The theories of Creation & Evolution compared

"Well for one thing - you are making the assumption that all the data collected has been accurately observed and interpreted. "

Feel free to point out the bad interpretations and give us the ones that better fit the data.

"If I have two engines - and I break the oil filter off of one of them in such a way that the oil splatters around all over the place instead of going where it is directed, the oil splattering all over the place is a NEW function as you have described - but it is not new information .... it is a loss of information."

Good thing what I was descrining was nothing like that. I gave you three examples of actual useful functions resulting from mutations after the duplication of genes.

"So you were there when these genes first came into being?"

I sure am glad we are able to determine what happened without the benefit of eyewitnesses. Else there would be a lot more criminals on the street.

"If I removed all the nouns from a sentence and replaced them with pronouns - have I increased the information content of the sentence? If I replaced ALL the nouns with pronouns, then I would have effectively decreased the information in a sentence, as it would be functional, yet less efficient."

Good thing this is nothing like my example. But even so, I think it would be an increase in information in the Shannon way of thinking even if we find it unintelligable.

 

Mine did the same thing recently. Ivan the terrible. Good thing the DSL was all. But I am hundreds of miles inland.

 

That is the point I was trying to make. Just because someone does wrong doesn't mean we abandon the right thing.

Indeed - for starters that the earth is not billions of years old. The Bible gives us a timeline leading to ~ 6000 years. You can start re-interpreting the data there and see where you go. In doing so, you can rest assured that your interpretation of the data is lining up with the Word of God and is therefore increased significantly in accuracy.

What you are describing is very much like that. Except that our bodies are FAR FAR more complex than any car engine. Our bodies are like thousands of car engines all working together. To my knowledge, not one car engine has ever spontaneously arisen from matter, yet you are more than willing to say that our bodies, which are like thousands of engines all working in concert, did arise by chance. We have redundency built into our coding systems. If a part fails, there is usually something there to prop up the multi-part systems in it's place. Unfortunately for you, in every example you have shown, you have yet to demonstrate an increase of information. In the vast majority, I have shown, furthermore, how they are actually a loss of information.

So it is your assertion then that every person in jail is there because #1 forensic science is perfect, and #2 they are actually guilty of the crime? That's a pretty naive notion. In the abscence of eye witnesses you must establish the probability of guilt. Well, we have an eyewitness account given to us in the Word. It tells us exactly what happened. A problem enters here because you evolutionists like the question the credibility of the witness. Ironic considering He is the only one who never lies. The other problem is your 'liberal activist judge' (aka the scientific community) has declared Biblical evidence inadmissable - along with any evidence that supports the supernatural. In a criminal case, there would be a mistrial and the judge would recuse himself for being so biased. In evolution, they slap the word "FACT" on it and call it a day.

In the Shannon way of thinking, cancer cells are an increase of information. Terminal mutations are an increase of information. A loss of half of the genome would be considered an increase of information because something 'different' would be expressed. The Shannon method deals only with changes or unexpected combinations - it has no ability measure the specified complexity of that change. Taking my rabbit example, we don't see information for brown hair spontaneously appearing in a rabbit who has lost the genes for brown hair. We don't see the information for webbed feet or reptile skin appearing on them either. Why? Because they don't have this information, and information does not spontaneously arise from matter. Coding systems come from other coding systems... information comes from other information.

Dr. Werner Gitt Auido explaining information

 

Information does rise spontaneously in living matter, and the method has been presented as evolutionary theory. Mutations occur, and over time, the trials of life show which ones promote survival and reproduction and which ones hinder survival and reproduction. That's a gain in information in any way you can define it!

 

"What you are describing is very much like that."

Not at all. Not at all.

What you were describing would be an acute problem, a fire hazard. I was describing new and beneficial traits.

"So it is your assertion then that every person in jail is there because #1 forensic science is perfect, and #2 they are actually guilty of the crime? "

Where exactly did I say anything like that?

Now, but forensics can determine guilt or innocence in many cases without the benefit of an eyewitness. I think a little investigation would find that in crime, the forensics are more relaible than the eyewitnesses.

"In the Shannon way of thinking, cancer cells are an increase of information. Terminal mutations are an increase of information. A loss of half of the genome would be considered an increase of information because something 'different' would be expressed. The Shannon method deals only with changes or unexpected combinations - it has no ability measure the specified complexity of that change."

Which is the funny part. You posted the Gitt stuff before. He goes through this whole exercise of associating himself with Shannon to lend credibility to his own ideas on information. But, because information theory does not agree with his conclusions, he then must totally abandon Shannon after spending all that time cozying up. He then goes through a list of what he calls theorems even though he provides no derivation or proof for the theorems. So in the end he has nothing but a circular set of logic. He defines seemingly all genetic changes as a loss of information, with no theoretical backing or appreciation of what happens in the real world, and then uses this defintion to prove that all genetic change is a loss of information. It could be a textbook example of begging the question.

 

Unfortunately for humanists, they have been unable to prove this in observable science. As I said before (very pertinantly) - if I duplicate a car engine, and then I break the oil filter off one of the engines and the oil splatters about carelessly, according to Shannon, this is new information. However, according to Gitt (and common sense) this is a loss of information.

Understanding genes properly, we can equate them to minute machinery. Each gene has a specific function and task, as each component of an engine has a function and task. They are smaller parts of a greater multi-part system. If you duplicate a gene and one of them is damaged and changes in function, how is that any different (except for mass and scale) from damaging an engine component to develope a new function? Yes... I agree - new functions do develope as a result of mutagens (even beneficial ones) - but they result due to DEATH and destruction ... it is not a life building process as evolutionists suggest, but rather a life degradation process. You don't get something from nothing - it violates the laws of physics. It is a LOSS of information that causes changes to occur in the expression of genes, traits, and functions. It is entropy and decay at work. What are mutagens anyway - things that cause mutation? Well, it's things that are harmful and destructive to the cells - for example ultra-violet light, radiation, certain substances in tobacco smoke perhaps. Evolution is truely equivalent to saying that shooting a rifle at a running engine will increase the information of the engine and transform it into a better, more efficient engine. It is the equivelant to driving by a nicely built home and saying "hrm... there must have been an explosion in a lumber yard". Clearly, we can distinguish between 'man made' objects and naturally occuring objects. Why? Because we see the order and 'design' in the man made object. However, the order and design in natural objects are at a much, much higher level than that of man made objects, yet we are willing to say that they happened by 'natural processes' rather than being designed by the creator?

I also described the beneficial traits of squirting oil wildly all over the engine compartment... the ease of hinges that open the hood (to put out the fire) would be greatly increased in efficency... don't you see what a marvellous design that is... everything working together perfectly to increase the information in the car (that is a rhetorical question)? Creationists do not assert that mutations are never beneficial... in some cases they may be beneficial... however this does not in any way detract from the fact that it is a loss of information and demonstrates de-evolution, entropy, and decay of the system overall rather than a gain, addition, or increase of information. In our example of the car engine, we have significantly decreased the life of the vehicle and it's overal function ... but indeed we have increased the hood hinges efficency. This is precisely how your bioligical examples have 'gained function'. For example, in the case of the AIDs immunity, we see that the receptor cells that AIDs attacks are damaged and the organism looses the ability to contract the AIDS virus because of the loss of information to properly functioning recpetor cells. Well those receptor cells do more than just waiting around for the AIDS virus to come along. It is an overall loss of specified complexity, even though it may co-incidentally convey some desired trait. We see the same thing in bacterial resistance to anti-bodies. We see the same thing in blood anemia immunity to malaria... the list goes on and on.

Gup20: "So you were there when these genes first came into being?"

UTEOTW: I sure am glad we are able to determine what happened without the benefit of eyewitnesses. Else there would be a lot more criminals on the street.

You attempted to build the case for not needing an eyewitness account to determine with certainty things that had happened in the past. I was simply showing you that forensics can NEVER ascertain anything with 100% certainty... it is always a degree of possibility, and that in the abcense of an eyewitness we can only make educated guesses about the truth. I also went on to say that in our case, we DO have a reliable eye witness account to go by - the ONE who was there and performed the action - God tells us in His Word exactly how it went down.

UTE - you are again demonstrating that you question God's credibility. The ONLY reason one would question an eyewitness account is if you questioned the eyewitness' credibility. I guess I shouldn't find this shocking as you believe in Evolution and therefore question the Scripture (also known as "God's Word") already. But perhaps I am just "idoliznig God's Word" again

You act as though this is the first time someone has taken the general principles of another's work and built upon it to create a more accurate or correct revision. Shannon's information theory was designed more for computer science where you have a lot of givens (for example, that someone wrote the original program) and where new code does not have to specify anything, but rather simply be new. With a computer system, existing function can be assigned to any code we desire. In biological systems, coding and proteins match up. You can't arbitrarily assign specific functions to any designation you want. For example, in order to have the coding for a blood vessel, you can't just throw up a random code and assign that to blood vessel. There has be a specific code for a blood vessel to result. This is where computer science and biological science differ. Therefore, for an overall rule of information (covering both computer science and biological science) a more complete information theory must be devised. You have to take the programmer of the computer into consideration... you have to go back farther to the beginning of the code and realize that the information for that code CAME from something specific - it came from a Higher, or from More information.

 

Unfortunately for humanists, they have been unable to prove this in observable science. As I said before (very pertinantly) - if I duplicate a car engine, and then I break the oil filter off one of the engines and the oil splatters about carelessly, according to Shannon, this is new information. However, according to Gitt (and common sense) this is a loss of information.
</font>[/QUOTE]Or you might liken it to shannon "noise". But if cars were self-reproducing, after a few generations the handicap imposed on those with instructions deleted for putting in their oil filters would obviously mean fewer of those would reproduce compared to the individuals with good functioning oil filters. Thus, over time, the self-reproduction combined with competition would result in information saved that helps and information lost that hindered. That information being, don't use the gene structure with the broken oil can filter specs!

There are so many non-scientific things in here! For example, Gup20 refers to the mutations developing as a result of 'DEATH and destruction". Is this a protest against the method of evolution, as it depends on one generation dying and being replaced by another? However much the death of living organisms may be unseemly, it is a fact that it occurs!

We have the assertion "it is not a life building process" etc. Isn't this argument by fiat instead of evidence and reasoning?

Since Gup20 actually AGREED a beneficial function can occur now and then, what's to prevent a SECOND minor modification that is better from coming along later? And a THIRD? and a FOURTH?

More pseudo science laws being thrown at us.

Broken record. Repeat it enough and it must be true, right?

Aw, c'mon, you've already admitted that sometimes a mutation can be benficial!

The evolutionary proposal is that accumulation of changes little by little over eons of time resulted in the wonderful complicated elaboration you see. I'm certainly willing to see the hand of God in all this. I'm certainly willing to say He used the process of evolution to bring us about.

Broken record, saying the same thing over and over again must make it true. Hmmph.
The increase in information comes over several generations as the trials of life make plain what can be amplified by successful reproduction and suppressed by failure to reproduce.

It is this amplification over time that is always ignored. Those who oppose evolution consistently fail to consider the effect of several generations of life trials on the content of the genome and fail to realize that this affect amounts to an increase in information - information as to what it is that will in fact best survive the trials of life. For this reason, their efforts to say evolution can't happen in principle are doomed to defeat, because they haven't grappled with the actual principle evolution theory proposes, but a substitute principle they have conjectured up in their own minds.

And what happens over the generations is that when a second mutation comes along that helps the crude version of the benefit work another will come along that makes it work better and gets preserved and another happens that makes it work better and gets preserved. . . .


So we will see, according to evolutionary theory, some very elegant genetic coding, some that works pretty good but seems to be shy of perfect, and for the brand new functions, crude, barely working arrangments. And perhaps even some left over things that are hardly used or even never used.

Why bother putting in the coding for making tails in humans? Its there, and so arranged as to stay hidden, and NOBODY EVER MISSES IT IF ITS GONE.

At this point, we have again the matter of what God did for us in His word. It is in my opinion plainly true that God prepared His word to be available for all men throughout history, and not just for us moderns. For whatever reason, He chose to allow men to discover the literal details of creation by scientific investigation rather than direct revelation. The creation narrative is therefore taken literally at first but, with increased understanding of the facts, we realize the non-literal interpretation can be used.

A perfect example of this process is the narrative regarding the snake in Eden. Literally, the temptor is a talking snake. But I do not interpret this passage literally in that way; instead, I take the passage to refer to our spiritual enemy, Satan. The first readers of Genesis, however, did not even know there was a Satan, they just heard about the talking snake.

All right, consider a human design team that writes a program to optimize the construction of an electronic circuit by an evolutionary algorithm. The computer simulates an evolutionary process involving small changes and testing and more small changes and more testing and ultimately after many generations develops a wonderfully efficient electronic circuit that no human being would have ever devised on her own.

Where did the information for making that wonderful circuit come from? Not from the human, because the human didn't know how to make that circuit.

Yet obviously there is information there.

Everybody knows computer evolution design teams have succeeded in just that fashion. You need to say where the information that makes the better design came from and explain why the same process cannot apply to the natural evolution of living things. Only then can we take this argument of yours seriously.

 

First question, and this is important.

Tell us, in very specific terms, a scenario in which a mutation would result in new information in the way that you are trying to define it.

I think you have made a definition in which ALL change is defined as a loss of information regardless of what actually happenes. I think by logical extention of your defintion, there can not be new information of any type in any situation, even out side genetics and getting into toher, everyday stuff.

 

"As I said before (very pertinantly) - if I duplicate a car engine, and then I break the oil filter off one of the engines and the oil splatters about carelessly, according to Shannon, this is new information. However, according to Gitt (and common sense) this is a loss of information."

Again, this is a faulty analogy. Genetics is nothing like the car engine you are equating it to.

Second, Gitt's reasoning is circular. He proposes theorems which he never derives nor offers proofs for. These unsupported theorems are constructed such that they match his conclusion. It is circular.

But, I have some more information for you. (Does that count as a pun?)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15353580&dopt=Abstract

"Higher offspring survival among Tibetan women with high oxygen saturation genotypes residing at 4,000 m," Beall CM, Song K, Elston RC, Goldstein MC, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Sep 28;101(39):14300-4. Epub 2004 Sep 07

Another beneficial mutation that is spreading its way through the population. In this case, an increased ability to carry oxygen in the blood for a population living at high altitude that makes survival to child bearing age more likely.

And I have another. THis one is much closer to your point.

"Evolution of biological complexity," Christoph Adami, Charles Ofria, and Travis C. Collier, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 97, Issue 9, 4463-4468, April 25, 2000.

And so it goes. I added emphasis above. The first time because the author agrees with my assertion that gene duplication and mutation is a very valid way to add new information. The second time because the author shows that whether or not the organism is more suited for it environment is the measure of new information.

The first gives the method. The second shows that your assertions about beneficial mutations actually being losses of information is wrong.

 

There is one more argument to be made against your loss of information assertion.

Evolution does not happen in a vacuum. Populations are involved. Even in the individual animal, two copies of each gene are inherited, one from each parent. So, when one of the copies mutates, that is not the only copy. The information is not lost. There is another copy in the individual's genome and many copies in the population. Therefore the original information still exists as well as the new code. These two bits are then free to compete to see which will provide the most benefit. But the mutation itself only changes one copy, the information is still in the gene pool.

 

First of all... you are proving my point. If OTHER engines exist, then all engines did not derrive from our engine. Those engines would have had to come about somehow... and I guarentee you that car engines do not spontaneously appear from matter (just as gene information does not spontaneously appear from matter). They are designed. The problem with your analogy is that once you go back far enough, there are no 'other engines' to compete with... there is only one engine. For that engine to 'evolved' requires deleting sequences of information. In that scenario, you design an engine, it breaks... the furture engines have the same flaw... more things break... furture engines have even more flaws... until the engine simply doesn't have any information left - or function is impossible with the information it has remaining.

As does the Word. The Bible says that every step of creation leading up to and incuding the creation of Man was Good. Once death came onto the scene, however, corruption and decay (aka death) started effecting things.

Indeed... yet it didn't happen before The Fall, and is a result of Sin. Meaning leading up the advent of MAN on this earth, there was no death. Therefore, there was no method of Natural Selection which is evolution's only mechanism.

Actually, it is Scripture and Reasoning. Scripturally, the Bible says that things are wearing out and running down (Is 51:6) and real observation science backs this up (regarding entropy laws). We don't get something from nothing since The Fall... if we did, there would be perpetual motion and energy.

Nothing prevents this... however 10-3 is 7. 7-2 is 5. 5-1 is 4. Regardless of how circumstancially beneficial 7, 5, or 4 is... it is still a loss of information, and it doesn't explain how we got from 0 to 10 billion (from goo to zoo to you - from molecules to man). This is precisely the wrong direction for evolution.

You will find your answer for evolution right next to the formula for perpetual motion/engery.

Just using scripture and reason - the tools God gave us.

Beneficial doesn't mean increase of information. If my air filter is getting clogged in my engine... and I simply remove the air filter... my engine is going to benefit because it can get air again... but it also decreases the information of the engine... it looses somehting in gaining the benefit. It will hurt my engine in the long run to run without a filter as well.

Since no one was there to observe the eons of time, they are suppositional. Because of scripture, we see that indeed there were no eons of time. There were six literal days of creation leading up to man. Furthermore, Jesus says that Man and woman were created 'in the beginning'. If we evolved after millions of years, that is clearly not 'the beginning'.

Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

The word "Hearing" is in the 'continuous present' sense. So it could be translated 'faith comes by hearing, and hearing , and hearing, and hearing, and hearing, ... etc... the Word of God.

Therefore, we will continue always to combat the lie of evolution with the Word of God (aka Truth) - in the continuous present sense, if you need

Unfortunately, there is no credibility as the theory of Evolution was admittedly developed as an alternative to Bible. It is assuredly a 'high thing exhalting itself against the knowlege of God'.

2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Furthermore it has not 'blossomed into a christian science' since it's inception either:

Luk 6:44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.
Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Surely... show me an observed mutation where a fish gained the information for legs, lungs, or fur where that fish never had these before. A few dozen should suffice. If evolution is true, this would have happened billions of times... can you give me some observed examples? An no cheating... this has to be OBSERVED not assumed.

Yet, it is closer to the truth than the whole of evolutionary thought as it's conclusions do not contradict the Word.

And if I run 10 miles a day, my body has an increased ability to carry oxygen in the blood as well. I am un-astonished.

I tell you what... post as many of thse as you like... but keep in mind that I am interested in whether the author is a Christian and whether their conclusion is supported by scripture.... if not... it doesn't really matter how clever they think they are.

 

"And if I run 10 miles a day, my body has an increased ability to carry oxygen in the blood as well. I am un-astonished. "

Did you read what I gave you?

Unless you believe in some sort of Lamarckian evolution, no matter how many miles a day YOU ran, your CHILDREN would not receive a benefit. This new trait is being observed to be passed around as a genetic trait. Other factors, such as running ten miles a day, were taken into consideration. Since you always claim that evry example I have given you is actually a derease in information, where is the decrease here? What function have these people lost?

"Surely... show me an observed mutation where a fish gained the information for legs, lungs, or fur where that fish never had these before. A few dozen should suffice. If evolution is true, this would have happened billions of times... can you give me some observed examples? An no cheating... this has to be OBSERVED not assumed."

You failed to answer the question. Neither I nor any prominent biologists believe in saltation. There is no such think as what you ask. Evolution does not depend on hopeful monsters where some new organ appears fuuly formed. It is a slow process. Your request makes no sense and only serves to distract from the fact that you failed to answer the question. SO I will ask again.

Tell us, in very specific terms, a scenario in which a mutation would result in new information in the way that you are trying to define it.

And try and give us an answer that is in the realm of possibility this time.

"Yet, it is closer to the truth than the whole of evolutionary thought as it's conclusions do not contradict the Word."

More correctly...Your interpretation.

His logic is still circular and his theorems still are not supported with evidence or derivations.

"I tell you what... post as many of thse as you like... but keep in mind that I am interested in whether the author is a Christian and whether their conclusion is supported by scripture.... if not... it doesn't really matter how clever they think they are. "

That's the spirit! Translation. I can't refute any of this but since it goes against my interpretation I'll reject it anyhow instead of considering that I might be wrong.

 

"I tell you what... post as many of thse as you like... but keep in mind that I am interested in whether the author is a Christian and whether their conclusion is supported by scripture.... if not... it doesn't really matter how clever they think they are. "

It is still a faulty analogy. Cars do not reproduce biologically. THis does not even work as a common designer argument. Car engines have many designers, are you suggesting that life has many designers? I would be quite opposed to that.

Here is another example to disprove your no new information assertion.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9859991&dopt=Abstract

"Selective sweep of a newly evolved sperm-specific gene in Drosophila," Nurminsky DI, Nurminskaya MV, De Aguiar D, Hartl DL, Nature. 1998 Dec 10;396(6711):572-5.

In this case, two adjacent genes were duplicated in a mutation. After this, one of the copies had the non-coding DNA between the two removed. The two genes were then combined into one new, functional gene. So two genes became three. New function, new information.

"The problem with your analogy is that once you go back far enough, there are no 'other engines' to compete with... there is only one engine."

Nope. Maybe a point with only one tyoe of engine. But it does not happen in a vacuum. It happens in populations.

"For that engine to 'evolved' requires deleting sequences of information."

Nope. You have been shown how new sequences can and have come about.

"Therefore, there was no method of Natural Selection which is evolution's only mechanism."

You have copied enough stuff from AIG that by now you should know that even they accept natural selection.


"Nothing prevents this... however 10-3 is 7. 7-2 is 5. 5-1 is 4. Regardless of how circumstancially beneficial 7, 5, or 4 is... it is still a loss of information, and it doesn't explain how we got from 0 to 10 billion (from goo to zoo to you - from molecules to man). This is precisely the wrong direction for evolution. "

And 10 plus 10 is twenty. That ten just got duplicated. One may even mutate into a twelve and then you have 22.

"You will find your answer for evolution right next to the formula for perpetual motion/engery."

False assertion. Or can you demonstrate some sort of link between evolution and perpetual motion?

"Beneficial doesn't mean increase of information."

Not ccording to my citation for you above which you completely dismissed without a reason why.

"Since no one was there to observe the eons of time, they are suppositional."

And we convict in cases where no one was there there to observe. Are you saying that we cannot look at the earth and tell how something happened?

 

More new information for you.

"Adaptive evolution after gene duplication," Hughes AL, Trends Genetics, 2002 Sep.18(9):433-4.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12175796&dopt=Abstract

In this case a gene, RNASE1, was duplicated such that we had a new gene, RNASE1B. These genes occur in the colobine monkey, douc langur and make pancreatic ribonuclease. Through a change in diet, the conditions within the digestive tract of the monkey were altered. Through delective pressure, the B copy of the gene mutated until it was adapted to digest single stranded bacterial RNA.

Again, we have new information. The original gene still exists to perform its original function. The gene was duplicated. When the copy mutated, then there was information that was not there previously, namely the new DNA sequence. The second copy eventually mutated until it performed a new digestive process.

 

"Surely... show me an observed mutation where a fish gained the information for legs, lungs, or fur where that fish never had these before. A few dozen should suffice. If evolution is true, this would have happened billions of times... can you give me some observed examples? An no cheating... this has to be OBSERVED not assumed. "

This is a moving the goalposts type request. It is not enough for you for us to show you ancient changes in the fossil record and recent changes in genetics. You want us to pull out, by magic I guess, the specific genetic changes that lead to the evidence we see in the fossil record. An impossibility.

But, I may have something for you. The ability to communicate through speech is a major hallmark of the human race and a major difference between us and the other apes. I give you the case of the FOXP2 gene.

"Accelerated protein evolution and origins of human-specific features: Foxp2 as an example," Zhang J, Webb DM, Podlaha O, Genetics. 2002 Dec;162(4):1825-35.

In this case, genetics has shown that mutation in the FOXP2 gene had direct consequences for the development of language skills from the ability to understand language to the ability to properly use grammar to the ability to move the face and lips properly to generate speech. This can be studied both through population genetic analysis and by comparison with the same gene in other animals. In addition, mutations in humans in this gene can be shown to lead to language specific problems. So we can show how changes in this specific gene was important to the development of a specific trait.

 

How about a different method of introducing new genetic information?

"Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein involved in human placental morphogenesis," Mi S, Lee X, Li X, Veldman GM, Finnerty H, Racie L, LaVallie E, Tang XY, Edouard P, Howes S, Keith JC Jr, McCoy JM, Nature 2000 Feb 17;403(6771):785-9.

In this case, a retrovirus inserted a section of DNA into the genome. In this case, humans have co-opted the gene to serve an important role in the area of human placental morphogenesis. The purpose of the original gene was as the envelope gene of the virus. So humans gained a gene and a function which they previously did not have. The information of the human genome was thus increased.

 

Here is an easy comparison betwee evolutionism on the subject of origins vs the Word of God regarding His act of creation as the real explanation for origins.

The Creation believing Christian says that after God formed all living creatures on earth - that on the 6th evening and morning "God FORMED MAN FROM the DUST and breathed into him the breath of LIFE and man BECAME a living being"

However the evolutionist counters with "Nay I say - rather it was in true fact from goo to you by way of the zoo".

When the Christian looks at the evolutionist like they have rocks for brains - they respond with "what did I say??" and claim that real science led them to discover in the lab - goo-turns-to-you given enough time, death, starvation, predation, extermination, carnage and disease.

And then when they come to this board they say "and isn't that more-or-less what you read in Genesis anyway?".

It is actually quite entertaining on one level, but sad on another.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So no response to all this evidence for new information after all the claims that it is not possible?

 

1. Abiogenesis "is not possible" as the lab repeatedly shows every day.

So evolution "never got started" according to "real science".

2. Evolving from goo-to-you from molecule-to-human-brain requires "a massive decrease in entropy" according to Asimov - and yet all we "observe" is consistent overall "increase in entropy" in the local biological systems of mankind. This - Asimov says - IS WHAT the second law is all about.

So evolutionism has no scientific basis on which to PROCEED.

So without a start, and without a scientific basis for proceeding - the myth dies a kind of crib-death. It is relegated to the backrooms and dark alleys of junk-science speculation. The more speculative and dubious the science - the better fit it is as a dwelling place for evolutionism.

Blessings.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"1. Abiogenesis "is not possible" as the lab repeatedly shows every day."

Really???

Did you know that under certain conditions, chemical reactions that yield amino acids and other organic compounds no longer produce racemic yields?

First example. Organic molecules from space tend to have an abundance of left handed isomers. Why? Well it has been found that circularly polarized light will tend to push reactions to favor the left handed variety of the organic isomer. The products need not be racemic.

But there is a far more important effect to be seen. Catalyst. There are a number of possible pathways. Let's examine a few, shall we.

Please take a look at the following paper.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/109082709/HTMLSTART

If you read it, you will find that amino acids themselves can catalyze the formation of more lefthanded amino acids. An amino acid acts as a catalyst to produce a enantiomeric excess of an isomer. As this happens, the reaction is in effect making more of the catalyst. It leads to an autoinductive process which becomes autocatalytic.

You might want to look up the following papers

Pizzarello, Sandra, Arthur L. Weber. 2004 "Prebiotic Amino Acids as Asymmetric Catalysts," Science, Vol 303, Issue 5661, 1151, 20 February 2004

This one shows how the lefthanded amino acids autocatalyze the formation of the right handed sugars found in DNA and RNA.

Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 “Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose” Science, January 9; 303: 196

THis paper shows how borate will catalyze the formation of right handed sugars, also.

Which leads into my other cataylst. Minerals.

As shown by the above paper, minerals that have catalytic properties can also lead to an enantiomeric excess of a particular isomer.

You should now see that racemic mixtures need not be hypothesized. Circularly polarized light, organic catalysts and inorganic catalysts can all lead to reactions that favor one isomer. So your claims that lab experiments always lead to a racemic mixture are false. Even better,the organic catalyst make more of themselves giving higher and higher yields.

I have more to add. I previously gave you a reference to the following.

Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 “Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose,” Science, January 9; 303: 196

Now the paper tells us that borate will both catalyze the formation of the correct right handed ribose sugars and will stabilize the sugars, protecting them from degredation. The same chemicals that react to form the ribose will also react to form adenine, cytosine, guanine and uracil, the four nucleobases.

If you add a little phosphate to the mix, the ribose sugars and the nucleobases will combine to form nucleotides. Now, as it turns out, in the presence of clay (specifically montmorillonite) these nucleotides will begin to polymerize and make RNA.

But there is another important aspect of the clay. Fatty acids are delived to earth from space and are also made on earth, hydrothermal vents being an example location. This same clay that will catalyze the formation of RNA will also lead to a spontaneous process in which small vesicles are formed with the fatty acid making a wall and trapping water and the RNA molecules inside.

So we see that two ubiquitous substances such as borate and clay can catalyze the reactions and processes that lead towards something resembling a cell. But there is one more key peice to this puzzle.

In the 1980s it was discovered that RNA could act as something more than a messenger. RNA can perform biological functions similar to proteins. (The first such discovery came when Tetrahymena, a single celled organism, was found to use some RNA as enzymes.) RNA can both replicate itself and perform protein-like functions such as acting like an enzyme. In these forms, they are known as ribozymes. The RNA can store genetic information, copy that information, and carryout protein-like cellular functions. So once we have the RNA inside the fatty acid walls, it is possible that they could perform life functions without the need for DNA and proteins. In this scenario, they would evolve later.

So you see that there is a solution, with lab support and evidence in extant life, that shows your racemized amino acids "problem" to not be a problem. So why don't you accept the evidence.

Your assertion is that amino acids are formed in racemized mixtures and therefore proteins could not be formed that were using solely one isomer. Yet I have given you references that show you how catalyst can result in an enantioselective reaction. Here is another. "Physical and Chemical Rationalization for Asymmetric Amplification in Autocatalytic Reactions," Angew. Chemie, in press (with F.G. Buono and H. Iwamura). So, if catalyst can give us reactions that favor a given isomer, then you no longer have a racemic mixture. YOur problem goes away.

I think I have already shown you why your supposed problems are not problems. YOu say "In fact I show that NO experiment in the lab has as its products - ONLY mono-chiral amino acids that are then used to form viable proteins as building blocks for a living system." Now, what I have shown you is that we can make all right handed ribose sugars that can then be polymerized into RNA all of the appropriate isomer. That sounds pretty close to the mark to me. Further, I have shown that these RNA strands can perform all of the processes needed for simple life such as storing genetic information and catalyzing reactions. Now you see, here is where you get into trouble. I have shown you repeatedly that catalyst are capable of making one isomer. I have shown you that RNA can act as a catalyst and still does in extant life. I think you already know about RNA's role in making proteins. Put it all together and you have RNA catalyzing the correct amino acids and then putting it together into working proteins. What? You do not take my word for it? Well...

Bailey, JM 1998 “RNA-directed amino acid homochirality” FASEB Journal, 12:503-507

Remember how we talked about the surfaces of borax and clays acting as catalyst. Well they found that RNA makes the left handed proteins even from a mixture of amino acids when on such a surface. SO that gives us three possible cases. The catalysts make the left handed amino acids. The catalyst makes the right handed ribose which then makes RNA which then serves as a catalyst for the left handed amino acids and puts them into proteins. Or RNA on a catalyst makes proteins using only lefthanded amino acids from a mix of amino acids.

How about one more catalyst to throw in the mix? This time another very common material: calcite.

Hazen RM, Filley TR, Goodfriend GA, 2001, "Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for biochemical homochirality" PNAS 98:5487-5490

You might want to study up on the general concepts of that one. How catalyst can arrange molecules in specific ways on their surfaces such that two things can happen. Either reactants that would normally make a racemic mixture can come together in such a way that only one isomer will be made. Or, if you have a randon mix of isomers, that one one will fit on the surface in the right way for a reaction to take place and therefore you can selectively pick out one isomer from a mix.