Originally posted by VoidSpiritThe video was not a hoax. The original question came from a female. The other video I think you are referring to was part of a documentary video in which the male host asks the question in place of the orignal female questioner before showing the response and reply from Dawkins. That video was "From a Frog to a Prince".
that's because it is douche. you can't redefine what evolution is. that you're trying to do so out of complete ignorance on the topic is pathetic. try reading a book on evolution first, then maybe, just maybe you might get some inkling of what it is.It is the "reproductive adaptation process' that has been observed.
evolution of ...[text shortened]... before.[/quote]
she or he? which version of the hoax video are you referring to?
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat may be so, but I think if we take what is presented as Noah's understanding of kind, we should at least be on the right track because it is logical that the kinds should be able to reproduce after their own kind as God wanted.
Actually that one makes it clear that 'kind' is not specific therefore any specific claims are necessarily false.
[b]The last explanation is the most specific, but does not seem to be defined in any dictionary that I could find.
Biblical kind
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/kind.html
All I see there is an admission that it isn't a specific definition.[/b]
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
It looks like you put a lot of effort in gathering this information. It will take me some time to go over and determine if it is helpful or not. Since I am not a biological scientist and do not understand all the details completely, I will have to look for information that I can understand from a laymans point of view. I have not checked your referenced l ...[text shortened]... -Op4A
Frog to a Prince 2/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TJOx0U6nHQ&feature=endscreen&NR=1
It looks like you put a lot of effort in gathering this information. It will take me some time to go over and determine if it is HELPFUL or not (my emphasis)
“HELPFUL”? Don’t you mean “true” or “valid”? -that is all that is relevant here.
It is CLEARLY evident from the links that mutations CAN and HAVE added “new information” to genomes thus completely debunking any claim you make that mutations cannot add “new information”.
Since I am not a biological scientist and do not understand all the details completely, I will have to look for information that I can understand from a laymans point of view.
Given your above admittance that you are not a biological scientist and do not understand all the details “completely” ( a truly massive understatement -still showing you are on your high horse ) , would you also admit that if this “layman’s point of view” disagrees that the information these biological scientist who know a lot more than you or I do ( especially you ) about it that have spend years researching and gathering it and say that information is valid and true, then your “layman’s point of view” of yours is less qualified than their very expert and extremely well qualified view and thus your “layman’s point of view” should be judged by us to be almost certainly wrong and theirs right?
http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp
The above link is entitled:
The Problem of Information for the Theory of Evolution
Has Dawkins really solved it?
the link is packed full to the brim with lies and misinformation. It is basically full of crap. I haven’t got the patience to spend many hours systematically going through it debunking each lie and misinformation in turn. So lets just stick with:
THERE IS NO “ Problem of Information for the Theory of Evolution”!
For I have already shown via the evidence in the links that it is CLEARLY evident that mutations CAN and HAVE added “new information” to genomes.
P.S. I am not really interested in watching religious propaganda videos by people who clearly don't know what they are talking about; just give me or outline valid arguments and evidence please.
Originally posted by humyI think I must have not made myself clear enough. I am not referring to mutations that are speculated to have gained new genetic information. I want proof that it actually did gain new information code that was not there before. I have read and heard scientist say that they have only proof of mutations that have loss information code and no evidence of a gain of new information code.
Here is evidence in the form of examples for the existence of mutations at least some of which must constitute the introduction of new information into the genome:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html
“...
Most people lose the ability to digest milk by their teens. A few thousand years a ...[text shortened]... f them. The examples of mutations giving new information are endless.
Well?
Originally posted by RJHindsLIAR
I think I must have not made myself clear enough. I am not referring to mutations that are speculated to have gained new genetic information. I want proof that it actually did gain new information code that was not there before. I have read and heard scientist say that they have only proof of mutations that have loss information code and no evidence of a gain of new information code.
Originally posted by humyOf course, I want information that is helpful for me, as a non-scientist, to understand that it is true that mutations have added new genetic information code. I don't see that in what you have provided. It seems to me to only be speculation as to the possibility that it might have happened as a result of such and such, but no clear evidence that it did, IMO. I am not convinced, but I still have an open mind to the possibility, however slight.
It looks like you put a lot of effort in gathering this information. It will take me some time to go over and determine if it is HELPFUL or not (my emphasis)
“HELPFUL”? Don’t you mean “true” or “valid”? -that is all that is relevant here.
It is CLEARLY evident from the links that mutations CAN and HAVE added “new information” to genomes t ...[text shortened]... know what they are talking about; just give me or outline valid arguments and evidence please.
Originally posted by RJHindsWe've had this discussion before - Down Syndrome. Extra chromosome.
Of course, I want information that is helpful for me, as a non-scientist, to understand that it is true that mutations have added new genetic information code. I don't see that in what you have provided. It seems to me to only be speculation as to the possibility that it might have happened as a result of such and such, but no clear evidence that it did, IMO. I am not convinced, but I still have an open mind to the possibility, however slight.
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
I think I must have not made myself clear enough. I am not referring to mutations that are speculated to have gained new genetic information. I want proof that it actually did gain new information code that was not there before. I have read and heard scientist say that they have only proof of mutations that have loss information code and no evidence of a gain of new information code.
I have read and heard scientist say that they have only proof of mutations that have loss information code and no evidence of a gain of new information code.
if such so-called “scientists” exist that actually “say” that, then those very few ones are not only wrong but must be stupid and also ignorant of the evidence.
ALL credible scientist that have done research into genetics and clearly understand what mutations are would say that that the claim that mutations cannot add “new information” is just PURE STUPID NONSENSE.
I am not referring to mutations that are SPECULATED to have gained new genetic information. I want proof that it actually did gain new information code that was not there before. (my emphasis)
the links CLEARLY show ABSOLUTE PROOF that mutations both CAN give and DO sometimes gave new genetic information -so stop it with this “ SPECULATED” crap!
Just LOOK at the links: the proof IS plainly THERE to see -NO “speculation” about that!
I HAVE GIVEN YOU THE PROOF! What more do you want!?
Just LOOK at the proof and come back to me.
Here is a reminder of just one very small part of that proof mainly in the form of LOGIC:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html
“...Most mutations can be reversed by subsequent mutations - a DNA base can be turned from an A to a G and then back to an A again, for instance. In fact, reverse mutation or "reversion" is common. For any mutation that results in a loss of information, LOGICALLY, the reverse mutation must result in its gain. So the claim that mutations destroy information but cannot create it not only defies the evidence, it also defies logic.
...” (my emphasis)
read this above VERY carefully and slowly and try to think and explain how this is NOT proof that a mutation can add new information.
well?
Originally posted by Proper KnobThat is only duplication of OLD information code not new information code that has a beneficial effect. Down Syndrome has not been considered a benefit to my knowledge and in any event the duplicate information code is not "NEW".
We've had this discussion before - Down Syndrome. Extra chromosome.
Originally posted by humyWhat SEEMS logical to someone is not proof, it is only an opinion. Opinion is not real science.I have read and heard scientist say that they have only proof of mutations that have loss information code and no evidence of a gain of new information code.
if such so-called “scientists” exist that actually “say” that, then those very few ones are not only wrong but must be stupid and also ignorant of the evidence.
ALL credible scientist ...[text shortened]... y to think and explain how this is NOT proof that a mutation can add new information.
well?
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
What [b]SEEMS logical to someone is not proof, it is only an opinion. Opinion is not real science.[/b]
What SEEMS logical to someone is not proof, it is only an opinion.
if it merely “SEEMS” logical then you must be able to show the logical flaw in it. And yet you haven't -why? Because you cannot find any! Stop this lying. You KNOW it is logical and therefore not “only a opiniion”. If you deny this, OK, PROVE IT! Tell us where the logical flaw is in:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html
“...Most mutations can be reversed by subsequent mutations - a DNA base can be turned from an A to a G and then back to an A again, for instance. In fact, reverse mutation or "reversion" is common. For any mutation that results in a loss of information, LOGICALLY, the reverse mutation must result in its gain. So the claim that mutations destroy information but cannot create it not only defies the evidence, it also defies logic.
...” (my emphasis)
well?
-no answer?
-Then the link DOES show proof!
Originally posted by RJHindsBut then your claim that 'different kinds have never been observed to interbreed' is circular because the definition is 'different kinds are those that are not observed to interbreed'.
That may be so, but I think if we take what is presented as Noah's understanding of kind, we should at least be on the right track because it is logical that the kinds should be able to reproduce after their own kind as God wanted.
1 edit
Originally posted by humyI had to leave and did not see this until now. I had to take my wife to the hospital for her appointment to get a bone scan. Then, we went shopping and stopped at a restaurant for supper before we came home. I had a chess game waiting for a move too and then replied to a few other posts. But now i am going to reply to your post here.What SEEMS logical to someone is not proof, it is only an opinion.
if it merely “SEEMS” logical then you must be able to show the logical flaw in it. And yet you haven't -why? Because you cannot find any! Stop this lying. You KNOW it is logical and therefore not “only a opiniion”. If you deny this, OK, PROVE IT! Tell us where the logical fl ogic.
...” (my emphasis)
[/quote]
well?
-no answer?
-Then the link DOES show proof!
reverse mutation
one in which the wild-type phenotype is restored; such organisms are called revertants. Called also back mutation, reversion mutation.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/reverse+mutation
I don't claim to be an expert on mutations, but from this definiton, it appears to me that the lost information is restored back to the way it was originally. So the net gain of information code is ZERO.
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
I had to leave and did not see this until now. I had to take my wife to the hospital for her appointment to get a bone scan. Then, we went shopping and stopped at a restaurant for supper before we came home. I had a chess game waiting for a move too and then replied to a few other posts. But now i am going to reply to your post here.
[b]reverse mutati s restored back to the way it was originally. So the net gain of information code is ZERO.[/b]
but from this definiton, it appears to me that the lost information is restored back to the way it was originally. So the net gain of information code is ZERO.
-which is totally irrelevant to what I posted!
Didn't you actually read my post?
OF COURSE any “lost information” is restored back to the way it was IF the mutation reverses!
But what has that got to do with the fact that:
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 ) result in a GIAN of information!?
This is very simple deductive logic used in the above.
Well?
And, of course, if a mutation that results in a gain in information that just happens to return the lost information as a result of a previous mutation, then there is no logical reason to think that a similar mutation that results in a gain in information can happen WITHOUT just happening to return the lost information as a result of a previous mutation! If you deny this, then explain how one can be possible but not the other...
So how on earth does this NOT prove that a mutation can add “new information”?
Well?