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...
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.
Gender: Unspecified Location: One for the other hand
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".
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
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.
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.
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
KMC Community Forums
Mar 12th, 2009 11:24 PM
