Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What does this person mean by "more genetic information"? More genes = more information? Is this factually true? If not, what does "more genetic information" mean?
And you have also not answered where that 6th finger comes from and continued to make false conjectures as to what evolution really is. The link I posted was called "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution". As I said, read it.
By the way, I'd also appreciate it if you could define for me what 'macroevolution' is. I think what you're asking for is something that evolution has never stated can occur. I think what you're asking for is something akin to a wolf giving birth to a chihuahua and evolution never claims that that will occur. Yet, we know that chihuahua's are descended from wolves. So... define for me... WHAT EXACTLY IS MACROEVOLUTION? I'm interested to see if this lines up with what evolutionary theory ACTUALLY states.
The link I posted is based on what evolutionary theory ACTUALLY is not what YOU want it to be.
So to answer your question... from what I gather, YOUR definition of Macroevolution is one that does not exist unless I am just not understanding.
No organ is just going to 'pop up' like you want it to. That's a misnomer that you seem to want to point out.
Obviously, you’re confused between facts and predictions. "A fact is not immutable; facts change over time. A fact is information, observer based. It is knowledge or information based on real occurrences." A theory can be a fact if it is built on information and real occurrences. So far, all you have cited are “29+ PREDICTIONS. Dream on my friend, cite actual scientific work please, rather than just make glossy-eyed claims of these so called "29+ evidences of macro-evolution' predictions in expense of micro-evolution.
As I have cited before, you seem having a hard time understanding that creationists accept the adaptive nature that drives micro-evolution. Again, what we reject is the leap of logic and faith being employed to try and apply the same mechanism to explain macro-evolution (the goo-to-you theory).
I already defined the difference between micro and macro-evolution just read it again. For what purpose are they different? For obvious reasons, one is DIRECTLY observable and repeatable (micro), while the other (macro) is merely a speculative prediction.
Obviously, you’re confused between facts and predictions. "A fact is not immutable; facts change over time. A fact is information, observer based. It is knowledge or information based on real occurrences." A theory can be a fact if it is built on information and real occurrences. So far, all you have cited are “29+ PREDICTIONS. Dream on my friend, cite actual scientific work please, rather than just make glossy-eyed claims of these so called "29+ evidences of macro-evolution' predictions in expense of micro-evolution.
As I have cited before, you seem having a hard time understanding that creationists accept the adaptive nature that drives micro-evolution. Again, what we reject is the leap of logic and faith being employed to try and apply the same mechanism to explain macro-evolution (the goo-to-you theory).
I already defined the difference between micro and macro-evolution just read it again. For what purpose are they different? For obvious reasons, one is DIRECTLY observable and repeatable (micro), while the other (macro) is merely a speculative prediction.
No, you didn't. You haven't defined squat only reattacked macroevolution (which is a Hovindism, by the way, not something that people who really understand evolution go by.) but for the sake of argument I'm trying to 'play along' with your definition. So tell me... what exactly is macroevolution? Be specific. I guess it's just not getting through to me. I suppose I need a nice clear cut answer. Would you be a pal and explain it for me in dumb dumb terms?
I bet I don't get an answer. I bet all I get is another attack on micro-evolution and when I do I am going to report you for trolling the board because this is all I ever get. I get "Cite evidences for macroevolution" and then I ask what 'macroevolution' is and all I get is repeated attacks. I've never had it explained for me. So, please, tell me, what the heck is macroevolution? As I said before, you seem to want me to present evidence for a non-existent theory. A theory that no one has ever stated. You'd do yourself some good to stay on the argument of evolutionary theory and not some made up "Hovindism". Speaking of which... how's he doing in jail??
What does this person mean by "more genetic information"? More genes = more information? Is this factually true? If not, what does "more genetic information" mean?
Perhaps, this article might help you better understand the "new information" needed in order to advance macro-evolution speculations and predictions.
In September, 2007, I posted a link to a YouTube video where Richard Dawkins was asked to explain the origin of genetic information, according to Darwinism. I also posted a link to Dawkins’ rebuttal to the video, where he purports to explain the origin of genetic information according to Darwinian evolution. The question posed to Dawkins was, “Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that can be seen to increase the information in the genome?” Dawkins famously commented that the question was “the kind of question only a creationist would ask . . .” Dawkins writes, “In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera.” Dawkins’ highly emotional response calls into question whether he is capable of addressing this issue objectively. This will be a response assessing Dawkins’ answer to “The Information Challenge.”
Moderator cut: snippet and link only please
Last edited by Alpha8207; 12-30-2007 at 10:11 PM..
Reason: not original content
CONTINUATION: The Dangerous Road Faced by Duplicated Genes
If a duplicated gene cannot successfully traverse its random walk, it may die. As Lynch and Conery found, “the vast majority of gene duplicates are silenced within a few million years.” (Lynch & Conery, "The Evolutionary Fate and Consequence of Duplicate Genes," Science Vol. 290:1151-1155 (Nov 10, 2000).) Does Richard Dawkins give a step-by-step mutational account of how globin genes evolved from one another while remaining functional at all times, such that the duplicate copies were never “silenced,” terminating their evolution? Of course not. Dawkins has not demonstrated how Darwinian evolution can take a duplicated gene and evolve it into a new gene. The problem for Dawkins is that duplicating a gene may increase your amount of Shannon information, but it does not increase the amount of specified complexity in any non-trivial sense. To explain how one gene can turn into another, Dawkins must explain how new specified and complex information can enter the genome, and give a step-by-step mutational account of the origin of some gene via gene duplication. Dawkins has provided none of this.
Moderator cut: snippet and link only please
Last edited by Alpha8207; 12-30-2007 at 10:12 PM..
Reason: not original content
I researched some recent biology papers about cell division (mitosis). This is a very complex process in which every part must be accurately duplicated and sent to the proper destination.
How does the cell make sure that each copy is identical? Accurate copying is essential, or else errors would accumulate and bring the species to an end. Scientists continue to uncover some of the quality-control policies and procedural tricks that cells follow.
Example 1: Wallace F. Marshall, “Centriole Assembly: The Origin of Nine-ness,” Current Biology, Volume 17, Issue 24, 18 December 2007, Pages R1057-R1059.
Centrosomes control the orientation of chromosomes before the split. They create a spindle of microtubules that line the pairs up at the midplane, then pull them apart. Within the centrosomes are two motors called centrioles, oriented perpendicular to one another, that look for all the world like turbines. The blades of the turbine are microtubules with spokes, forming a cylinder that looks like a pie with exactly nine slices.
Moderator cut: original content please
Moderator cut: please see "Quality Control Ensures Accurate Cell Division" at this link http://creationsafaris.com/crev200712.htm
Last edited by Alpha8207; 12-31-2007 at 10:00 AM..
Moderator cut: original content please-post snippet and link-even what I am leaving may very well be too much
Exercise: Read the following paragraph aloud: The Story of Evolution
Evolution explains more complexity, and more simplicity. It explains why flight arose in some birds, but was lost in others. With evolution, organs and genomes can become more complicated, or more streamlined. Eyes emerge through evolution, but eyes are also lost by evolution. Evolution makes the cheetah fast but the sloth slow. By evolution, dinosaurs grow to skyscraper size, and hummingbirds grow tiny. With evolution, peacocks grow more flashy and crows more black, giraffes tall and flatworms flat. Evolution explains predator and prey, loner and herder, light and dark, high and low, fast and slow, profligacy and stinginess, terrorism and altruism, religion and atheism, virtue and selfishness, psychosis and reason, extinction and fecundity, war and peace. Evolution explains everything.
Now substitute the meaningless word Gribbleflix for Evolution and read it again.
There you have it: the world’s most successful, all-encompassing theory. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of Gribbleflix. Don’t let the anti-Gribbleflix people sneak their dogma into the schools. Gribbleflix is science.
I researched some recent biology papers about cell division (mitosis). This is a very complex process in which every part must be accurately duplicated and sent to the proper destination.
How does the cell make sure that each copy is identical? Accurate copying is essential, or else errors would accumulate and bring the species to an end. Scientists continue to uncover some of the quality-control policies and procedural tricks that cells follow.
Example 1: Wallace F. Marshall, “Centriole Assembly: The Origin of Nine-ness,” Current Biology, Volume 17, Issue 24, 18 December 2007, Pages R1057-R1059.
Centrosomes control the orientation of chromosomes before the split. They create a spindle of microtubules that line the pairs up at the midplane, then pull them apart. Within the centrosomes are two motors called centrioles, oriented perpendicular to one another, that look for all the world like turbines. The blades of the turbine are microtubules with spokes, forming a cylinder that looks like a pie with exactly nine slices.
Why nine, and only nine?
Well that was nice. A nice long argument of incredulity. In other words... I can't believe how amazing this is.... only a designer could do it...
Last edited by Alpha8207; 12-31-2007 at 10:01 AM..
Reason: edited quoted post
Exercise: Read the following paragraph aloud: The Story of Evolution
Evolution explains more complexity, and more simplicity. It explains why flight arose in some birds, but was lost in others. With evolution, organs and genomes can become more complicated, or more streamlined. Eyes emerge through evolution, but eyes are also lost by evolution. Evolution makes the cheetah fast but the sloth slow. By evolution, dinosaurs grow to skyscraper size, and hummingbirds grow tiny. With evolution, peacocks grow more flashy and crows more black, giraffes tall and flatworms flat. Evolution explains predator and prey, loner and herder, light and dark, high and low, fast and slow, profligacy and stinginess, terrorism and altruism, religion and atheism, virtue and selfishness, psychosis and reason, extinction and fecundity, war and peace. Evolution explains everything.
Now substitute the meaningless word Gribbleflix for Evolution and read it again.
There you have it: the world’s most successful, all-encompassing theory. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of Gribbleflix. Don’t let the anti-Gribbleflix people sneak their dogma into the schools. Gribbleflix is science.
Gribbleflix is a FACT!
Good. While we're on the topic we can replace the word 'Designer' with 'Rubbish'. Anything that is anti-rubbish must be good!
Last edited by Alpha8207; 12-31-2007 at 10:01 AM..
Reason: edited quoted post
Well that was nice. A nice long argument of incredulity. In other words... I can't believe how amazing this is.... only a designer could do it...
You are missing the point, Troop. The point is, in light of testable, verifiable evidence, the fallacy of evolution must be considered.
Scientists will never chalk it up to Intelligent design, but a new theory will have to surface because evolution simply won't stand up to the test of time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
in expense of micro-evolution.
Quality control used for cell division
