Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat's just garbage. The Lenski experiment shows that 'new information' can be added to a genome.
there may be no reason that i know of, but that does not mean that they do not exist. infact i found one in about 3 seconds,
There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes t ...[text shortened]... mething that was totally different from a moth.
http://www.creationtips.com/evoluwrong.html
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobieright so we agree the key is dna. do you agree that family members and family history can be traced by looking at similarities in dna.
its a system of classification, what makes anything differ is essentially the information contained in DNA, so what?
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieno i dont agree with anything of the sort, why should I. I believe that all things were created according to their kinds (genus)
right so we agree the key is dna. do you agree that family members and family history can be traced by looking at similarities in dna.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobieim talking about familes, do you agree that it can be proven that your son is your son using dna samples from you and him?
no i dont agree with anything of the sort, why should I. I believe that all things were created according to their kinds (genus)
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have no desire to take it up with anyone, we can just simply dismiss it in this debate.
did he, well, you'll need to take it up with the authors of the article.
The point I'm driving at is this, the Lenski experiment demonstrated, unequivocally, that 'new information' can be added to a genome through the process of a beneficial mutation. So my point is - if this small amount of change, driven by a beneficial mutation, can occur within a small timeframe, surely a large amount of change can occur in a large timeframe?! If not, what's stopping the process form happening?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieExcept of course you will change that to 'genus' now and then. The problem is you are trying to make a claim based on man made and very flexible categories. And you are deliberately vague about what categories you are really making the claim about. In addition, all you give is personal skepticism as the reason for you claim.
I have no objection to variation within a species, but that the genetic capability of one species to change into another, does not exist in my opinion.
5 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobhttp://creationwiki.org/E-coli_mutation_and_evolution
I have no desire to take it up with anyone, we can just simply dismiss it in this debate.
The point I'm driving at is this, the Lenski experiment demonstrated, unequivocally, that 'new information' can be added to a genome through the process of a beneficial mutation. So my point is - if this small amount of change, driven by a beneficial mutation, c ...[text shortened]... change can occur in a large timeframe?! If not, what's stopping the process form happening?
no new information, the ecoli that we have at present, said to have existed for some 3.6 billion years is essentially the same. Lenski experiment proves nada.
E-coli have the ability to import and digest citrate in anaerobic conditions. With oxygen present, the transporter protein is switched off. A dysfunctional mutation jammed the switch in the open position to bring the citrate into the cell under all conditions.
There is no new functionality discovered or information added to the cell. Rather a loss or gain of function from preexisting information took place
Lenski’s experiments make no contribution to the explanation of the source of that preexisting information or the transition of one organism to another or the origin of life itself.
And Behe points out that “A process which breaks genes so easily is not one that is going to build up complex coherent molecular systems of many proteins, which fill the cell” (Behe, 2008).
1 edit
Biological Discontinuity, the idea that missing links never existed, the evolutionist must then explain the emergence and diversification of life, four ideas have been proffered,
(1) Nonbiogenic emergence. Organisms emerge without the direct causal agency of other organisms. In place of life begetting life, here we have nonlife begetting life.
(2) Generative transmutation. Organisms, in reproducing, produce offspring that are vastly different from themselves.
(3) Biogenic reinvention. Organisms reinvent themselves in midstream. At one moment they have certain morphological and genetic features, at the next they have a vastly different set of such features.
(4) Symbiogenic reorganization. Organisms emerge when different organisms from different species get together and reorganize themselves into a new organism.
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Biological_Discontinuity