How can mutations add new information?

a reply to: Phantom423

Humans didn’t become human because an ape mutated and humans don’t become apes because of mutations.
This is an outright load of crap...
And if it were true would be because of metamorphoses but that’s never happened either...

a reply to: Phantom423

Why can't humans turn back into gorillas. Well actually they can. Look it up.

Fake News and Fake Science, you could show me all the proof in the world, and it's never going to happen.

Now who has blind faith.......

I am convinced that those that believe in evolutionary scientific magical ideology like what you state, have more faith than those of us that believe in an intelligent creator when it comes to some of these far fetched idea's that are way out there.

I have never understood how evolution explains the life cycle of dragonflies. They spend a couple of years or so living underwater looking like a mini version of the thing from Alien and then transform into something completely different with wings that flies.

Anyone?

In electronics, 2 frequencies injected into a non-linear device (diode) outputs the original 2 frequencies, their sum and difference frequencies. 2 in, 4 out.

Same with microbiology which is basically bio-electronics. Why male and females (2 frequencies) are designed to output some harmonic frequency.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

There are hundreds of examples of natural selection. You simply don't grasp evolution and don't want to. It's time to grow up. It's 2019, science denial belongs in the 1800s. Pure dishonesty to claim natural selection isn't part of evolution. So silly.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: schuyler

All the white moths were eaten...evolution had nothing to do with it...

Baaahahahahahahahahaaaa! So natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. You heard it hear first, folks! Guess it's time to pack it up and admit that Jeebus was real and the bible is literal and the earth is 6000 years old. You totally convinced me. LMFAO!!!!!!!

Natural selection alone is not evolution.

It introduces no genetic change.

And of course right on cue, you introduce a straw man. I never said natural selection alone was evolution. It is one mechanism. Nobody said natural selection introduces genetic change. Selection is what determines WHICH genetic changes survive and which ones do not. Unbelievable.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Who built the structure you live in ?

Maybe you do know or maybe you don't ?

That doesn't change that every structure/apartment/condo/house has somebody who built it.
The planet is a structure for life to live here, and it has a builder just like any house.

This invalid analogy AGAIN??? So by this logic, when humans used to live in caves, they must have built those caves, right? BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ WRONG. Do monkeys build the trees they live in? Try again without so much fail.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: schuyler

All the white moths were eaten...evolution had nothing to do with it...

Baaahahahahahahahahaaaa! So natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. You heard it hear first, folks! Guess it's time to pack it up and admit that Jeebus was real and the bible is literal and the earth is 6000 years old. You totally convinced me. LMFAO!!!!!!!

Natural selection alone is not evolution.

It introduces no genetic change.

And of course right on cue, you introduce a straw man. I never said natural selection alone was evolution. It is one mechanism. Nobody said natural selection introduces genetic change. Selection is what determines WHICH genetic changes survive and which ones do not. Unbelievable.

So, are you suggesting that what I said was in any way untrue?



Believable.

a reply to: Barcs

So I’m a white moth and my genetics give me the ability to produce black and white babies, I’m living in a forest with white trees. I produce an equal amount of black and white offspring. For some reason the damn birds keep eating my black babies...
Why can’t I just make white babies? If only I could naturally select to only have white babies here everything would be ok... Alas this is beyond my control my genetics are what they are.
I know I’ll travel to the other part of the forest with black tees!
Oops I died...
This is the so called champion of natural selection and proof of evolution?
Damn birds keep eating the moths they can see...
That’s some heavy science stuff there so complex how will we ever understand what’s going on here?

a reply to: 5StarOracle

LMAO. Tell me I didn't just read that.. That is like one example of dozens. Your tirades are getting old.

When an environment changes, it can affect what species live and die. A species that blends in better with the environment is less likely to be eaten. Natural selection 101. Maybe you can move on to genetics mutations next and lie about how they are always harmful?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: schuyler

All the white moths were eaten...evolution had nothing to do with it...

Baaahahahahahahahahaaaa! So natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. You heard it hear first, folks! Guess it's time to pack it up and admit that Jeebus was real and the bible is literal and the earth is 6000 years old. You totally convinced me. LMFAO!!!!!!!

Natural selection alone is not evolution.

It introduces no genetic change.

And of course right on cue, you introduce a straw man. I never said natural selection alone was evolution. It is one mechanism. Nobody said natural selection introduces genetic change. Selection is what determines WHICH genetic changes survive and which ones do not. Unbelievable.

So, are you suggesting that what I said was in any way untrue?

Believable.

It was fallacious. The clown above stated that white moths being eaten less than black moths had nothing to do with evolution when natural selection is a primary mechanism of evolution. Surely you are aware and just yanking my chain again. Good one, you got me.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: schuyler

All the white moths were eaten...evolution had nothing to do with it...

Baaahahahahahahahahaaaa! So natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. You heard it hear first, folks! Guess it's time to pack it up and admit that Jeebus was real and the bible is literal and the earth is 6000 years old. You totally convinced me. LMFAO!!!!!!!

Natural selection alone is not evolution.

It introduces no genetic change.

And of course right on cue, you introduce a straw man. I never said natural selection alone was evolution. It is one mechanism. Nobody said natural selection introduces genetic change. Selection is what determines WHICH genetic changes survive and which ones do not. Unbelievable.

So, are you suggesting that what I said was in any way untrue?

Believable.

It was fallacious. The clown above stated that white moths being eaten less than black moths had nothing to do with evolution when natural selection is a primary mechanism of evolution. Surely you are aware and just yanking my chain again. Good one, you got me.

Chemistry is also a part of biology, which expresses evolutionary process.

Are you going to make the claim that every evidence of chemistry is evidence of evolution?

The truth is that natural selection can, and does occur when there is no species change. It is a required process in evolutionary theory but it, in and of itself, does not require evolution to be taking place.

I'm not dissing evolutionary process but you have to be real and face it that all of the individual components of the the theory can, and do, have other results and other reasons as well.

We know biology changes. But modern genomics has exposed that there can be other things causing those change outside of any of the evolutionary frameworks.

Not seeing that there are, most likely, other things going on, is a classic result of confirmation bias coloring an interpretive view.

To assume that we already know all there is to know about biological change, is counter-factual and will inhibit the growth of knowledge.

a reply to: chr0naut

The truth is that natural selection can, and does occur when there is no species change. It is a required process in evolutionary theory but it, in and of itself, does not require evolution to be taking place.

WHO CARES IF THERE IS NO SPECIES CHANGE? Speciation isn't a requirement of evolution. Genetic mutations sorted by natural selection is. There isn't always a species change. I know we have discussed this exact point in the past, but no surprise you pretend it never happened and go back to your silly straw man arguments.

I'm not dissing evolutionary process but you have to be real and face it that all of the individual components of the the theory can, and do, have other results and other reasons as well.

Not in this case. The moths are a slam dunk demonstration of natural selection. I know you guys despise this, but it doesn't make it wrong. And please stop with trying to change the subject to epigenetics, we are talking natural selection. You once again prove to have no clue at all. Nobody says we know all there is to know. Just that there is plenty of evidence to substantiate the evolutionary process. LOL bro.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

The truth is that natural selection can, and does occur when there is no species change. It is a required process in evolutionary theory but it, in and of itself, does not require evolution to be taking place.

WHO CARES IF THERE IS NO SPECIES CHANGE? Speciation isn't a requirement of evolution. Genetic mutations sorted by natural selection is. There isn't always a species change. I know we have discussed this exact point in the past, but no surprise you pretend it never happened and go back to your silly straw man arguments.

Species change is at the crux of evolution. That Charles Darwin's primary work was called "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" is a clue.

Evolutionary Biologists have attempted to take the macro-evolution vs micro-evolution debate away, but from the start, this has been the sticking point.

Few would, or could, argue that micro-evolution occurs but when you get to the issue of species change, there is a disjoint. The issue is, how do you get a changed genome spread if the change blocks reproduction? I.e, at the 'tipping point' of species change.

Gradualism and barriers to interaction (in a genetic sense) have been proposed as a solution, but they frequently suffer from being absent from actual observed data.

Not only that, but the implication is that species differentiation is implied to be by very many increments. Yet even with blood type, we can see how it is theoretically possible for biological incompatibilities to be introduced with the change to a single gene. There are far more systems of biological incompatibility than blood type; karyotype differences, microdeletion in the Y chromosome, fragile X and a number of recessive genetic diseases are some real world examples of vectors in biological incompatibility.

Here's a paper in support of my previous statements: A Simple Genetic Incompatibility Causes Hybrid Male Sterility in Mimulus - NCBI PMC

I'm not dissing evolutionary process but you have to be real and face it that all of the individual components of the the theory can, and do, have other results and other reasons as well.

Not in this case. The moths are a slam dunk demonstration of natural selection. I know you guys despise this, but it doesn't make it wrong.

No, "us guys" were not saying that there was no natural selection at play. "Us guys" were saying that the example shows only natural selection.

And please stop with trying to change the subject to epigenetics, we are talking natural selection.

We were actually talking about evolution, which you were equating with only natural selection, and we were saying evolution is not evidenced in the example cited. Only natural selection was evidenced.

But it isn't just epigenetics that are absent from the MES, also horizontal genetic transfers, human directed evolution, genetic engineering, selective breeding, catastrophism/saltation, punctuated equilibrium and, with the discovery that behaviors can influence genetic expression, even Lamarkian ideas are back on the table.

When it comes to biodiversity, there is more than the one tool in the shed.

You once again prove to have no clue at all. Nobody says we know all there is to know. Just that there is plenty of evidence to substantiate the evolutionary process. LOL bro.

I was trying to point out that it is the 'evolution only' view of the world that assumes we have the full answers and that if we add all sorts if imaginary situations (not supported in the data) we can mis-apply the one theory to explain everything.

Suggesting that evolution is shown, where it isn't actually shown, is not good science and is an example of confirmation bias skewing interpretation.

a reply to: chr0naut

A whole lot of semantics but nothing credible to support your silly claim that speciation is required for evolution. The only requirement is a change in frequency of alleles. Speciation is a result of many generations of evolutionary changes accumulating.

Funny how you go off on unrelated tangents again as well. First you try to steer away from a proven instance of natural selection by referring to epigenetics, now you are trying to divert to the micro vs macro argument. You are all over the place and yet none of this backs up what you said. The paper you posted is 100% irrelevant to your claim. Nice try. You are the king of straw man arguments and semantics.

No, "us guys" were not saying that there was no natural selection at play. "Us guys" were saying that the example shows only natural selection.

LMAO! And as I clearly said, natural selection is a primary mechanism of evolution. To say it's natural selection but not evolution is like saying you don't experience gravity, merely the bending of space-time. It's flat out dumb. Please stop this absolute nonsense dishonestly trying to redefine a scientific theory when it suits your argument.

We were actually talking about evolution, which you were equating with only natural selection, and we were saying evolution is not evidenced in the example cited. Only natural selection was evidenced.

I explained that NS is a mechanism several times. By the way, we already had this discussion, and I clearly destroyed you in it by pointing out that scientists have isolated the exact gene mutation responsible for the light and dark moth colors. So genetic mutation and natural selection causing change in allele frequency, slam dunk case for evolution. To claim it's not evolution because species didn't change is completely baseless.

But it isn't just epigenetics that are absent from the MES, also horizontal genetic transfers, human directed evolution, genetic engineering, selective breeding, catastrophism/saltation, punctuated equilibrium and, with the discovery that behaviors can influence genetic expression, even Lamarkian ideas are back on the table.

Wow, you really thrive on red herrings. You try to steer the conversation to this nonsense every single time we discuss ANYTHING related to evolution. I'm not engaging on dishonest red herring for the hundredth time, sorry.

I was trying to point out that it is the 'evolution only' view of the world that assumes we have the full answers and that if we add all sorts if imaginary situations (not supported in the data) we can mis-apply the one theory to explain everything.

Who claims that evolution has the full answers? Stop arguing straw men.

Suggesting that evolution is shown, where it isn't actually shown, is not good science and is an example of confirmation bias skewing interpretation.

Only in your head, sweetie.

a reply to: chr0naut

There's no point responding to him. He doesn't know biology well enough to have a conversation with. That's why he always ends up insulting people mid argument because he has no other response.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

A whole lot of semantics but nothing credible to support your silly claim that speciation is required for evolution. The only requirement is a change in frequency of alleles. Speciation is a result of many generations of evolutionary changes accumulating.

But speciation is a different issue because it infers non-heritability to the ancestor phenotype. Similarly there are examples of alleged speciational evolution without sufficient generational gradualism or physical barriers between populations. What sort of un-think is required to say that speciation occurs by evolution, when the mechanisms required to explain it, are absent?

Funny how you go off on unrelated tangents again as well. First you try to steer away from a proven instance of natural selection by referring to epigenetics,

Fair's fair, you tried to steer away from a proven instance of natural selection by referring to evolution.

One of these things is not like the other thing...

now you are trying to divert to the micro vs macro argument. You are all over the place and yet none of this backs up what you said. The paper you posted is 100% irrelevant to your claim.

Speciation within evolution and the macro/micro schism are different ways of describing the same issues within the application of evolutionary theory to real world biology.

The paper previously linked showed how a simple genetic change rendered a sexual plant species infertile in cross pollination with its ancestor species. It was entirely relevant to the point I was making and only off topic to what you want to keep repeating in every thead.

Nice try. You are the king of straw man arguments and semantics.

In all humility, I dare not accept your crown.

No, "us guys" were not saying that there was no natural selection at play. "Us guys" were saying that the example shows only natural selection.

LMAO! And as I clearly said, natural selection is a primary mechanism of evolution.

Natural selection is not the only process within evolutionary theory. Attrition of a phenotype does not equate with change to something new. Evolution explains change - to something new, to the creation and populous establishment of new phenotypes.

To say it's natural selection but not evolution is like saying you don't experience gravity, merely the bending of space-time. It's flat out dumb.

The curvature of space-time is not a component of gravity, it is a full Einsteinian relativistic explanation of how gravity operates.

Please stop this absolute nonsense dishonestly trying to redefine a scientific theory when it suits your argument.

I am not the one implying that the theories such as the MES, have all sorts of later discovered components to biodiversity, which they don't.

I am specifically being very careful to NOT redefine anything.

We were actually talking about evolution, which you were equating with only natural selection, and we were saying evolution is not evidenced in the example cited. Only natural selection was evidenced.

I explained that NS is a mechanism several times. By the way, we already had this discussion, and I clearly destroyed you in it by pointing out that scientists have isolated the exact gene mutation responsible for the light and dark moth colors. So genetic mutation and natural selection causing change in allele frequency, slam dunk case for evolution. To claim it's not evolution because species didn't change is completely baseless.

My recollection of the argument was quite different. You 'demolished' nothing, you back-tracked a few times and you made accusations that I said things that I did not. I provided links to what I had said for proof and you ignored them.

Here's a link to my penultimate response you in that argument. I have bookmarked it for future reference. Make no mistake, you will see this every time you make reference to it.

But it isn't just epigenetics that are absent from the MES, also horizontal genetic transfers, human directed evolution, genetic engineering, selective breeding, catastrophism/saltation, punctuated equilibrium and, with the discovery that behaviors can influence genetic expression, even Lamarkian ideas are back on the table.

Wow, you really thrive on red herrings. You try to steer the conversation to this nonsense every single time we discuss ANYTHING related to evolution. I'm not engaging on dishonest red herring for the hundredth time, sorry.

So, if something doesn't fit into evolutionary theory, it is a "dishonest" red herring? That's not just cognitive bias, that is flat-out denial.

I was trying to point out that it is the 'evolution only' view of the world that assumes we have the full answers and that if we add all sorts if imaginary situations (not supported in the data) we can mis-apply the one theory to explain everything.

Who claims that evolution has the full answers? Stop arguing straw men.

Stop misapplying evolution to all instances of observed biodiversification where it clearly is not fully evidenced.

Suggesting that evolution is shown, where it isn't actually shown, is not good science and is an example of confirmation bias skewing interpretation.

Only in your head, sweetie.

That is another untruth, snookums.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: chr0naut

There's no point responding to him. He doesn't know biology well enough to have a conversation with. That's why he always ends up insulting people mid argument because he has no other response.

I have dealt with BARCS before. You get to the point of facing the specifics that don't fit evolution, and he acts like you are an idiot then changes the subject back to what suits his singular cognition.

You have no idea of the numbers of times has 'demolished' people in debates and doesn't even seem to realize that he has, in fact, lost. The fact that his responses suddenly become ad hominem and others are accused of being liars doesn't even seem to register with him as he slips further from science and a reasoned response.

originally posted by: neoholographic

It's like if I write a 500 word paragraph and I say you can mutate the words overtime but the only words that can be read are the words I wrote in the paragraph. I also put in place error correction that will help preserve my words as mutations occur. You will not get any new information. You could get different variations of my paragraph that the code allows.

That's your problem right there.

A really conservative estimate of the possible combinations of genes and their possible expressions would be 70,368,744,177,664 words, now, if you chose to write those down and reshuffle how you liked, I bet you would have every single work of literature ever made in human history, and every work that will be made.

E=MC squared is such a small thing, yet it explains so much more than the mere characters do, in this way, it is analogous to how genes express.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: chr0naut

There's no point responding to him. He doesn't know biology well enough to have a conversation with. That's why he always ends up insulting people mid argument because he has no other response.

That is comical coming from you. You do exactly that and still to this day have never once refuted a single research paper on evolution. Not even once. You don't know anything about biology, only what your ID people have told you to say.