Originally posted by sonhousedude I have made room for the supernatural, you are the one that has limited your search for truth to unintelligent agencies.
You are looking at the world through a very small keyhole, We have not been around as a race long enough to see actual macro changes which happen on million year time scales. So you can deny deny deny with impunity.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat relevance does this have to what I've been posting?
http://creationwiki.org/E-coli_mutation_and_evolution
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 ...[text shortened]... build up complex coherent molecular systems of many proteins, which fill the cell” (Behe, 2008).
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobI thought that was obvious, that the process which enabled ecoli to synthesise citrate was already present, as Behe (peace be upon him) and other have pointed out and which refutes the assertion of 'new information'.
What relevance does this have to what I've been posting?
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe Reason is that God has put limits on how much change can happen. One example is that mutant animal becomes unable to reproduce at all.
Here's a hypothetical for you, if you could travel say 50 million years into the future, do you think the earth would be populated by all the same animals we have here today?
The Instructor
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe process involved a gene mutation which led to the duplication of 2933 base pairs. How is an extra 2933 base pairs not 'new information'?
I thought that was obvious, that the process which enabled ecoli to synthesise citrate was already present, as Behe (peace be upon him) and other have pointed out and which refutes the assertion of 'new information'.
Originally posted by Proper Knobbecause as Behe and others pointed out the process to synthesise citrate was already present and simply induced under special circumstances.
The process involved a gene mutation which led to the duplication of 2933 base pairs. How is an extra 2933 base pairs not 'new information'?
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo a gene duplication brought about by a mutation resulting in an extra 2933 base pairs is not 'new information'? Is that what you're saying?
because as Behe and others pointed out the process to synthesise citrate was already present and simply induced under special circumstances.
Behe's comments are from his 2008 book, but the genome sequencing results were published after that date in 2012. In short, you are using quotes that are out of date. Besides, why are you quoting Behe? He supports common descent, something you don't.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, it's not, the lab-cultures lacked the protein to do it, and the adaptation required three separate mutations. The information in the cells changed and they have a complete record of each generation and could tell if it was due to contamination.
because as Behe and others pointed out the process to synthesise citrate was already present and simply induced under special circumstances.
What is wrong with complexity in a system increasing anyway? I thought the idea with the irreducible complexity argument was that you can't reach the level of complexity of a complete cell by natural forces alone; you seem to be arguing that new species can't emerge on the same basis?
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAn interesting series of articles regarding Behe's work and views on the Lenski experiment can be found here.
No, it's not, the lab-cultures lacked the protein to do it, and the adaptation required three separate mutations. The information in the cells changed and they have a complete record of each generation and could tell if it was due to contamination.
What is wrong with complexity in a system increasing anyway? I thought the idea with the irreducible c ...[text shortened]... natural forces alone; you seem to be arguing that new species can't emerge on the same basis?
http://biologos.org/blog/behe-lenski-and-the-edge-of-evolution-part-4-ic-and-exaptation
As an aside, quibbling over whether this mutation constitutes a “genuine gain-of-FCT” mutation is not my purpose here, since the definition is Behe’s to define, and I am not aware of anyone else in the scientific literature who uses Behe’s definitions. That said, I consider it passing strange to claim that a series of events that produced a gene that has a new sequence and functional properties distinct from either of its component parts does not constitute the production of a new “functional coded element.” If nothing else, it is a functional coded element that has not previously existed, cobbled together from parts of other functional coded elements, displaying new, adaptive properties. If according to Behe’s definition that’s not “new” or a “gain” then I guess it’s not, but that seems to me to torture the words “new” and “gain” beyond recognition.