JustIgnoreMe's Waterfall
You are implying "increase in information" equals evolution.
I am saying that you are incorrect in claiming information does not increase.
The bacteria in the subject video of this debate are the same bacteria they started out as
No, it is not "the same" - it has different DNA and different functionality.
Your whole equation cannot be shown in nature
What part of mutation, heritability, or selection do you need more evidence for?
What is the survival mechanism limited by?
You said: The bacteria in the subject video adapted. There was something in their genes which allowed for this as a survival mechanism which is limited.
The "something" here is mutation, heritability, and selection. - what are those limited by?
you imply adaptations are beneficial mutations when it is programmed survival mechanisms in the organism
An "adaptation" is a heritable mutation that is favored in a given environment.
your conclusions of mutations equaling evolution
Evolution = mutation + heritability + selection
There was something in their genes which allowed for this as a survival mechanism which is limited
limited by what?
I assumed the ability to click a link and read - perhaps I overestimated.
"Evolution has been caught in the act, according to scientists who are decoding how a species of Australian lizard is abandoning egg-laying in favor of live birth.
Along the warm coastal lowlands of New South Wales (map), the yellow-bellied three-toed skink lays eggs to reproduce. But individuals of the same species living in the state's higher, colder mountains are almost all giving birth to live young.
Only two other modern reptiles—another skink species and a European lizard—use both types of reproduction.
Evolutionary records shows that nearly a hundred reptile lineages have independently made the transition from egg-laying to live birth in the past, and today about 20 percent of all living snakes and lizards give birth to live young only.
But modern reptiles that have live young provide only a single snapshot on a long evolutionary time line, said study co-author James Stewart, a biologist at East Tennessee State University. The dual behavior of the yellow-bellied three-toed skink therefore offers scientists a rare opportunity.
"By studying differences among populations that are in different stages of this process, you can begin to put together what looks like the transition from one [birth style] to the other."
Eggs-to-Baby Switch Creates Nutrient Problem
One of the mysteries of how reptiles switch from eggs to live babies is how the young get their nourishment before birth.
In mammals a highly specialized placenta connects the fetus to the uterus wall, allowing the baby to take up oxygen and nutrients from the mother's blood and pass back waste. (See related pictures of "extreme" animals in the womb.)
In egg-laying species, the embryo gets nourishment from the yolk, but calcium absorbed from the porous shell is also an important nutrient source.
Some fish and reptiles, meanwhile, use a mix of both birthing styles. The mother forms eggs, but then retains them inside her body until the very last stages of embryonic development.
The shells of these eggs thin dramatically so that the embryos can breathe, until live babies are born covered with only thin membranes—all that remains of the shells.
This adaptation presents a potential nourishment problem: A thinner shell has less calcium, which could cause deficiencies for the young reptiles.
Stewart and colleagues, who have studied skinks for years, decided to look for clues to the nutrient problem in the structure and chemistry of the yellow-bellied three-toed skink's uterus.
"Now we can see that the uterus secretes calcium that becomes incorporated into the embryo—it's basically the early stages of the evolution of a placenta in reptiles," Stewart explained.
Evolutionary Transition Surprisingly Simple
Both birthing styles come with evolutionary tradeoffs: Eggs are more vulnerable to external threats, such as extreme weather and predators, but internal fetuses can be more taxing for the mother.
For the skinks, moms in balmier climates may opt to conserve their own bodies' resources by depositing eggs on the ground for the final week or so of development. Moms in harsh mountain climates, by contrast, might find that it's more efficient to protect their young by keeping them longer inside their bodies.
In general, the results suggest the move from egg-laying to live birth in reptiles is fairly common—at least in historic terms—because it's relatively easy to make the switch, Stewart said.
"We tend to think of this as a very complex transition," he said, "but it's looking like it might be much simpler in some cases than we thought."
The skink-evolution research was published online August 16 by the Journal of Morphology."
Land Reptiles before birds and mammals.
So, land animals before birds.
Leviticus deals with clean vs unclean - not order of creation.
The link describes current examples of animals in transition. Eggs certainly came first.
Egg layers
Then amniotes
then viviparity (live birth)
That is what they think because they havn't found birds.
Not only because they haven't found birds earlier in the fossil record, but also because they have found evidence for the transition from dinosaurs to birds.
It is not as conclusive as you think.
It is not as inconclusive as you think...
Since you obviously don't plan to answer - the bible says sea animals and birds were created on day 5 and that land animals were created on day 6.
Evolution says:
1) land animals preceded birds
2) land animals evolved from sea animals (and marine mammals are sea animals that later evolved from land animals).
The biblical account and the evolution account cannot both be true - there is evidence for the evolution account (for example, the chain of pairs I previously provided.)
I had read that before giving you Dawkins' response and thought it was so poor (and agrees to things that you do not) that you would not use it, but here ya go.
"Dawkins pulls a bait-and-switch and defines information as "Shannon information"—a formulation of "information" that applies to signal transmission and does not account for the type of specified complexity found in biology."
This is duplicitous as they go on to describe Shannon information as measuring only the information capacity whereas Dawkins actually touches on 3 things aspects of information - total information capacity, the information actually used, and the non-redundant information used - the latter largely maps up to the ID definition for specified complexity.
"during the actual gene-duplication process, a pre-existing gene is merely copied, and nothing truly new is generated."
Duplicitous again as it ignores Dawkins' actual argument - that the process of duplication (along with the mutations that occur during the process) can increase the information capacity, but that it is natural selection that adds the non-redundant information to the gene pool.
Both of the above are proved duplicitous later on when they admit:
"Dawkins would argue that the information in the environment is transferred into the genome of the organism. Fair enough."
and "We all know that mutations must provide the raw fuel upon which natural selection can act."
At the end of the day, even the ID supporters are forced to admit:
"I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent." - Behe
and "Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution" - Gilbert, Opitz, Raff
and "Natural selection can (given the right population circumstances, etc.) preserve traits that confer a survival advantage, and it is very effective at weeding out traits that are disadvantageous." - Luski (the response author)
So, they believe in beneficial mutations, common descent, and microevolution, and, as Dawkins points out, they believe that information is added, they just believe an intelligent designer adds it rather than mutation and natural selection.
Do you also believe the evidence strongly supports common descent, microevolution, and beneficial mutations?
Also, I've given examples of observed increases in functionality and the creation of new genes - no matter which definition you use, these would be an increase in information.
Maybe you should try to think for yourself rather than copying/pasting the arguments used against you.
We can't get past the basics, because you don't admit they are true.
Do you now admit insertion mutations exist?
Do you now admit beneficial mutations exist?
Anything you can show me in observable science is not in dispute.
As long as you're saying things like: "adding DNA and adding new DNA to the genome of an organism are two different things", then, yes, there is still dispute.
nothing past bio 101
If you can't get past the bio 101 topics, it would be useless to discuss things that depend on you understanding them.
the basic stuff you harp on
I harp on the basics because your arguments still don't agree with them.
I have studied it more than you
Then, here's your chance professor - show us all how wise you are by making sense of your claim:
"adding DNA and adding new DNA to the genome of an organism are two different things"
I don't think your questions are worth me looking up
So, other people are supposed to "investigate instead of shutting down", but not you?
Are you the one "stepping back and taking in all the info" - if someone asks you to take a look at info and you say it isn't worth it?
I don't limit things in one direction
You just decide that the other directions aren't worthwhile.
I raise my view to take more in
until challenged.
I'm not a biologist
You seemed sure enough to pronounce that a wolf is a kind of dog without being a biologist.
If wolves and dogs are related by mutation, then mutation can change: body shape/size, fur color, hearing, sight, sense of smell, intelligence, temperament, dentition, etc., etc.
Don't the pairs I mention fall within the same level of mutation or less?
Maybe if you looked at scripture with your science mind
you wouldn't even consider the possibility just because it doesn't fit in your box
So instead why don't you take what you know and investigate
This is exactly what I'm asking you to do. If you have a broad view of science and the bible, then investigate and impart your wisdom by answering the questions.
again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
Why?
Um, why not??
I actually don't dispute principles of evolution.
good - then answering should be no problem for you.
again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
But what about everything else?
We can get to everything else right after you answer the initial questions.
again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
If it doesn't prove you wrong, then you have no reason not to answer, right?
again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
three Stone structures
Presumably you mean this or some other silliness.
Nice dodge - again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
I answered it, you don't like the answer.
You specifically did not.
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
Answer the questions and then I will elucidate.
again, if dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
And I assert that if you answer the question, you will see how evolution does contradict the bible and you apparently know this which is why you can't answer the question.
again - what I asked:
If dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
So, does that mean you can answer the question?
again - what I asked:
If dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
again - what I asked:
If dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
You, of course, dismiss the entire thing without disputing one single thing in it.
The only one just asserting their case and ignoring the arguments against is you.
I have taken college biology recently
Then you should try to get your money back. Bring copies of your posts on this site and they can't refuse.
old enough to be your grandfather
Old enough to be my grandfather (I'm in my 40's) and you're just getting around to taking biology, eh?
Aside from your irrelevant gibberish, do you have any response to the actual claims?
Do you admit insertion mutations exist?
Do you admit beneficial mutations exist?
again - what I asked:
If dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same 'kind' as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same 'kind' as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same 'kind' as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the 'kind' as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same 'kind' as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same 'kind' as Tulerpeton?
First 6 paragraphs - gibberish.
a wolf is a kind of dog
If you believe wolves and dogs are related, then you believe mutations can change - body shape/size, fur color, hearing, sight, sense of smell, intelligence, temperament, dentition, etc., etc.
If dogs and wolves are the same kind:
isn't Coelacanth the same kind as Eusthenopteron?
isn't Eusthenopteron the same kind as Panderichthys?
isn't Panderichthys the same kind as Tiktaalik?
isn't Tiktaalik the same kind as Acanthostega?
isn't Acanthostega the same kind as Ichthyostega?
isn't Ichthyostega the same kind as Tulerpeton?
You should study DNA scientifically
You should start with the very basics.
http://www.yourgenome.org/facts/
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/
adding DNA and adding new DNA to the genome of an organism are two different things
no, they aren't.
Explain how you think they are different.
You are twisting words and stretching definitions
The reason you think this is that you obviously don't know the definitions.
Is that clearer?
um, no.
A) Define kind.
B) Do you believe dogs could have evolved from wolves, or not?
Do viruses evolve to pets, or does it further propel man into their never ending decay?
Yes, from the simple came the more complex. And yes, we can observe beneficial mutations.
The fallen angels brought crafts and skills of Heavens and taught their ways to men.
fan fiction.
God washed the earth of their seed in a flood
fiction
after it's kind does seeds make
Define kind. Did dogs evolve from wolves?
the site you reference is completely against your implication that mutations cause evolution so that reptiles morph into birds
Did I say - here is a site that completely agrees with every claim that I make - or, did I say here is a site (run by creationists) that disagrees with a claim that you make?
A few quotes from your waterfall:
------------------------------
New DNA is never seen to be added to the genome of any creature which would be required for evolution to occur. ref
Mutations NEVER add DNA ref
Mutations NEVER add DNA to the genome of an organism, DNA is lost or damaged in mutations. ref
Mutations are always detrimental to the organism. ref
Variations and mutations are obvious and cannot be argued against. It is not evolution, it is not new DNA being added to the genome. ref
The only thing I deny is that DNA is added to the genome by mutation. A mutation or a variation is not new DNA added to the genome of the creature. The genome allows for variations, and mutations are always from defects in the DNA. Neither of these things adds new DNA to the genome causing one animal to turn into a different kind of animal as would be required for evolution to occur. It never has been observed and never will be observed because it never happened and never will happen. ref
changing genes is a variation or a mutation, it's not evolution. It does not add DNA to the genome of the animal. ref
The question was "Can you show me one example mutation or any process of evolution adding DNA to the genome of any creature". You cannot. ref
Mutation does not add new information to the genome of any creature. ref
you argue that mutation adds DNA to the genome when it has never been seen to happen ref
------------------------------
1) As I have shown, even some ardent creationists agree that we have observed processes which add DNA.
2) An increase (or decrease or change) in the DNA is BY DEFINITION a mutation.
Therefore, there are mutations which add DNA
No, the people of that site agree that there are mutations, there are beneficial mutations, and there are mutations that increase the size of the genome. They still probabilistic claims on the number of beneficial mutations, and discuss how temporary they might be, etc. etc. (unconvincingly I might add), but they definitely disagree with your claim that DNA never grows - since they have observed the opposite.
Just take one of the above and show that either they don't happen, or that they don't increase the size.
Should be easy for you, right?
Here ya go:
- duplication (may or may not duplicate a full gene sequence)
- asymmetrical chiasma
- Trinucleotide repeats
- polymerase-catalyzed extensions (slippage)
- nucleotide and amino acid insertion
- frameshift mutations
- virus insertional mutagenesis
- polyploidy
variations which are potential in the genome are not new DNA
There are three types of mutation:
substitution mutations - replacing nucleotides with other nucleotides - size remains the same
deletion mutations - removal of nucleotides - size decreases
and INSERTION mutations - addition of nucleotides - size increases
I believe he addresses the information from both the available combinations and the length.
I am assuming you mean that the length of the DNA sequence for a given species increases.
Yes, the number of bases in the DNA sequence can increase.
You: "Mutations NEVER add DNA to the genome "
Me: Here are several ways in which exactly that happens and creationist concurrence in that fact...
You: "you are so brainwashed"
Um.
It says:
"The first step of this rearrangement was insertion"
and
"those duplicated genes"
Dawkins' response to the video you mention:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/resources/
You have not.
I definitely have.
Copying in (again) from my post from 2 years ago:
"There are lots of ways information is added to the genome:
- duplication (may or may not duplicate a full gene sequence)
- asymmetrical chiasma
- Trinucleotide repeats
- polymerase-catalyzed extensions (slippage)
- nucleotide and amino acid insertion
- frameshift mutations
- virus insertional mutagenesis
- polyploidy"
And from answersingenesis - a creation site:
"Another mutation of E. coli facilitated amino acid catabolism under starvation conditions, enabling the mutant to outcompete the parental wild-type.53 This increased catabolism resulted from a genomic rearrangement (Figure 3). The first step of this rearrangement was insertion of an indigenous IS5 element between the promoter and a CRP-binding site (catabolite regulatory protein) of the starvationinducible cstA gene.54"
"Hence, certain environmental conditions seem to favor bacteria with specific genes duplicated. This may have provided the organism a temporary increase in gene expression of those duplicated genes, which apparently helped the organism cope with the higher temperature."
Notice that both of the (beneficial) mutations they are describing resulted in increased genome size.
Until they kill themselves from too many concussions - wait, you mean those dolphins... ;)
Mutations NEVER add DNA to the genome of an organism
I have shown this to be wrong several times - ref
