It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

One of the many questions Darwinist cannot answer

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Darwinian evolution is based solely on natural selection and the addition of new morphological features over extended periods of time thru genetic mutations. I don't think anyone can disagree that in order to get from single celled organism to any an animal is going to take the addition of new base pairs to the genome. Now from the research I have done there is no type of mutation that adds new genetic information into the genome. All mutations take the existing genome and sift it around. This means that a mutation always loses the information that it sifts. The Human genome is 3 billion characters long. Lets equate that to a computer program that is 3 billion lines of code. If I give you that code and tell you that you can't type anything new all you can do is take whats there and move it around in anyway you like. You could never create a new piece of the program without destroying what was there. You could take one piece of the program and copy is somewhere else, but that would not be a new combination of base pairs either. So the question is there a type of mutations, Substitution, insertion, duplication, ect.. that actually adds new genetic information into the genome? If not Darwinist got some splainin' to do



+19 more 
posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

When the Creationists get more proof than "Magic" I'll listen.....till then I'll stick with science.
And no, you don't have proof.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

Lol are you asking me to prove that there is a mutation that adds information to the genome does not exist? I don't think I am the one with the burden of proof here. Also I am not a creationist except in the broad sense of the term, meaning I believe there is a creator and therefore could be considered a creationist.


+4 more 
posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I have other issues, but you bring up a good point.

My main problem is that slow mutation of just say the eye, doesn't seem possible.

Because it would require it to be formed not just the eye, but the nerves and the processing centers of the brain in tandem.

Otherwise it gives no advantage and takes energy away from the body.

That is a hinderence, not an advantage.

And until such a time as it was functional it would only be a drain.

Not to mention a hole host of other issues I have with it.

But it our best guess ATM..... Silly humans, we believe some of the funniest things.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

When the Creationists get more proof than "Magic" I'll listen.....till then I'll stick with science.
And no, you don't have proof.


what magic? it was done by scientists from another planet with an agenda. what is so hard to understand about that?



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

When the Creationists get more proof than "Magic" I'll listen.....till then I'll stick with science.
And no, you don't have proof.


what magic? it was done by scientists from another planet with an agenda. what is so hard to understand about that?


I'm in your camp, I think it was the aliens.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: johnwick




My main problem is that slow mutation of just say the eye, doesn't seem possible.

Because it would require it to be formed not just the eye, but the nerves and the processing centers of the brain in tandem.

Otherwise it gives no advantage and takes energy away from the body.

That is a hinderence, not an advantage.

And until such a time as it was functional it would only be a drain.

Not to mention a hole host of other issues I have with it.


I completely agree. Or how can a partially formed lung be an advantage until it is a complete lung? Just ridiculous stuff in the theory man and people eat it up.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

But if the aliens are made of biological material then the same question would come to who created them?


+17 more 
posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Claim CB102:Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.


"Response:
1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

• increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
• increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
• novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
• novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.


2. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example: • Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
• RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
• Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.


3. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).


4. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000). "

You have not researched it well enough. Better be a better servant to the Lamb than that if you want the Lamb to keep His street cred'.

You can still be scientific, an evolutionist and believe in God.

Possibly the worst act of self sabotage and self harming you can do to the religion you care about is to turn your back on science and pretend it is wrong when quite clearly it is not. Everyone will laugh at you as some medieval left over and that is not giving Christ the merit He deserves.


+2 more 
posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

No one is saying we have all of the answers.

But to use this as an excuse to push creation is just pure BS.

Science is still looking for answers.

So, how about you prove God did it all. All you have is belief and while it may be your cup of tea, it is not mine.

Science will continue to unravel these and many more mysteries. 100 years ago we had absolutely no idea that DNA, Genes and a whole lot of other goodies even existed.

We are getting there. In 2000 years, no one has been able to prove that God exists.

Really, God is all loving, he loves each and every one of us, ........ now ......... get ready for Armageddon!

No thanks.

P



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: bottleslingguy

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

When the Creationists get more proof than "Magic" I'll listen.....till then I'll stick with science.
And no, you don't have proof.


what magic? it was done by scientists from another planet with an agenda. what is so hard to understand about that?


I'm in your camp, I think it was the aliens.


it makes most sense and answers all the mysteries very simply. It's peoples' egos that gives the most opposition to the idea that we're not at the top of the intelligence foodchain.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Revolution9

I defined information I just didn't specifically state it.




I don't think anyone can disagree that in order to get from single celled organism to any an animal is going to take the addition of new base pairs to the genome.


I am asking if there is a mutation type that adds new base pairs to the genome. Its not some vague definition. I mean Genetic Information is the Information in DNA which is base pairs. Its not really that hard. I am not saying there is not one out there, but I haven't found any research providing one. I am not asking for particular experiments. I am asking for a mutation type i.e. Substitution. Duplication. ect that doesn't just take the base pairs that exist and move them elsewhere.


+2 more 
posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Your question is poorly thought out. Darwin knew nothing about molecular biology and genetics. His work was developed simply on observation.

Creationists deliberately rewrite history and science to suit their agenda. Most people don't fall for it - fortunately.


+11 more 
posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Your problem has to do with trying to oversimplify evolution; and if you were TRULY interested in finding the answer to this question, you'd go look it up yourself and read it until you thoroughly understood it. If that still didn't help, you'd ask honest questions about it to people more knowledgeable than yourself to clear up any misunderstandings.

This thread just shows that you are content with misunderstanding it because you seem to think that because you misunderstand evolution, that somehow disproves it.
edit on 18-8-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: johnwick

But if the aliens are made of biological material then the same question would come to who created them?


The robots....obviously!



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   
If the war is to be fought in the streets; or in a foreign battlefield; or - more importantly - in the hearts and minds of men: focusing on evolution, or chem-trails, or 9-11 truth will only distract you.

Reality isn't the result of random electro-magnetic interactions.

Don't eat your own vomit.

Let the dead bury the dead.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It is simple.

Mutation makes changes. Mutations can add new information or subtract it.

Read some of the info I posted. It is well fascinating and I think it will help you to understand how this may work.

Certainly not all the answers. The experiments are vital because that is the proof.

Ask me if life is a fluke I will say no, but I have no proof.

I'm no geneticist and have a very limited understanding myself, but I think those guys in the source I gave you can answer many of your questions.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:29 AM
link   
It's still intrigues me that Creationists, when arguing against Evolution, consistently portray it as a "conscious" decision by the organism involved.

It isn't. It's a change or adaptation that (usually) benefits the organism as the result of a mutation. That mutation can be caused by a number of reasons; genertic defect, external stimulus, etc.

The tadpole isn't sitting in a small puddle wishing it could jump or walk. It's a natural process that takes millions and millions and millions of years.

It isn't as easy to quantify or dismiss with a, "God did it!"



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358





No one is saying we have all of the answers.

But to use this as an excuse to push creation is just pure BS.

Science is still looking for answers.


I didn't use it as an excuse to push creationism? I simply said Darwinist can't answer the question and its a big big problem. Without a form of mutation that adds new base pairs to the genome without destroying previous information you have no mechanism by which things such as a flagellum or an eye or a lung can evolve from a simpler creature. You have no mechanism for a four-legged mammal to evolve into a whale. This is a major aspect of Darwinian evolution that is just assumed to be true. Everything Darwinian evolutionist claim hinders on this assumption being true. We have observed mutations over and over. We know how each one manipulates the genome. None of them bring in new base pairs they take the base pairs that exist and move them around the genome. Meaning information is always lost. Someone said that mutations can reverse themselves. Yes they can its called a reversion mutation if I am not mistaken. But the information it reverses is lost... my point stands. No information is ever gained without loss and what is gained comes from what was already there. There is no addition of base pairs. The closest thing I have found is duplication which works on the chromosomal level.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Revolution9

I defined information I just didn't specifically state it.




I don't think anyone can disagree that in order to get from single celled organism to any an animal is going to take the addition of new base pairs to the genome.


I am asking if there is a mutation type that adds new base pairs to the genome. Its not some vague definition. I mean Genetic Information is the Information in DNA which is base pairs. Its not really that hard. I am not saying there is not one out there, but I haven't found any research providing one. I am not asking for particular experiments. I am asking for a mutation type i.e. Substitution. Duplication. ect that doesn't just take the base pairs that exist and move them elsewhere.


You didn't look very far with your research. Yes, new base pairs can be added to a genome. They can also be deleted.

Insertion (illustration)
An insertion changes the number of DNA bases in a gene by adding a piece of DNA. As a result, the protein made by the gene may not function properly.
Deletion (illustration)
A deletion changes the number of DNA bases by removing a piece of DNA. Small deletions may remove one or a few base pairs within a gene, while larger deletions can remove an entire gene or several neighboring genes. The deleted DNA may alter the function of the resulting protein(s).





new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join