| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Jesus has Risen!!!" |
| Date: |
02 May 2007 10:31:58 PM |
| Object: |
New Species? |
NEW 'SPECIES'?
"New 'species' can and have formed, if by definition we mean
something which cannot breed with other species of the same genus,
but this is not evidence for evolution. The new species have no new
genetic information! For example, a 'new species' has arisen in Drosophila,
the ferment fly so popular in undergraduate genetics laboratories. The new
'species' cannot breed with the parent species but is fertile with its own
type, so it is, by definition, a new 'species'. However, there is no new
genetic information, just the physical rearrangement of the genes on one
chromosome -- technically called a 'chromosome translocation'.
"To get evolution 'from bacteria to Bach' requires incredible amounts of
new information to be added. Typical bacteria have about 2,000 proteins;
a human has about 100,000. At every upward step of evolution there needs
to be new information added. Where does it come from? Not from mutations--
they degrade information.
"Carl Sagan, ardent evolutionist, admitted: '... mutations occur at random
and are almost uniformly harmful--it is rare that a precision machine is
improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.'"
"Dogs Breeding Dogs: That's not evolution!"
by Don Batten
First published:
Creation 18(2):20-23
March 1996
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/dogs.asp
--
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,
and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself,
upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind,
and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind:
and God saw that it was good." [Genesis 1:11-12]
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind,
and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
[Genesis 1:21]
24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after
his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind:
and it was so.
25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after
their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind:
and God saw that it was good. [Genesis 1:24-25]
.
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: New Species? |
03 May 2007 03:07:04 AM |
|
|
(Jesus has Risen!!!) wrote:
NEW 'SPECIES'?
"New 'species' can and have formed, if by definition we mean
something which cannot breed with other species of the same genus,
but this is not evidence for evolution.
It is by definition evolution.
The new species have no new >genetic information!
Nonsense.
<For example, a 'new species' has arisen in Drosophila,
the ferment fly so popular in undergraduate genetics laboratories. The new
'species' cannot breed with the parent species but is fertile with its own
type, so it is, by definition, a new 'species'. However, there is no new
genetic information, just the physical rearrangement of the genes on one
chromosome -- technically called a 'chromosome translocation'.
That IS evolution, by definition. That you do not understand the
definition of the word is your problem
"To get evolution 'from bacteria to Bach' requires incredible amounts of
new information to be added.
All of DNA consists of arrangements of 4 bases. It is no more complex
a mutation for a group of bases to be *repeated* more than once in
replication, as it is for it to be *translocated*. But the result is
a longer strand of DNA - more "information"
Typical bacteria have about 2,000 proteins;
a human has about 100,000. At every upward step of evolution there needs
to be new information added.
Those extra proteins are just rearrangements and combinations of the
same building blocks as in the other proteins,
Where does it come from? Not from mutations--they degrade information.
Where did you get that silly idea? A "chromosome translocation" IS a
mutation.
"Carl Sagan, ardent evolutionist, admitted: '... mutations occur at random
and are almost uniformly harmful
Actually, most of them are completely harmless.
Your body undergoes enormous numbers of mutations every year. You are
still alive. Most of them don't matter. Some of them cause cancer.
If one of those mutations happens in a sperm cell or an egg cell, it
might be passed to a new generation.
Most people will have one or a couple mutations that make the slightly
different from either of their parents. DNA replication simply isn't
that perfect.
Any of those mutations COULD be "new information".
--it is rare that a precision machine is
improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.'"
Relatively. But when you have 6 billion humans, even a 1 in a billion
longshot will happen several times.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jesus has Risen!!!" |
|
| Title: Re: New Species? |
03 May 2007 09:37:39 PM |
|
|
In article <t06j33h9mk3hmmsr52qvtrk1nui0f0umki@4ax.com>, says...
sp4m33t3@yahoo.com (Jesus has Risen!!!) wrote:
NEW 'SPECIES'?
"New 'species' can and have formed, if by definition we mean
something which cannot breed with other species of the same genus,
but this is not evidence for evolution.
It is by definition evolution.
The new species have no new >genetic information!
Nonsense.
<For example, a 'new species' has arisen in Drosophila,
the ferment fly so popular in undergraduate genetics laboratories. The new
'species' cannot breed with the parent species but is fertile with its own
type, so it is, by definition, a new 'species'. However, there is no new
genetic information, just the physical rearrangement of the genes on one
chromosome -- technically called a 'chromosome translocation'.
That IS evolution, by definition. That you do not understand the
definition of the word is your problem
"To get evolution 'from bacteria to Bach' requires incredible amounts of
new information to be added.
All of DNA consists of arrangements of 4 bases. It is no more complex
a mutation for a group of bases to be *repeated* more than once in
replication, as it is for it to be *translocated*. But the result is
a longer strand of DNA - more "information"
I do believe that you don't see the flaw, being unable to discern between
truth and lies, information and non-information, order and chaos, even
entropy.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God
hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal
power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither
were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart
was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like
to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of
their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served
the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."
[Romans 1:18-25]
--
..
"Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."
2 Timothy 3:12
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: New Species? |
04 May 2007 03:21:41 AM |
|
|
(Jesus has Risen!!!) wrote:
All of DNA consists of arrangements of 4 bases. It is no more complex
a mutation for a group of bases to be *repeated* more than once in
replication, as it is for it to be *translocated*. But the result is
a longer strand of DNA - more "information"
I do believe that you don't see the flaw, being unable to discern between
truth and lies, information and non-information, order and chaos, even
entropy.
I am a trained scientist, and have a considerable understanding of the
*scientific* uses of those terms, which is relevant and sometimes
differs from the common usages of those terms.
You, on the other hand, clearly have no understanding of science and
merely wish to "prove" your dogma true.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phlip" |
|
| Title: Re: New Species? |
02 May 2007 10:43:03 PM |
|
|
"To get evolution 'from bacteria to Bach' requires incredible amounts of
new information to be added. Typical bacteria have about 2,000 proteins;
a human has about 100,000. At every upward step of evolution there needs
to be new information added. Where does it come from? Not from mutations--
they degrade information.
Incorrect. Most mutations degrade information (and most evolution is
retrograde). But some mutations create new information. For example, the
meaningless word "motation" could mutate into another meaningless word,
"mitation", or it could mutate into a meaningful word, "mutation". The other
half of evolution, natural selection, then culls the mutations which are not
useful.
Further, the next aspect of speciation is not mutation but sexual
reproduction. DNA has sequences that are designed to be swapped about, which
is why most children of the same parents have different traits. This is a
system which has evolved to assist evolution, by constantly shuffling the
traits about in a gene pool.
"Carl Sagan, ardent evolutionist, admitted: '... mutations occur at random
and are almost uniformly harmful--it is rare that a precision machine is
improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.'"
Exactly. That's why it took 4 billion years for God(s) to produce humans via
their representative process, evolution.
--
Phlip
http://flea.sourceforge.net/PiglegToo_1.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jesus has Risen!!!" |
|
| Title: Re: New Species? |
02 May 2007 11:31:38 PM |
|
|
In article <bTc_h.4238$H_.1574@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>, says...
"To get evolution 'from bacteria to Bach' requires incredible amounts of
new information to be added. Typical bacteria have about 2,000 proteins;
a human has about 100,000. At every upward step of evolution there needs
to be new information added. Where does it come from? Not from mutations--
they degrade information.
Incorrect. Most mutations degrade information (and most evolution is
retrograde). But some mutations create new information. For example, the
meaningless word "motation" could mutate into another meaningless word,
"mitation", or it could mutate into a meaningful word, "mutation". The other
half of evolution, natural selection, then culls the mutations which are not
useful.
How many problems can you spot with your argument? Here's what I've
come up with in about 0.23 seconds:
You re-arrange letters "intelligently" selected from the english letter set,
which is designed.
Try using a true mutation, such as a random jot of jibberish in place of a
letter and see what happens. Whatever the result, you won't find it in
the dictionary! But wait! Why must it be in the dictionary? Maybe
we could just assign a new meaning to a previously non-existent character
and resultant "word". Yes, WE could INTELLIGENTLY DESIGN such a new
meaning. To be useful, for the example, the random jot would have to be
another letter to progenate...note by doing so you lose one.
Eventually, you'll have a group of letters that can't all be brought forth
into a new word.
Eventually, all vowels will become consonants.
No matter how weak you evolutionary apologists are, you will cling to
your position and reject truth, all because...
"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world;
but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth
not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the
only begotten Son of God.
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men
loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20: For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the
light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21: But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made
manifest, that they are wrought in God."
[John 3:17-21]
--
..
"Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."
2 Timothy 3:12
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: New Species? |
03 May 2007 03:06:46 AM |
|
|
(Jesus has Risen!!!) wrote:
You re-arrange letters "intelligently" selected from the english letter set,
which is designed.
DNA replication rearranges sequences of 4 letters, and grouped in
words of three letters long, *all of which mean something*. A
mutation in DNA always "works" to produce something meaningful.
The English alphabet has 26 letters, grouped in words mostly 1 to 12
letters long, some of which are rarely used. Mutation in English is
unlikely to produce something meaningful unless it is a very short
word. But it still can happen.
Try using a true mutation, such as a random jot of jibberish in place of a
letter and see what happens.
DNA isn't English. Try using a random jot of the 4 letters A, C, G,
or T. Write down any string you want. It will specify some sequence
of amino acids. It isn't gibberish.
must it be in the dictionary?
But all possible DNA "words" ARE in the "dictionary". DNA is a much
simpler language than English.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phlip" |
|
| Title: Re: New Species? |
03 May 2007 08:18:18 AM |
|
|
You re-arrange letters "intelligently" selected from the english letter
set,
which is designed.
You don't understand randomness. I demonstrated that the odds of a point
mutation causing a readable word were 1 in 26. Not 1 in Infinity.
Next, the general topic here is called "Artificial Guilt". Your leaders have
asked you to prove your faith by going against common reason on the
emotionally-charged topic of lineage and origin. This is a common trick
among religions, to help you feel guilty about nothing, so you will return
to the church for more appeasement.
You can have faith (I do) without participating in the mind game. The
Universe is constantly creating itself, and from a spiritual perspective
both evolution and creationism are fairy tales.
--
Phlip
http://flea.sourceforge.net/PiglegToo_1.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: New Species? |
04 May 2007 01:00:47 PM |
|
|
In article <OIc_h.34119$G23.23146@newsreading01.news.tds.net> (Jesus has Risen!!!) writes:
NEW 'SPECIES'?
"New 'species' can and have formed, if by definition we mean
something which cannot breed with other species of the same genus,
but this is not evidence for evolution. The new species have no new
genetic information! For example, a 'new species' has arisen in Drosophila,
the ferment fly so popular in undergraduate genetics laboratories. The new
'species' cannot breed with the parent species but is fertile with its own
type, so it is, by definition, a new 'species'. However, there is no new
genetic information, just the physical rearrangement of the genes on one
chromosome -- technically called a 'chromosome translocation'.
Actually you mean "mistakenly called a `chromosome translocation'".
What you describe is chromosomal crossover, and happens every
time you make another sperm cell. It is a rich source of
genetic diversity and yes, can sometimes lead to a new species.
Translocation is "accidental" crossover between non-homologous
chromosomes, and is generally quite pathological.
In any event increased information content most commonly arieses
via the following process: in copying a given gene, the copying
mechanism "stutters", and produces more than one copy.
This is "chromosomal duplication", and is quite common --
sometimes hundreds of copies of the same gene can be
found string along a section of a chromosome.
Thus far we have only dupication of existing information. However,
if one of the copies subsequently undergoes mutation, we now have
information coding for the original protein, preserved in the unaltered
gene, and we also have a gene for making a new protein as well,
differing from the original in one amino acid. (or potentially
so -- since the genetic code is redundant, so there is a possibility
that the mutant chromosome will also code for the original protein)
New information, introduced via "error" and subsequent mutation.
"To get evolution 'from bacteria to Bach' requires incredible amounts of
new information to be added.
Sure does. So it's a good thing that billions of organisms have
been working on the project each second, day and night, for billions
of years. And it's an equally good thing that there is a mechanism in
place for preserving and amplifying the lucky mistakes.
Typical bacteria have about 2,000 proteins;
a human has about 100,000. At every upward step of evolution there needs
to be new information added. Where does it come from? Not from mutations--
they degrade information.
No, they change information. As shown above, this can also
be beneficial.
A single mutated gene in the trypanosome _Trypanosoma brucei bruceii_
allows it to evade a trypanosomal lytic factor in the human
immune system and thus infect humans (Sleeping Sickness)
Thus a single mutation has opened up a vast new source
of hosts for this trypanosome which was previously unavailable.
If one believes in an Intelligent Designer, and one believes
that Its goal was to kill tens of millions of Africans and
render vast tracts of Africa uninhabitable, the one can
only marvel at the simplicity, imagination, and elegance
with which It achieved such sweeping results with so
minimal a design change.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "seon ferguson" |
|
| Title: Re: New Species? |
04 May 2007 03:05:34 AM |
|
|
The Bible is a book of myths and fabels. jesus is not real-deal with it.
"Jesus has Risen!!!" <sp4m33t3@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OIc_h.34119$G23.23146@newsreading01.news.tds.net...
NEW 'SPECIES'?
"New 'species' can and have formed, if by definition we mean
something which cannot breed with other species of the same genus,
but this is not evidence for evolution. The new species have no new
genetic information! For example, a 'new species' has arisen in
Drosophila,
the ferment fly so popular in undergraduate genetics laboratories. The new
'species' cannot breed with the parent species but is fertile with its own
type, so it is, by definition, a new 'species'. However, there is no new
genetic information, just the physical rearrangement of the genes on one
chromosome -- technically called a 'chromosome translocation'.
"To get evolution 'from bacteria to Bach' requires incredible amounts of
new information to be added. Typical bacteria have about 2,000 proteins;
a human has about 100,000. At every upward step of evolution there needs
to be new information added. Where does it come from? Not from mutations--
they degrade information.
"Carl Sagan, ardent evolutionist, admitted: '... mutations occur at random
and are almost uniformly harmful--it is rare that a precision machine is
improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.'"
"Dogs Breeding Dogs: That's not evolution!"
by Don Batten
First published:
Creation 18(2):20-23
March 1996
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/dogs.asp
--
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,
and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself,
upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind,
and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind:
and God saw that it was good." [Genesis 1:11-12]
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind,
and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
[Genesis 1:21]
24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after
his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his
kind:
and it was so.
25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after
their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind:
and God saw that it was good. [Genesis 1:24-25]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phlip" |
|
| Title: Re: New Species? |
04 May 2007 08:17:41 AM |
|
|
seon ferguson wrote:
The Bible is a book of myths and fabels. jesus is not real-deal with it.
Now now. In troubled times, the /Bible/ forms a "happy place" for many
people. Just like the /Koran/, or /The Joy of Cooking/, etc...
--
Phlip
http://flea.sourceforge.net/PiglegToo_1.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "seon ferguson" |
|
| Title: Re: New Species? |
04 May 2007 07:04:43 PM |
|
|
"Phlip" <phlipcpp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:VnG_h.15$y_7.12@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
seon ferguson wrote:
The Bible is a book of myths and fabels. jesus is not real-deal with it.
Now now. In troubled times, the /Bible/ forms a "happy place" for many
people. Just like the /Koran/, or /The Joy of Cooking/, etc...
Yep I'm sure stories of human and animal sacrifice, fathers allowing their
daughters to be raped, genocides etc are happy stories.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: New Species? |
03 May 2007 12:21:26 PM |
|
|
Well, THERE you are.
We all wondered where you had gone to.
You remember. I'm talking about that little drive-by post claiming
that in going ahead with his theory in the face of some
serious problems, Darwin was being "unscientific"?
Remember? The one which received detailed refutations
for various posters, some quite specific -- and yet,
strange to say, when we looked to you for your responses
to these, you had fled.
Odd.
So, what's the deal this time around? The questions you
raise below -- how can new information arise -- are
trivially easy to answer.
But is it worth the time and the typing, or are you
just going to post and run again?
-- cary
In article <OIc_h.34119$G23.23146@newsreading01.news.tds.net> (Jesus has Risen!!!) writes:
NEW 'SPECIES'?
"New 'species' can and have formed, if by definition we mean
something which cannot breed with other species of the same genus,
but this is not evidence for evolution. The new species have no new
genetic information! For example, a 'new species' has arisen in Drosophila,
the ferment fly so popular in undergraduate genetics laboratories. The new
'species' cannot breed with the parent species but is fertile with its own
type, so it is, by definition, a new 'species'. However, there is no new
genetic information, just the physical rearrangement of the genes on one
chromosome -- technically called a 'chromosome translocation'.
"To get evolution 'from bacteria to Bach' requires incredible amounts of
new information to be added. Typical bacteria have about 2,000 proteins;
a human has about 100,000. At every upward step of evolution there needs
to be new information added. Where does it come from? Not from mutations--
they degrade information.
"Carl Sagan, ardent evolutionist, admitted: '... mutations occur at random
and are almost uniformly harmful--it is rare that a precision machine is
improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.'"
"Dogs Breeding Dogs: That's not evolution!"
by Don Batten
First published:
Creation 18(2):20-23
March 1996
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/dogs.asp
--
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,
and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself,
upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind,
and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind:
and God saw that it was good." [Genesis 1:11-12]
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind,
and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
[Genesis 1:21]
24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after
his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind:
and it was so.
25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after
their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind:
and God saw that it was good. [Genesis 1:24-25]
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
