Originally posted by inimalistushomefree: what, to you, would constitute sufficient evidence for the evolution side to win?
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!
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.
Originally posted by leonheartmmushomfree, 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.
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.
Originally posted by leonheartmmand 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.
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.
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.