as intelligently writing in new data.

Well how does copying of existing data bring NEW, advantageous data into the dna?

[artsylady]

Copying of already-existing data? Sure.

Just like microevolution is the shuffling and pooling of advantageous already-existing data? Yes.

[artsylady]

artsylady

Copying of already-existing data? Sure.

Ah, good, glad we have that out of the way.

Now, back to the info theory.

Here is a sequence of RNA: AUAGAC

Now here is the same sequence with the AGA copied: AU AGA AGA C

Do you accept that this is a possible example of the way segments have been shown to be copied?

Yes.

[artsylady]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/enzymes.asp

Hope you don't mind a copy and paste. I don't have a lot of time. I am about to pick up my husband from the airport and probably won't be on for a few days, as he's been gone for 9 days.

[artsylady]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/enzymes.asp

Hope you don't mind a copy and paste. I don't have a lot of time. I am about to pick up my husband from the airport and probably won't be on for a few days, as he's been gone for 9 days.

This article is about the irreducible complexity of DNA, not information theory.

Do you accept that if a cell adds a new amino acid to a protein, or prematurely finishes its construction (or even adds an extra duplicate of an amino acid that was supposed to be there) it will create a new protein that wasn't there before?

I can't agree right now, due to lack of time to do more research. In the meantime, I will assert that there most likely many limitations to this proposal.

If this actually happens, why wasn't it applied when geneticists were trying to create a blue rose? Why did they finally realize in order to make this change, even though it is very minute in comparison to what evolutionary theory SAYS happened, why did they finally realize that this very small change could not happen without an intelligent being directly inserting new dna coding into the dna of the rose? If this kind of manipulation has to happen just to increase color capability in a flower, how does it relate to the fish turned philospher argument, or any real natural evolutionary change. That's why I'm saying there has to be limits and serious ones. I'll try to look into it more.

How does this relate in the real world? Can you give me a real life example as to how this does create an advantageous change?

[artsylady]

Firstly, it would be very difficult to artificially stimulate duplication, secondly, they would need to know exactly what they wanted to duplicate and this would be very difficult to work out, and thirdly, they would need to implement it with a huge degree of precision.

But billions of advantageous gains have happened accidentally on billions of species?

Naturally a far easier option is to simply take the required gene from another organism and insert it.

Seemed like the only option, not the easiest. Took them 10 years to figure out this was the only way.

Duplication specifically? No (I can give plenty of evidence that it occurs, but it is rarely involved in evolution due to its rarity as a mutational process). My point is simply that there are many naturally occurring processes that manipulate DNA in such a way that ADDS information, which is basically just counter argument to your only remaining distinction between micro and macro evolution.

This sounds like just another hypotheses with no proof?

[artsylady]

So your complaint is now that because these scientists didn't use a ridiculously infeasible method of genetic manipulation, that information is never added by duplication?

Never been shown to do so naturally, right? And it's not so much a complaint as it is an answer. If this is a scientific theory, not just a hypotheses, where and when has it occurred naturally?

QUOTE

artsylady

This sounds like just another hypotheses with no proof?

What do you want proof of? Information is not a physical thing, it is a purely abstract concept. I have proven that genetic duplication occurs beyond reasonable doubt, and shown how this increases the amount of information in the code. You clearly want me to prove the second point, but it is an abstract idea which can be proven only through philosophical argument, not physical evidence. I have given philosophical arguments for my point, and I have also given examples, so what more do you want?

Proof that it has happened.

You haven't proved that it happens at all, let alone that it happens 'beyond a reasonable doubt'?

On a related note, I mentioned that duplication was just one example of information being added, but the same concept applies to adding random letters to the genetic code. Since the meaning that any reader applies to the code is entirely arbitrary, adding random letters to DNA increases the amount of information it contains by precisely the same amount as intelligently writing in new data does. It doesn't matter what the letters mean, more letters still means more information. Therefore, any process that increases the number of letters in the genetic code increases the amount of information it contains.

If any method you suggest is so easy why didn't scientists use one of them to get the color blue in a rose? My guess is that they did try other methods and it could not happen, so they had to physically remove data from the blue flower and put it into the dna of the rose.

[MorningGlory]

Cache, and Artsy Lady, no matter which one of you bests the other in this discussion.....you guys rock! I am learning stuff from your posts too; amazing, I thought I already knew everything!

[artsylady]

Any method of genetic manipulation that adds letters adds information. What you are suggesting is that they direct these natural processes which to my knowledge is completely impossible given current technology.

Now your argument seems to hinge on the second of my above sentences disproving the first. This is nonsense.

QUOTE

artsylady

You haven't proved that it happens at all, let alone that it happens 'beyond a reasonable doubt'?

When you say 'it' what are you referring to? I have made two points:

1. Genetic duplication happens.

2. Any addition of letters is an addition of information.

I can only assume by 'it' you refer to point 2 because point 1 is proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, as I have said, information is an abstract thing and statements about it are simply not provable or falsifiable by physical evidence (that's not to say that they aren't provable or falsifiable, just that physical evidence cannot adjudicate). Instead you must use philosophical argument and logical deduction to answer these questions. I have done this and the only counter argument you can muster is to continually assert that I have no physical evidence (which I would agree with, it's a moot point).

Can I ask a question? Is this all based on a computer program?

Also, is there any scientific study to show this?

Information theory is a branch of mathematics, but you accept other mathematical proofs that don't involve physical evidence. When someone tells you that a quadratic function 0=ax