2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsSo what is your counterargument to our two absolute proofs that mutations can and sometimes do add new information no matter how you look at it?
You have been given the counter arguments and refuse to pay attention. I do not intend to keep repeating them for your amusement.
you still haven't given us a valid counterargument that we haven't debunked.
You have lost the argument.
Originally posted by humyWinning or losing is not what matters; it is how you play the game that matters. And you play a crooked game, so I am actually the winner regardless of your claim. HalleluYah ! Praise the Lord!
So what is your counterargument to our two absolute proofs that mutations can and sometimes do add new information no matter how you look at it?
you still haven't given us a valid counterargument that we haven't debunked.
You have lost the argument.
Originally posted by RJHindsThe fact that environmental stresses have been seen to change one species into another by correlating data about past weather and the subsequent changes in species. That is well known, except for you apparently.
Where is your evidence that there is no intelligent design in biology?
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseThat does not mean there is no design in biology.
The fact that environmental stresses have been seen to change one species into another by correlating data about past weather and the subsequent changes in species. That is well known, except for you apparently.
How about the bacterial flagellum motor and this is mot even thinking about the information instructions tha allows automatic assembly of the motor and no one knows were these instructions came from if not from an intelligent designer.
&feature=related
Originally posted by RJHindsHow 'bout this:
That does not mean there is no design in biology.
How about the bacterial flagellum motor and this is mot even thinking about the information instructions tha allows automatic assembly of the motor and no one knows were these instructions came from if not from an intelligent designer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7Emmddf7Y&feature=related
&feature=endscreen&NR=1
9 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseI am afraid, unless I am missing something ( because I couldn't stomach watching the whole video ), you have just given a Creationist propaganda video by mistake.
How 'bout this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TJOx0U6nHQ&feature=endscreen&NR=1
It gives the usual religious crap and lies including the lie that a mutation cannot add new information and, if have any effect on information, can only result in a loss of information ( or words of that effect ) which was proven to be not only false but obviously a lie ( unless the Creationist could really be THAT stupid as to fail see such obvious flaws in there argument! ) earlier in this thread using not just one but at least two proofs.
These are the two proofs:
Proof 1:
We know that a mutation can occur that is then reversed by another mutation later on. Such reversible mutations have been observed often including in bacteria which do not reproduce sexually so that the reverse mutation couldn't have merely came from a copy of the original gene from another 'mate' ( exactly what 'barrier' would stop any possibility of the reverse mutation occurring anyway? ) .
If the first mutation resulted in a 'lost of information' then the reverse mutation MUST, LOGICALLY, result in the GAIN of that information.
Thus POOVING that a mutation CAN ( and also sometimes DOES given the evidence – see http://www.springerlink.com/content/n4l77r6h77064172/ and http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/l/slmd-43.pdf for evidence of this occurring in bacteria ) result in a GIAN of information.
Proof 2:
We have proof that sometimes a mutation consists of an extra copy of a chromosome being made. This can be viewed as “adding new information” depending on how you define “new information”. If that extra chromosome then eventually mutates, which it would inevitable do so given sufficient time ( this is called “genetic drift” and we have proof that it happens ), and so becomes different from the other copy in that same genome then, no matter how you look at it and no matter how you define “new information”, it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to deny that that combination of chromosome duplication followed by one of the two chromosome copies mutating to become different from the other copy must provide new information.
Obviously, any valid counter argument against these proofs will need to demonstrate that BOTH of these proofs are erroneous. But not one of these has been demonstrated to be erroneous and we can confidently assert that the Creationist claim is at best simply “wrong”, which is the kindest thing that can be said about their claim, and, at worst, a lie.
RJHinds has completely failed to produce any real valid counterargument to these proofs and he has clearly been proven wrong and, given that fact he must surely know he has been proven wrong but will not admit it, I would say he has also been proven to be a liar.
Originally posted by RJHindsIf it doesn't matter then why say you are the winner?
Winning or losing is not what matters; it is how you play the game that matters. And you play a crooked game, so I am actually the winner regardless of your claim. HalleluYah ! Praise the Lord!
Geez you're a weirdo sometimes. (You defeated your own argument in the same short sentence. Incredible ! )
Originally posted by RJHindsAnother example of a scientist coming in with an agenda. He has a Phd but uses it as a weapon to try to defeat evolution. A much higher argument than your rock hound buddy with the MS but the fact he can't explain how chirality came about does not by itself mean there has to be a supernatural explanation.
The reason I am a winner is because I know the truth. For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0DarH79soo&feature=related
It could have happened that right handedness took over and I would bet dimes to donuts somewhere on a planet perhaps even in our galaxy that righthandedness came about by natural processes and ended up with entirely right handed life forms.
Just because we find no right handedness in Earthy life does not by itself prove right handed life forms do not exist. It just means, like ordinary matter winning out over anti-matter, right handedness lost out on Earth.
http://creationwiki.org/Charles_McCombs
He is described here as a Christian Apologist, a guy with an agenda. That puts him in the category of charlatanism too.
Instead of trying to see if righthandedness can be made to work, he just gives up on the idea and goes back to the 2000 year old claim, God Did It.