You will get no traction here. Whether the designer created a destructive force or whether the free will organisms violated that began this entropic process, destruction cannot be seen as part of the process of creation. What creation does is completely separate than what process it took to make creation exist.
The complex relationship between malaria and the human immune system makes perfect sense as a result of an evolutionary competition between a parasite and it's host. It makes no sense in terms of special creation.
Genetic mutation is destructive. To change a gene to be beneficial, you can't randomly change the condons an amino acid and get anything useful. The changes would have to be infinite. But I sit here and listed to the use of known variability to calculate the possible blood type, baldness, etc, in that of the offspring. Then comes the switcheroo con game of saying mutations are random. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Quit asking for free rides.
A mutation is a change in a genetic sequence. Whether that change is harmful, neutral, or beneficial is entirely context dependent. There are many ways to construct a functional protein. You have doubtless heard it said that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. This figure was based on a comparison of the amino acid sequences of certain critical proteins. What this means is that, even though these proteins have the same function, they differ by 2%. The proteins selected for these comparisons are found in all living cells, which was why they were selected). The difference in the amino acid sequence becomes much higher as you look at organisms more distantly related to us. They can vary by 50% of the amino acids (or more). Yet they serve the exact same biological function. The literally millions of variations of these proteins found among living organism demonstrates that there are vast number of way to build a functional protein. The chances that none of the billions of mutations that occur in a population over hundreds or thousands of generations will produce a protein matching one of those functional variations is effectively zero.
It most certainly does. The DNA is a full component of the being. If parts are missing the DNA is defective.
No parts are missing. An inbred offspring has the same complement of genes and chromosomes as a none inbred offspring. All that is different is that chances are increased that existing recessive genes will be paired up in an inbred offspring. If these genes are detrimental, it will be harmful to the offspring.
But note that you finally admit that the "defective" gene comes from the same preexisting genes in parent and therefore no genes are created. You have the same number in the child as the parent. This does not offer a path to where the "information" (genes) came from. There is no creative force, it is simply defective. Back to square one for evolution. Not to mention the free ride on abiogenesis.
I never denied that there are harmful recessive genes already existing in the genome. Nor did I claim that breeders don't select for existing genetic traits. However, pre-existing traits can not account for the wide variety of dog breeds. Dogs are the most genetically diverse species of mammal on earth; far more genetically diverse than the wolf stock from which they were bred. People not only selected for existing traits in the original stock, they selected for novel mutations that occurred. This is the only way you could get a more diverse genetic stock from a less diverse one.
espritch said:
Also, please define what you mean by information. Creationists are always blathering on about information but I have yet to see one actually define what they mean or how they measure it. Perhaps you would like to be the first?
Creationists are always doing this or doing that..blah blah. Creationists are intelligent humans just as you and have every right to question your religion as you have to question theirs. Just say "I hate God and I hate those that like Him and therefore will fraud my philosophies as science to keep them in their place" and get it over with. Bigotry is not become someone that thinks they have answers. If you have answers they would speak for themselves and wouldn't need you insulting their critics to hide the weaknesses of your answer.
I never denied your right to critique evolution. I mere pointed out that Creationist like to use the term information but cannot define what they mean by it or how they quantify it. Your non answer confirms this.
Yes, you are right but you haven't got the slightest clue of the magnitude of what you said. They are aware the DNA of animals has the features already designed and ready to go for variation. So why the stupid idea that defects are what create that change? You speak out of both sides of your mouth.
Scientists are indeed aware the there is genetic variety already existing within populations, but they have also observed mutations producing novel genetics traits that did not previously exist within a population (both in the lab and in the world at large).
Loss of information. The child's genes that "mutates" has less information to vary than the parent's. It has decreased potential. You keep forgetting that life is critical on the molecular level too and that genes are not simple black boxes that can turn into other black boxes if you simply change.
Sorry, but until you can define information and how it is quantified, you can say nothing about how a mutation affects that quantity.
That's like saying I don't want Windows so I will take instances of Windows and keep inserting random bit changes until I get Linux. It is that preposterous but it does solve your religious demands.
If we were dealing with a single set of non reproducing code, and we were aiming for a specific target (e.g. Linux), that analogy might be valid. However, evolution deals with populations of self replicating organisms and it has no specific goal. So your analogy is worthless.
Anytime a creationist points out the emperors new clothes of evolution, you call it a strawman argument.
The story of the Emperor's New Cloths was written as a critique of religion.
There was a genetic lose on Nylonase because the parent can produce Nylonase AND other variations that Nylonase cannot. But the name Nylonase is a contrived name because "ONE" of the things it can consume is Nylon, a Dupont creation. That's another con game of evolutionary thinking. All bacteria destroy things. Streptococcus will eat, amongst other things skin, but you don't call it "Skinase". Why, because you are not so stupid to think it was "created" by some need to destroy skin anymore than Nylonase suddenly appeared because of the presence of Nylon.
The nylonase proteins are found only in the bacteria feeding on nylon in these industrial waste pools. If they were pre-existing in bacterial populations, why are they found nowhere else?
You are dangerously close to the very definition of the shameful practice of pushing "Spontaneous Generation". This is the philosophy of the evolutionist. I am surprised that you are not challenging me with how then genes of exposed flesh mutates into flies.
I have pushed nothing with regards to abiogenesis. I have only pointed out that it is not part of evolutionary theory. You keep bringing it up, but I don't know why given that the topic of the thread (which you started) is evolution and natural selection. If you want to discuss abiogenesis, perhaps you should start a thread on it.
Thats what I say about your claims against scientists that are creationist. They are highly trained and professionals too.
You can count the number of Creationists with relevant qualifications on one hand. You can count the number of Creationists that have done actual scientific research supporting creationism on no hands. Creationists are far more interested in convincing law judges and school boards to give equal time to their "theory" than in convincing their scientific peers that they actually have a theory.
No it doesn't but it doesn't make it false either. This is why people need to judge for themselves as you people should quit being so afraid of people being able to see a critical view at your religious pseudoscience.
You can call it religious pseudoscience until you are blue in the face, but that doesn't make it so.
Why do they hide this evidence if they can see it because they are constantly bombarded with requests to demonstrate it. They can't even agree amongst themselves. Your faith in men rivals that of a Catholic's faith in the Pope. You believe in men and you are set up for a fall.
Evolutionists hide nothing. There are thousands of science journal article presenting the evidence. It is found in the fossil record, in the distribution of life on earth, in our genes. If you choose to ignore the evidence, that's your problem.
I have little faith in men. I have a lot of faith in evidence. That's why I don't believe in God; because the only evidence for God is the claims of men.
