Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

As we all know, Evolution i

And what enlightening words they are.

This thread was posted in error!

Would you like to debate on the topic of Evolution/Intelligent Design?

ushomefree: what, to you, would constitute sufficient evidence for the evolution side to win?

He didn't even say candlejack o_O

I'd like to see "brand new" information introduced into an organisms' genome, and I'm not referring to mutated information; such leads to complication and death. For Natural Selection to be remotely possible, brand new information must be introduced into the genome (by whatever means) for organisms to have a change at life, not to mention the future development. IT MUST CARRY TO THE NEXT GENERATION!

Originally posted by ushomefree
I'd like to see "brand new" information introduced into an organisms' genome, and I'm not referring to mutated information; such leads to complication and death. For Natural Selection to be remotely possible, brand new information must be introduced into the genome (by whatever means) for organisms to have a change at life, not to mention the future development. IT MUST CARRY TO THE NEXT GENERATION!

what do you mean by "new information". Be as specific as you can please.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I'd like to see "brand new" information introduced into an organisms' genome, and I'm not referring to mutated information; such leads to complication and death. For Natural Selection to be remotely possible, brand new information must be introduced into the genome (by whatever means) for organisms to have a change at life, not to mention the future development. IT MUST CARRY TO THE NEXT GENERATION!

Do you know what viruses do? They exchange DNA with their host (us). I think that would count as brand new information. If the sperm or egg where to be infected before fertilization, then the child would have a mutation. Also, sense this mutation is connected with a population of people, all getting the virus, then there is a good chance that more then one children will be born with this mutation. Sometimes this will lead to disaster, but sometimes it leads to a better adapted human.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I'd like to see "brand new" information introduced into an organisms' genome, and I'm not referring to mutated information; such leads to complication and death. For Natural Selection to be remotely possible, brand new information must be introduced into the genome (by whatever means) for organisms to have a change at life, not to mention the future development. IT MUST CARRY TO THE NEXT GENERATION!
How about that bacteria that scientists coded info onto it's DNA?

ushomfree, the very fact that you get a flue every season without any1 being able to make a vaccine for the common cold is evidence enough that BRAND NEW INFORMATION evolves in life all the time. infact, pathogen trends concerning immunity can be an excellent marker of general evoluion of species. and creationists need to be more specific about what they mean by INFORMATION, too often has the vagueness of this term been used as a fallacious linguistic weapon against evolutionists.

we have threads for this, a lot of them already started by ushome. This should be closed because it is needless spam. Reported.

Originally posted by inimalist
what do you mean by "new information". Be as specific as you can please.

Is your signature-quote thing from an xkcd web comic?

Originally posted by Digi
Is your signature-quote thing from an xkcd web comic?

ya, I was feeling a bit lonely when I came across it, sort of spoke to me in the moment.

funny stuff, that xkcd

Immunity has nothing to do with this issue. Viruses remain viruses.

Every organism on the face of the planet evolves in the traditional sense, but nothing morphs into something entirely new (containing brand new genetic information and raw material). To build a bridge over the problem, Darwinists commonly speak of genetic mutation. Yes, genetic mutation does occur in nature, but not in the fashion that Darwinists would have you believe.

Genetic mutations are simply errors within the "pre-existing" DNA code. Such does not introduce "brand new" information; hence no new raw material.

For example, genetic mutations produce infants born attached at the head, frogs born with 3 (frog) legs and fruit-flies born with (fruit-fly) legs growing out of their heads.

If genetic mutation were true in the sense that Darwinists propose, we would see, for example, fruit-flies being born with brand new raw material -- material unknown/new to the anatomy of a fruit-fly.

Let me explain by analogy:

You can not build a bicycle into a motorcycle. You can re-arrange, delete, and/or duplicate the building instruction of the bicycle (until a purple unicorn or a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich spontaneously generates in your living room); such will not bring abound oil and gas pumps, pistons, ignition systems and disk brakes. Never will you produce a motorcycle, only a genetically mutated bicycle.

Such does not occur at Harley Davidson manufacturing plants, and it does not occur in nature.



This is simply not true. Creationists, when talking about information, are referring to DNA, not to mention it's function. It is Darwinists who are vague, branding grand ideas and wishful thinking as Science. Everybody wants their government grants and lobby funds. It is all about money!

Originally posted by inimalist
ushomefree: what, to you, would constitute sufficient evidence for the evolution side to win?

Originally posted by ushomefree
I'd like to see "brand new" information introduced into an organisms' genome

Originally posted by inimalist
what do you mean by "new information". Be as specific as you can please.

also, what would qualify the information as being introduced?

Originally posted by ushomefree
If genetic mutation were true in the sense that Darwinists propose, we would see, for example, fruit-flies being born with brand new raw material -- material unknown/new to the anatomy of a fruit-fly.

do you really think this is what the modern theory of evolution proposes?

EDIT: not to tip my hand on this line of questioning, but the idea that never before seen information would just "appear" in a genome is much more in line with "creationism" or "intelligent design" than what genetics would argue. A modern hypothesis about genetics would involve locating the mutations that gave rise to new information over a series of generations... and I'm taking the bait

Originally posted by ushomefree
...Every organism on the face of the planet evolves in the traditional sense, but nothing morphs into something entirely new (containing brand new genetic information and raw material)...

All species on the face of the Earth are currently morphing from what they were in the past to what they will be in the future. Your idea that species are static at any time is wrong. All life is evolving at all times. The rate of this change is so slow that it takes millions of years to see species change. What you call "evolves in the traditional sense" is evolution. The idea of species is a human invention to help us understand nature. The image of a tree to represent evolution is not the best one to use, IMHO. A better idea would be a river that is poring into a delta. However, this image of a delta is moving way too slow for us to see.

Very intelligent, Shaky!

Originally posted by ushomefree
Very intelligent, Shaky!

Have you ever stood on a dune? When I was a kid, I lived by so dunes. They always seemed to be the same to me, but when I took geology classes in school, I learned that dunes change over time. They never suddenly change, but they change one grain of sand at a time.

What does erosion have to do with Molecular Biology?

Originally posted by ushomefree
What does erosion have to do with Molecular Biology?

What does Molecular Biology have to do with evolution?


Erosion is to dunes as Molecular Biology is to evolution.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Erosion is to dunes as Molecular Biology is to evolution.

****, that gave my inner "nit-picker" an aneurysm

Originally posted by inimalist
****, that gave my inner "nit-picker" an aneurysm

Yeah.

Originally posted by inimalist
****, that gave my inner "nit-picker" an aneurysm

Don't read it! It's meant to be a mind virus for ushomefree.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Don't read it! It's meant to be a mind virus for ushomefree. That will not evolve

"It is said that we share about 60% of our genes with a banana."

http://www-saps.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/records/rec539.htm

Not so fast! The skeletal and brain structure between man and "ape" are fundamentally different. For starters, apes do not build super-computers and cannot walk upright. Their knee joints are entirely different. What constituted this? The fossil record doesn't even associate the two. But let's not look at things from an eagle's eye-view. Life exists on the molecular level, and that is what makes you and I possible. This all boils back to DNA information. Without "new information," the end result is no "new raw material." Genetic mutation is destructive. DNA information is just as complex and sensitive as binary code. Disturbing it, does not introduce new information -- information needed to assemble/build joints for walking upright). I understand your point, but it is wholly false.

Give "The Origin of Man" a fair read, please.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Not so fast! The skeletal and brain structure between man and "ape" are fundamentally different. For starters, apes do not build super-computers and cannot walk upright. Their knee joints are entirely different. What constituted this? The fossil record doesn't even associate the two. But let's not look at things from an eagle's eye-view. Life exists on the molecular level, and that is what makes you and I possible. This all boils back to DNA information. Without "new information," the end result is no "new raw material." Genetic mutation is destructive. DNA information is just as complex and sensitive as binary code. Disturbing it, does not introduce new information -- information needed to assemble/build joints for walking upright). I understand your point, but it is wholly false.

Give "The Origin of Man" a fair read, please.

You are putting value onto things that nature may not value.

False Shaky... I'm putting value on what nature demonstrates. Big difference!

Originally posted by ushomefree
Not so fast! The skeletal and brain structure between man and "ape" are fundamentally different. For starters, apes do not build super-computers and cannot walk upright. Their knee joints are entirely different. What constituted this? The fossil record doesn't even associate the two. But let's not look at things from an eagle's eye-view. Life exists on the molecular level, and that is what makes you and I possible. This all boils back to DNA information. Without "new information," the end result is no "new raw material." Genetic mutation is destructive. DNA information is just as complex and sensitive as binary code. Disturbing it, does not introduce new information -- information needed to assemble/build joints for walking upright). I understand your point, but it is wholly false.

Give "The Origin of Man" a fair read, please. How is my information false, it is well proven that our DNA is 99% similar to that of a chimp. It is also well proven that just a simple change in just one strand of DNA will have great effects on the organism, so how is this wrong? The differences between a man and chimp you just proved, that this 1% change between our DNA and that of a chimp has such a HUGE difference in biological appearance and function. Even with the banana quote shows the difference in just 40%, so why would a designer of all things make the DNA the same for a plant as they do for animals and much less humans?

ushomefree:

could you put in simple, yet specific terms, what exactly would constitute evidence of evolution?

you say the "appearance" of "new information", but these are ambiguous, to me at least.

also, were you to engage in a debate, what would be your hypothesis?

Originally posted by ushomefree
False Shaky... I'm putting value on what nature demonstrates. Big difference!

Not at all. Nature does not care if you are smart unless that intelligence allows you to survive. If tomorrow something happened on the Earth that made being smart a disadvantage, humans would soon be gone.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not at all. Nature does not care if you are smart unless that intelligence allows you to survive. If tomorrow something happened on the Earth that made being smart a disadvantage, humans would soon be gone.

See... this is precisely why I'd like to debate someone, ha ha! This is overkill. I can't keep up.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not at all. Nature does not care if you are smart unless that intelligence allows you to survive. If tomorrow something happened on the Earth that made being smart a disadvantage, humans would soon be gone. You could say that it could be a disadvantage now, a dog is not going to develop a super virus that could wipe out its entire species. Originally posted by ushomefree
See... this is precisely why I'd like to debate someone, ha ha! This is overkill. I can't keep up. Say what? So you think you are vastly more intelligent than all of us? I see that being humble is not encoded in your DNA but since DNA doesn't get any new information then we all have the same gene so that would just make you rude by your own design.

Now that is overkill

Originally posted by ushomefree
See... this is precisely why I'd like to debate someone, ha ha! This is overkill. I can't keep up.

you can't give working definitions of what it is you are trying to argue or what it is that would be convincing evidence in favor of evolution...

how the hell do you expect to debate anyone?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
You could say that it could be a disadvantage now, a dog is not going to develop a super virus that could wipe out its entire species.

Dogs also can't develop defenses againt super-viruses that might wipe out their entire species. There are very few conditions where intelligence is a handicap.

Just read the article (at your leisure): The Origin of Man. And it contains a bibliography for future research.

I didn't write the dang thing.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Dogs also can't develop defenses againt super-viruses that might wipe out their entire species. There are very few conditions where intelligence is a handicap.

brain tissue is incredibly expensive, with regards to resources and energy consumption, when compared to other tissue.

In situations where food, especially sugars, are scarce, the development of brain areas for higher intelligence could be disadvantageous (which is seen in Africa at the same time as human evolution; most other animals in that time and place were losing brain size).

The same goes on an individual basis. If there were that bad of a food scarcity on the planet, people with more brain tissue would require more, thus being more likely to die off.

however, intelligence allows one to try and compensate, so it would be a really interesting experiment to run.... I need like 2000 volunteers...

Originally posted by ushomefree
Just read the article (at your leisure): The Origin of Man. And it contains of bibliography for further research.

I didn't write the dang thing.

again, I'll take the bait

you do realize that fossil evidence is probably the worst evidence of evolution?

Originally posted by inimalist
brain tissue is incredibly expensive, with regards to resources and energy consumption, when compared to other tissue.

In situations where food, especially sugars, are scarce, the development of brain areas for higher intelligence could be disadvantageous (which is seen in Africa at the same time as human evolution; most other animals in that time and place were losing brain size).

The same goes on an individual basis. If there were that bad of a food scarcity on the planet, people with more brain tissue would require more, thus being more likely to die off.

So . . . one condition where being smarter is a liability. And even then if you're smart enough it ceases to be one.

Originally posted by inimalist
however, intelligence allows one to try and compensate, so it would be a really interesting experiment to run.... I need like 2000 volunteers...

And an icepick?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So . . . one condition where being smarter is a liability. And even then if you're smart enough it ceases to be one.

indeed

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And an icepick?

that might add a confound...

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed



that might add a confound...

A sterile icepick. And 1000 replacement eyeballs.


Wow, science is creepy.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A sterile icepick. And 1000 replacement eyeballs.


Wow, science is creepy.

and here all I wanted to do was watch geniuses starve to death

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not at all. Nature does not care if you are smart unless that intelligence allows you to survive. If tomorrow something happened on the Earth that made being smart a disadvantage, humans would soon be gone.
If we nuked or globally warmed ourselves out of existence, this would suggest that, in the long run, our intelligence was indeed counterproductive.

Originally posted by Mindship
If we nuked or globally warmed ourselves out of existence, this would suggest that, in the long run, our intelligence was indeed counterproductive.

Nukes are a myth created by the liberal agenda!

Originally posted by inimalist
...however, intelligence allows one to try and compensate, so it would be a really interesting experiment to run.... I need like 2000 volunteers...

Count me in only if it requires a steady regiment of breeding with beautiful females.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Count me in only if it requires a steady regiment of breeding with beautiful females.

hmmmm

that brings up a good point....

should we control for sexual selection or would it be part of the equation? it would better simulate a natural context, but .... wow I'm taking this too far...

Why volunteers?

Originally posted by inimalist
ya, I was feeling a bit lonely when I came across it, sort of spoke to me in the moment.

funny stuff, that xkcd

I <3 xkcd. After gorging myself on web comics at one point, I simplified down to about 3. Xkcd was among them. It's always a good time.

Originally posted by Digi
I <3 xkcd. After gorging myself on web comics at one point, I simplified down to about 3. Xkcd was among them. It's always a good time.

I love it

I've sort of exhausted the "random" button, which gave me a few days of joy, so I should just start following it.

I used to read PA all the time, but I sort of fell off the wagon....

web comics are more about piracy for me these days. T'yarrrr

Originally posted by inimalist
I love it

I've sort of exhausted the "random" button, which gave me a few days of joy, so I should just start following it.

I used to read PA all the time, but I sort of fell off the wagon....

web comics are more about piracy for me these days. T'yarrrr

Hey! Stop derailing this worthless thread.

As for the latter portion of your statement, I'm not willing to speculate; it's irrelevant besides. What does a "designer" have to do with this conversation/debate to begin with?!

The point that I was trying to make, is that, biological information (DNA) has values pertaining to all organisms. And those values are incredibly sensitive (like binary code). You can't take the DNA of organism (A) and replicate, delete and/or re-arrange its DNA to create a new organism -- organism (B).

In other words, you can't take "cat" DNA and create a dog or an earth worm. THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO PROVIDE A DOG OR AN EARTH WORM (DOES NOT EXIST IN CAT DNA)!

As previously stated, Darwinists, commonly use examples of "genetic mutation" to circumvent the issue. Genetic mutation, regardless of how you look at it, does not provide "new" information to create new organisms. Genetic mutations, and I've said this before, are merely errors within "existing" biological information. As with my analogy, and this applies to organisms too, you can't take building instructions of a bicycle and create a motorcycle, regardless of how similar they may be.

Yes, Evolution is true, but only on the "micro" scale. All variation is "limited in scope," thanks to DNA. I'm sorry if this doesn't fuel your imagination, but it is true.

I'm not trying to come off as superior to all on the forum. I find it amazing, that not one member of the KMC thanked Shakyamunison for his effort, but to put a lid on it. The man actually compared Molecular Biology to erosion. When we talk about "high profile" issues, it is easy to get lost in the conversation/debate and lose site of the fact that you and I are people (simply in disagreement)! I mean no harm, and I hope the same applies to you. For instance, I said that I would buy Shakyamunison a beer, if we ever met in person, and I meant it!!

Shaky... this is for you brother



Please read the post I provided above; it touches base on the questions you presented.

Originally posted by ushomefree
...I'm not trying to come off as superior to all on the forum. I find it amazing, that not one member of the KMC thanked Shakyamunison for his effort, but to put a lid on it. The man actually compared Molecular Biology to erosion. When we talk about "high profile" issues, it is easy to get lost in the conversation/debate and lose site of the fact that you and I are people (simply in disagreement)! I mean no harm, and I hope the same applies to you. For instance, I said that I would buy Shakyamunison a beer, if we ever met in person, and I meant it!!

Shaky... this is for you brother ...

And I will take you up on that, one day.

I really don't know if Molecular Biology compares to erosion, but it was a damn funny line. I laugh my butt off, and it shut you up.

Originally posted by ushomefree
As for the latter portion of your statement, I'm not willing to speculate; it's irrelevant besides. What does a "designer" have to do with this conversation/debate to begin with?!

The point that I was trying to make, is that, biological information (DNA) has values pertaining to all organisms. And those values are incredibly sensitive (like binary code). You can't take the DNA of organism (A) and replicate, delete and/or re-arrange its DNA to create a new organism -- organism (B).

In other words, you can't take "cat" DNA and create a dog or an earth worm. THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO PROVIDE A DOG OR AN EARTH WORM (DOES NOT EXIST IN CAT DNA)!

As previously stated, Darwinists, commonly use examples of "genetic mutation" to circumvent the issue. Genetic mutation, regardless of how you look at it, does not provide "new" information to create new organisms. Genetic mutations, and I've said this before, are merely errors within "existing" biological information. As with my analogy, and this applies to organisms too, you can't take building instructions of a bicycle and create a motorcycle, regardless of how similar they may be.

Yes, Evolution is true, but only on the "micro" scale. All variation is "limited in scope," thanks to DNA. I'm sorry if this doesn't fuel your imagination, but it is true.

I'm not trying to come off as superior to all on the forum. I find it amazing, that not one member of the KMC thanked Shakyamunison for his effort, but to put a lid on it. The man actually compared Molecular Biology to erosion. When we talk about "high profile" issues, it is easy to get lost in the conversation/debate and lose site of the fact that you and I are people (simply in disagreement)! I mean no harm, and I hope the same applies to you. For instance, I said that I would buy Shakyamunison a beer, if we ever met in person, and I meant it!!

Shaky... this is for you brother



Please read the post I provided above; it touches base on the questions you presented. Stop with the childish large font if you want to be taken seriously. I will take your bait.

First off the article that you posted is nothing new in the camp to disprove evolution and has as many flaws as it ever did. Your article doesn't say anything about DNA and keeps harping on the fossil record theory which is laughable at best.

"But despite all the research that has been carried out, the claim of "human evolution" has not been backed up by any concrete scientific discovery, particularly in the fossil field."

I was going to stop reading just after this quote alone but decided to give what you call a "good read". If what they say is true let us look at it this way, they say there should be fossil records for every stage of mankind but they say there have been over 6,000 species of apes so that would mean that there is 6,0000 fossil records of apes. Last time I checked there were not that many, do you have an idea how rare fossils are?

"And William Fix, the author of an important book on the subject of paleoanthropology, makes this comment:"

I would ask you to define what you mean by "new" information, several have asked you to define this which (if you did) I have not seen it. Let me ask you this, if our DNA is 99% that of a chimp why are we so "different".

Some reading for you

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080305144221.htm
http://www.genetichealth.com/g101_changes_in_dna.shtml

Originally posted by ushomefree
Please read the post I provided above; it touches base on the questions you presented.

"We haven't seen (goalpost a) turn into (goalpost b)"?

I only hope you apply this level of absolute empiricism to all of your firmly held convictions

Originally posted by inimalist
"We haven't seen (goalpost a) turn into (goalpost b)"?

I only hope you apply this level of absolute empiricism to all of your firmly held convictions I think it should be...

a
a.1
a.2
a.3
a.4
a.5
a.6
a.7
a.8
a.9
b


A little more reading for you ushomefree

Transitional Fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Genetic Mutations
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

A little more info about your "William Fix, the author of an important book"
"In summary, Fix's criticisms of the fossil record have no validity. Although creationists occasionally like to promote Fix as someone who is skeptical of evolution from a non-creationist viewpoint, his criticisms appear to have been mostly borrowed from creationist literature. Fix's book has, in fact, sunk into almost total (and well-deserved) oblivion. A web search for it found no references to it except for the occasional creationist web page."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bonepeddlers.html

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I think it should be...

a
a.1
a.2
a.3
a.4
a.5
a.6
a.7
a.8
a.9
b





its weird though, were ushomefree a radical philosophical skeptic, he might have a point. Post-modernism tells us that we can't be absolutely sure of anything in history, so we cannot rely on reconstructions from present evidence, as they are skewed by dominant narratives of the time. So, ya, we have never seen a single cell organism become multicellular, so in that absolute sense, we don't know it is possible.

Unfortunately, ushomefree is not a radical skeptic, and his argument against evolution is equally damning of his own religious faith.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Not so fast! The skeletal and brain structure between man and "ape" are fundamentally different. For starters, apes do not build super-computers and cannot walk upright. Their knee joints are entirely different. What constituted this? The fossil record doesn't even associate the two. But let's not look at things from an eagle's eye-view. Life exists on the molecular level, and that is what makes you and I possible. This all boils back to DNA information. Without "new information," the end result is no "new raw material." Genetic mutation is destructive. DNA information is just as complex and sensitive as binary code. Disturbing it, does not introduce new information -- information needed to assemble/build joints for walking upright). I understand your point, but it is wholly false.

Give "The Origin of Man" a fair read, please.

Genetic mutation in itself isn't inherently destructive in terms of phenotypic expression. It only gives a final outcome. Whether or not the final outcome results in death is largely due to the external factors. It is the combination that drives change in species.

Take a simplistic example. If a species competes within itself for food from a bush and most of the species within a habitat are roughly between a certain size range then the availability of food within their reach is a factor determining how many of their population can exist in a certain area. Now if a genetic mutation results in 1 member of that species to fall outwith the normal size range, even to a small degree, and there is access to a food source that can be accessed only by that member of the species, then it is likely that member of the species will survive and it is likely that individual will pass on its genes including the mutation which enables it to access that food.



Actually it does. Given that all life is based on 4 bases and 21 Amino acids but these are the basis for a possible 50,000 protein coding genes in humans alone.

Regardless. We're now at the stage of creating life ourselves. Some researchers are even designing new forms of life away from the standard DNA based life that everything we know is based on. Others are about to remove the genetic code from one bacteria and replace it with an entirely human designed DNA code.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126990.200-second-genesis-making-new-life.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

Creationists need to stop fixating on Darwin anyway. His work was carried out 250 years ago. You don't judge any other science on research from that long ago so don't do it with evolutionary biology.



You do realise that macroevolution is considered simply compounded microevolution. You do also realise that macroevolution has been shown to occur over single generation in plants due to polyploidy genomic reproduction?

Your continual insistance that "new information" is neccessary isn't true, as i've shown already because genomic expression is all done on the basis of a very small set of bases and amino acids.

Of course, If it's new information you are seeking then you should monitor the results of these researchers closely

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126990.300-second-genesis-the-search-for-shadow-life.html

I see that ushomefree has not returned.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I see that ushomefree has not returned. Or JIA

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Or JIA

Maybe it's their turn at the street corner.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Maybe it's their turn at the street corner.