New Resarch Suggests Chimp/Human Fossil Record May Be Inaccurate Depiction Of Divergence

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
Mutation [is] not evidence of evolution...

That's actually the only evidence we need to prove that it actually exists.

Evolution describes changes in allele frequencie through reproduction. In other words mutations are formed through reproduction. The existence of mutations alone show that evolution is evident.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
High level objectives come first the details always follow after...

You know...

Hierarchical arrangement of parts...

No, i don't know. What the heck are you talking about?

a reply to: Ghost147

So then you are saying that creation has allowed for any evolution because the code has predetermined it will happen over time...

Heh ok ty... that is intelligent design...

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Evolution is a theory with no foundation outside of faith

Wrong. There is a mountain of evidence for it's foundation. That is a fact.

However, if that weren't true and it was built on "faith", I'd reject it like you have. Because like you, I know "faith" is BS.

There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organisms genetic code...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organisms genetic code...

Do you have evidence of that? A citation, a research paper, article - anything???

There is plenty of proof that information is added to the genetic code.

Looking forward to your outstanding literature research.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

So then you are saying that creation has allowed for any evolution because the code has predetermined it will happen over time...

Heh ok ty... that is intelligent design...

When did I say that the 'code' predetermines what will happen over time?

The DNA is code, and that code determines specific features to occur in the offspring. The code itself doesn't show any signs of being predetermined. Nor does it show any signs that the DNA is guided into a particular direction.

Sorry, but you misinterpreted what I was saying

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organisms genetic code...

Do you have evidence of that? A citation, a research paper, article - anything???

There is plenty of proof that information is added to the genetic code.

Looking forward to your outstanding literature research.

He's not into providing evidence. He just makes claims and opinions and prefers they go unsubstantiated so he doesn't have to do more work in arguing a valid point.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organisms genetic code...

The Creationist version is that DNA is information. DNA is not information. It is a code. Initially, the RNA molecule reacted with components found on Earth. The molecule had the ability to reproduce long before life even existed on Earth.

By contrast, information is a collection of data or ideas that can be conveyed through means of communication. A book contains information. The information in the book cannot change, it cannot reproduce itself, it cannot alter the content in any way. Every copy of a book is the same. That is information.

DNA, however, has a structure-function relationship. The laws of chemistry and physics govern the biochemical potential of DNA. When DNA reacts chemically to initiate protein synthesis, DNA is not delivering information. It is engaging in a chemical reaction. The DNA for each species is different, hence the variety of life on this planet. These are all chemical reactions – not information being passed from one species to another.

Mutations can duplicate larger sections of chromosomes and introduce extra copies into a genome. Extra copies are used as the new material for new genes to evolve. Evolution is the on-going process of chemical reactions initiated by DNA. And that is why the notion of a common ancestor is valid regardless when that ancestor lived.

Creationism is a cult. It is a fraud. There is zero evidence for any of their “scientific” positions. People who buy into the fraud engage in willful ignorance because they're lazy. The real world is too difficult to cope with. They are of the same mindset as the Jonestown suicide gang or the nutcases who thought they could ride Haley's comet into eternity. No doubt, Ken Ham is planning rides on dinosaurs down in Kentucky for the lame, lazy and the crazy who show up at his new carnival.

Fortunately, they are in an extreme minority. But that doesn't relieve us from the responsibility of countering their absurd claims.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organisms genetic code...

Do you have evidence of that? A citation, a research paper, article - anything???

There is plenty of proof that information is added to the genetic code.

Looking forward to your outstanding literature research.

He's not into providing evidence. He just makes claims and opinions and prefers they go unsubstantiated so he doesn't have to do more work in arguing a valid point.

This is what happens with every thread of this nature - they argue, never present evidence, no citations, no logic. Then they disappear into the ether until they think no one is looking and start all over again. It's the same routine with the Ken Ham crowd - they don't accept questions - they only give answers!

Disappearing act coming up - guaranteed!

a reply to: Phantom423

I see evidence of stored information here...

www.yourgenome.org...

originally posted by: Phantom423
The Creationist version is that DNA is information. DNA is not information. It is a code.

Actually, DNA does contain biological information.

The information is the nucleotides which form base pairs, and the expression of the configuration of those base pairs is the expression of their information.

Here's more information in you're interested

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Phantom423

I see evidence of stored information here...

www.yourgenome.org...

See what happens when you post citations. Your opinions can become validated!

originally posted by: Phantom423

The Creationist version is that DNA is information. DNA is not information. It is a code.

What? DNA is not information?

DNA stores biological information. The DNA backbone is resistant to cleavage, and both strands of the double-stranded structure store the same biological information. Biological information is replicated as the two strands are separated. A significant portion of DNA (more than 98% for humans) is non-coding, meaning that these sections do not serve as patterns for protein sequences.

How can DNA be a "code", but not information? That seems oxymoronic.

posted by: Phantom423
By contrast, information is a collection of data or ideas that can be conveyed through means of communication. A book contains information. The information in the book cannot change, it cannot reproduce itself, it cannot alter the content in any way. Every copy of a book is the same. That is information.

Information has several meanings depending on the context, and does not necessarily need to be conveyed through communication to be classified as such. Right or wrong?

What is one to think DNA is or contains when the prevailing metaphors call it a "blue print"; a "set of instructions", a "road map", oh and everyone's favorite, " A CODE"?

I hate these metaphors by the way - biology is full of them.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
I hate these metaphors by the way - biology is full of them.

Indeed. I'd say science in general is too full of them. It's too easy for people whom aren't familiar with the terminology to believe something in science is something totally different because it uses a word that conventionally means something totally different.

Theory comes to mind. I'm not quite sure how many times I've had to explain the difference between the conventional use of the term "theory" and a "Scientific Theory". Heck, it's probably been explained at least 6 times in this topic alone, and to only 2 people.

a reply to: Ghost147

I don't know where you find the stamina to re-explain things over and over.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147

I don't know where you find the stamina to re-explain things over and over.

One of my other topics was directly on the validity of Evolution, and in it I (and other members) addressed all comments, questions and concerns with respect, no matter how aggressive the person making the claims or questions were. In the span of that topic we had 3 members who had been lurking on ATS for years actually sign up just to comment in that topic and to thank us for our efforts. Many more members whom didn't know much about evolution beforehand, or who actually rejected the concept had also thanked us for our efforts.

Many of the aggressive people simply left after we responded. Some after two or three posts, others after 5 or six pages. However, the more they asked questions the more people outside of the conversation and just as an audience came in to compliment the thread and had let us know how much they learned from it.

Because of that, I don't see why it's a bad thing to continuously explain something in a calm manner. It may have no chance at all at convincing the opposition that their concepts or accusations are false, but it seems to have an outstanding resonance with the audience that reads the topics with anonymity.

The audience are the people I'm trying to convince

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147

I don't know where you find the stamina to re-explain things over and over.

He doesn't have to explain anything, just make stuff up and reposts it over and over again, with the premise assumed science

Its all smoke and mirrors

the context of the data is based on these very words


mired in uncertainty, new estimates, previously thought, time estimates appear, at odds ,
Based on this model, using what we know, suggests, supporting the notion of a mutational slowdown, time estimates reconcile , they suggest, may have occurred.

How can they be explained as a science, give the man a crystal ball and we could assume the same thing

originally posted by: Raggedyman
How can they be explained as a science?

Because they are backed by evidence.

It's difficult to 'make up everything' when I actually provide citations to peer-reviewed articles and experiments.

I leave the make-believe stuff up for the people whom don't cite anything but make extraordinary claims, you know, like how you've provided no citations in this topic thus far. We're on page 13 by the way, you have a lot of backtracking to do.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ghost147

I don't know where you find the stamina to re-explain things over and over.

One of my other topics was directly on the validity of Evolution, and in it I (and other members) addressed all comments, questions and concerns with respect, no matter how aggressive the person making the claims or questions were. In the span of that topic we had 3 members who had been lurking on ATS for years actually sign up just to comment in that topic and to thank us for our efforts. Many more members whom didn't know much about evolution beforehand, or who actually rejected the concept had also thanked us for our efforts.

Many of the aggressive people simply left after we responded. Some after two or three posts, others after 5 or six pages. However, the more they asked questions the more people outside of the conversation and just as an audience came in to compliment the thread and had let us know how much they learned from it.

Because of that, I don't see why it's a bad thing to continuously explain something in a calm manner. It may have no chance at all at convincing the opposition that their concepts or accusations are false, but it seems to have an outstanding resonance with the audience that reads the topics with anonymity.

The audience are the people I'm trying to convince

Thats just flatulence ghost

You ignored and denied questions or just answered them in the most vague way possible

You offered nothing but troll answers that brushed the surface, backpedaled and denied.

That was a farce of a thread and many laughed at it.

The great poobah of evolution who offered not one scientific answer to a single question

Just more assumption and guess work

Not one genuine scientific answer based on evidence was ever offered in that thread, a complete failure as I saw it.

wasnt worth my time

What I cant understand is how you think you are so clever even though you dont address the issues that are asked, when you do you offer an answer that is so limp its worthless

Ghost you dont answer questions, you dont seem to understand your answers are invalid, you offer no answers, just rhetoric

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Raggedyman
How can they be explained as a science?

Because they are backed by evidence.

It's difficult to 'make up everything' when I actually provide citations to peer-reviewed articles and experiments.

I leave the make-believe stuff up for the people whom don't cite anything but make extraordinary claims, you know, like how you've provided no citations in this topic thus far. We're on page 13 by the way, you have a lot of backtracking to do.

Where is the evidence, I should just cut and paste this answer to every one of your comments

How can these words indicate evidence

mired in uncertainty, new estimates, previously thought, time estimates appear, at odds ,
Based on this model, using what we know, suggests, supporting the notion of a mutational slowdown, time estimates reconcile , they suggest, may have occurred.

Its a real question, demands a real answer
Its your thread, do the right thing and explain how science is now justified with words like mired in uncertainty, new estimates, previously thought, time estimates appear, at odds ,
Based on this model, using what we know, suggests, supporting the notion of a mutational slowdown, time estimates reconcile , they suggest, may have occurred.


Evidence not assumption

originally posted by: Raggedyman
You ignored and denied questions or just answered them in the most vague way possible

You offered nothing but troll answers that brushed the surface, backpedaled and denied.

That was a farce of a thread and many laughed at it.

The great poobah of evolution who offered not one scientific answer to a single question

Just more assumption and guess work

Not one genuine scientific answer based on evidence was ever offered in that thread, a complete failure as I saw it.

wasnt worth my time

What I cant understand is how you think you are so clever even though you dont address the issues that are asked, when you do you offer an answer that is so limp its worthless

Ghost you dont answer questions, you dont seem to understand your answers are invalid, you offer no answers, just rhetoric

Yup, sounds like me alright