Expelled Exposed

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Expelled Exposed

Let's get ahead in our knowledge of the movie expelled before it actually comes out...

Keep checking Expelled Exposed for the National Center for Science Education's official response to the Ben Stein movie Expelled; for now, we hope you will find this collection of resources helpful. (all info from ExpelledExposed)

Reviews of Expelled from those who have seen it

Other News Coverage of Expelled

Biologist PZ Myers expelled from Expelled screening


For more information on creationism and evolution, see NCSE's main website at

www.ncseweb.org

. Questions? Email

expelled@ncseweb.org

.

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
So did anyone see Expelled?

So did anyone see Expelled?  

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3558
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
 No I haven't seen it.  I

Here's a great review: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.html

 

Snippet of Ebert raping Ben Stein:

 

Quote:

 

 

I've been accused of refusing to review Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled," a defense of Creationism, because of my belief in the theory of evolution. Here is my response.

Ben Stein, you hosted a TV show on which you gave away money. Imagine that I have created a special edition of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" just for you. Ben, you've answered all the earlier questions correctly, and now you're up for the $1 million prize. It involves an explanation for the evolution of life on this planet. You have already exercised your option to throw away two of the wrong answers. Now you are faced with two choices: (A) Darwin's Theory of Evolution, or (B) Intelligent Design.

Because this is a special edition of the program, you can use a Hotline to telephone every scientist on Earth who has an opinion on this question. You discover that 99.975 of them agree on the answer (A). A million bucks hangs in the balance. The clock is ticking. You could use the money. Which do you choose? You, a firm believer in the Constitution, are not intimidated and exercise your freedom of speech. You choose (B).

Squaaawk!!! The klaxon horn sounds. You have lost. Outraged, you file suit against the program, charging it is biased and has denied a hearing for your belief. Your suit argues that the "correct" answer was chosen because of a prejudice against the theory of Intelligent Design, despite the fact that .025 of one percent of all scientists support it. You call for (B) to be discussed in schools as an alternative theory to (A).Your rights have been violated. You're at wit's end. You think perhaps the field of Indie Documentaries offers you hope. You accept a position at the Institute of Undocumented Documentaries in Dallas, Texas. This Institute teaches that the rules of the "$64,000 Question" are the only valid game show rules. All later game shows must follow them literally. The "$64,000 Question" came into existence in 1955. False evidence for earlier game shows has been refuted by scientists at the Institute.

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


NoDeity
Bronze Member
NoDeity's picture
Posts: 268
Joined: 2009-10-13
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:So did anyone

Sapient wrote:

So did anyone see Expelled?  

I downloaded it several months ago.  Haven't watched it yet.  I'm reluctant to watch it because I anticipate becoming extremely frustrated while watching it and being unable to directly respond to the dishonesty that pervades creationism.

Reality is the graveyard of the gods.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
NoDeity wrote:I downloaded

NoDeity wrote:

I downloaded it several months ago.  Haven't watched it yet.  I'm reluctant to watch it because I anticipate becoming extremely frustrated while watching it and being unable to directly respond to the dishonesty that pervades creationism.

Ditto.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2730
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I was skimming through the

I was skimming through the shows last weekend and I saw this on late at night, so I set up the DVR to record it. I like to keep an open mind and to see what other people have to say.

I watched the movie for about five minutes. No. Make that two minutes. I must exclude the opening credits and graphics from the total time I actually watched any thing.

Once the "talking started" I realized what a horrible movie it was; it acted like a documentary but I quickly realized it wasn't one at all. It was merely a disguise to make people think it was a documentary.

I was immediately under the impression that Ben Stein is a whining pussy six year old who is throwing a tantrum. I also was under the impression that the movie was full of non-facts and non-truths.

It's a horrible movie. I can't even give it a .0000001 star out of five. It's a negative. It actually sucks intelligence from people who watch it degrading them to zombies (provided they watch it for more than five minutes, so I was not affected).

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2730
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Don't watch it for more than

Don't watch it for more than five minutes. Your brains will get sucked out of your skull and you will become an ignorant zombie.

NoDeity wrote:

Sapient wrote:

So did anyone see Expelled?  

I downloaded it several months ago.  Haven't watched it yet.  I'm reluctant to watch it because I anticipate becoming extremely frustrated while watching it and being unable to directly respond to the dishonesty that pervades creationism.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Don't

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Don't watch it for more than five minutes. Your brains will get sucked out of your skull and you will become an ignorant zombie.

NoDeity wrote:

Sapient wrote:

So did anyone see Expelled?  

I downloaded it several months ago.  Haven't watched it yet.  I'm reluctant to watch it because I anticipate becoming extremely frustrated while watching it and being unable to directly respond to the dishonesty that pervades creationism.

 

You can't win Ben Stein's money because he willed it to God.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
::::::::::::::::::::::

This movie was typical of those designed to appeal to a certain segment of society.

 

To quote Blazing Saddles: "You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Have you guys seen this

Have you guys seen this relatively new load of horse shit from the discovery institute? If not, I regretfully introduce Expelled exposed exposed.

 

http://www.ncseexposed.org/


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
I've seen Expelled. It's an

I've seen Expelled. It's an interesting movie. It's shows well how the evolutionary doctrine which has no basis for morality is relatively consistent among those that believe it. Yes, for consistent they are since they have no morality at all.

Another good part is when Dawkins was asked about how could new information be added to the DNA and he had no answer. It shows the ignorance of evolutionists. Again, Bravo Ben Stein.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
NoDeity wrote:I'm reluctant

NoDeity wrote:

I'm reluctant to watch it because I anticipate becoming extremely frustrated while watching it and being unable to directly respond to the dishonesty that pervades creationism.

This is all atheism is about. Anger at creationists, bad emotional feelings and irrationality. Exactly what is contrary to science.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:Another good

hanntonn wrote:

Another good part is when Dawkins was asked about how could new information be added to the DNA and he had no answer. It shows the ignorance of evolutionists. Again, Bravo Ben Stein.

Feel free to research your own ignorance and find out what really happened in that scene... the details are out there.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
Yes I know, atheists are

Yes I know, atheists are fearful that their protective dady be humiliated. This is why they invent other hypothesis. The truth is that Dawkins really has no clue as to how information arise in the Genome. There is duplication, deletion, moving around of genes, random mutations. None of these processes can add information. Even if Dawkins had not been stuck at this question, even if he had started to talk right away, he wouldn't have answered the question because there is no known process that can add information in the Genome. Random mutations are random, and information is not random. So, in the end, even if Dawkins had answered, he would still have been stumped by that question in his intellect.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:Yes I know,

hanntonn wrote:

Yes I know, atheists are fearful that their protective dady be humiliated. This is why they invent other hypothesis. The truth is that Dawkins really has no clue as to how information arise in the Genome. There is duplication, deletion, moving around of genes, random mutations. None of these processes can add information. Even if Dawkins had not been stuck at this question, even if he had started to talk right away, he wouldn't have answered the question because there is no known process that can add information in the Genome. Random mutations are random, and information is not random. So, in the end, even if Dawkins had answered, he would still have been stumped by that question in his intellect.

Are you seriously suggesting that atheist see Dawkins like that???

Those processes are adding information by the actual scientific definition of the term!

Quote:

A key measure of information in the theory is known as entropy, which is usually expressed by the average number of bits needed for storage or communication.

Anything that increases the number of genes (duplication) increases information, according to this basic scientific measure of information. A sequence of identical genes or codons has less information content than one of the same length containing more than one kind, so mutation of such a sequence also increases information content.

You have no clue what information is in the scientific sense. I did a term at University for a higher-level  Engineering Degree dealing with Information Theory.

I have already shown you documentation as to how and where what you call 'information' in DNA comes from.

I can also refer you to computer programs which create computer code which is not 'programmed into them' - computer code is an even higher-level form of the 'information' you see in DNA.

No conscious mind required. It has been explicitly demonstrated by the success of 'genetic algorithms' that the evolutionary process can generate even better 'code' than trained human minds.

The 'DNA information' argument has been totally blown out of the water at every level.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:Have you guys

KSMB wrote:

Have you guys seen this relatively new load of horse shit from the discovery institute? If not, I regretfully introduce Expelled exposed exposed.

 

http://www.ncseexposed.org/

Thanks for this link. It's actually very True what this article is saying.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:Yes I know,

hanntonn wrote:

Yes I know, atheists are fearful that their protective dady be humiliated. This is why they invent other hypothesis. The truth is that Dawkins really has no clue as to how information arise in the Genome. There is duplication, deletion, moving around of genes, random mutations. None of these processes can add information. Even if Dawkins had not been stuck at this question, even if he had started to talk right away, he wouldn't have answered the question because there is no known process that can add information in the Genome. Random mutations are random, and information is not random. So, in the end, even if Dawkins had answered, he would still have been stumped by that question in his intellect.

I see you didn't do the research yet.  It's not hard to find, the answer is out there.  

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:Yes I know,

hanntonn wrote:

Yes I know, atheists are fearful that their protective dady be humiliated. This is why they invent other hypothesis. The truth is that Dawkins really has no clue as to how information arise in the Genome. There is duplication, deletion, moving around of genes, random mutations. None of these processes can add information. Even if Dawkins had not been stuck at this question, even if he had started to talk right away, he wouldn't have answered the question because there is no known process that can add information in the Genome. Random mutations are random, and information is not random. So, in the end, even if Dawkins had answered, he would still have been stumped by that question in his intellect.

The only one showing fear is you. Have you done the research Sapient suggested yet?

Tis a shame you have so little faith.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Ok, it's not the easiest

Ok, it's not the easiest thing to look up (although it wasn't hard) so I'll give it to you.  I'm only doing so because google searching it typically yields hundreds of Christian links without the background of what really happened.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/

The technical answer is granted to you on the page in something that would likely amount to a 20 page word document, since you're not likely to read it all, here is the basic gist behind it.

Richard Dawkins wrote:

 

In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists — a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.

My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later 1, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content 2. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.

With hindsight — given that I had been suckered into admitting them into my house in the first place — it might have been wiser simply to answer the question. But I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth — I have a horror of blinding people with science — and this was not a question that could be answered in a soundbite. First you first have to explain the technical meaning of “information”. Then the relevance to evolution, too, is complicated — not really difficult but it takes time. Rather than engage now in further recriminations and disputes about exactly what happened at the time of the interview (for, to be fair, I should say that the Australian producer’s memory of events seems to differ from mine), I shall try to redress the matter now in constructive fashion by answering the original question, the “Information Challenge”, at adequate length — the sort of length you can achieve in a proper article.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
After reading Dawkin's

After reading Dawkin's excellent article that Sapient linked to, I should clarify that in my post I was referring to the 'raw' information content of the genome, not the useful amount of 'real' information in the context of defining the organism, where I said that mutation of duplicated genes did increase the information content.

I amy even have a slight issue with RD where he says mutation actually reduces the information content. This is arguably true, if we are talking about the functional information, in that a mutation, by itself, is an error, and so degrades the functional information content.

We end at he same point, though, in that it is the mutated copies of genes that provide the raw material for the process of selection to work on, in selecting the 'useful' new information from the useless or harmful.

In physics, 'information' has a somewhat more simple usage. This can lead to some confusion.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Ok, it's not

Sapient wrote:

Ok, it's not the easiest thing to look up (although it wasn't hard) so I'll give it to you.  I'm only doing so because google searching it typically yields hundreds of Christian links without the background of what really happened.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/

The technical answer is granted to you on the page in something that would likely amount to a 20 page word document, since you're not likely to read it all, here is the basic gist behind it.

Richard Dawkins wrote:

 

In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists — a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.

My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later 1, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content 2. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.

With hindsight — given that I had been suckered into admitting them into my house in the first place — it might have been wiser simply to answer the question. But I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth — I have a horror of blinding people with science — and this was not a question that could be answered in a soundbite. First you first have to explain the technical meaning of “information”. Then the relevance to evolution, too, is complicated — not really difficult but it takes time. Rather than engage now in further recriminations and disputes about exactly what happened at the time of the interview (for, to be fair, I should say that the Australian producer’s memory of events seems to differ from mine), I shall try to redress the matter now in constructive fashion by answering the original question, the “Information Challenge”, at adequate length — the sort of length you can achieve in a proper article.

 

 

There is no answer in that quote. Dawkins just says that he didn't want to answer that question to creationists. There is no proof that he says the truth. You provide just his complaint. Where are the proofs that there is a process that can add information. In the article you provided, he talks about deletion, duplication, moving around of genes just like I said. But since there is no structure to his article, of course I can't find the answer. I certainly won't go through all Dawkins' complaint and with reason. Usually, in an article, you put the answer in the introduction and then explain it in the body. If it's long to explain the process, then you give a name to that process. It seems like Dawkins didn't learn how to write articles. Why? No. Dawkins know how to write articles, but since he has no clue how information can arise in the genome, of course he can't show an answer summerized in the introduction.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Someone else please calmly

Someone else please calmly explain to hanntonn what's going on.  I'm too disappointed in humanity right now to speak.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:Sapient

hanntonn wrote:

Sapient wrote:

Ok, it's not the easiest thing to look up (although it wasn't hard) so I'll give it to you.  I'm only doing so because google searching it typically yields hundreds of Christian links without the background of what really happened.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/

The technical answer is granted to you on the page in something that would likely amount to a 20 page word document, since you're not likely to read it all, here is the basic gist behind it.

Richard Dawkins wrote:

 

In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists — a thing I normally don’t do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.

My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later 1, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content 2. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.

With hindsight — given that I had been suckered into admitting them into my house in the first place — it might have been wiser simply to answer the question. But I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth — I have a horror of blinding people with science — and this was not a question that could be answered in a soundbite. First you first have to explain the technical meaning of “information”. Then the relevance to evolution, too, is complicated — not really difficult but it takes time. Rather than engage now in further recriminations and disputes about exactly what happened at the time of the interview (for, to be fair, I should say that the Australian producer’s memory of events seems to differ from mine), I shall try to redress the matter now in constructive fashion by answering the original question, the “Information Challenge”, at adequate length — the sort of length you can achieve in a proper article.

 

 

There is no answer in that quote. Dawkins just says that he didn't want to answer that question to creationists. There is no proof that he says the truth. You provide just his complaint. Where are the proofs that there is a process that can add information. In the article you provided, he talks about deletion, duplication, moving around of genes just like I said. But since there is no structure to his article, of course I can't find the answer. I certainly won't go through all Dawkins' complaint and with reason. Usually, in an article, you put the answer in the introduction and then explain it in the body. If it's long to explain the process, then you give a name to that process. It seems like Dawkins didn't learn how to write articles. Why? No. Dawkins know how to write articles, but since he has no clue how information can arise in the genome, of course he can't show an answer summerized in the introduction.

let me see how I can put this nicely...nah.

Dawkins was set up by some creationist asshats whose only goal was an attempt to discredit him. He didn't want to waste time giving an answer that the creationists wouldn't understand only to have it end up on the cutting room floor.

Your turn - why are creationists such deceitful slimefucks?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:After

BobSpence1 wrote:

After reading Dawkin's excellent article that Sapient linked to, I should clarify that in my post I was referring to the 'raw' information content of the genome, not the useful amount of 'real' information in the context of defining the organism, where I said that mutation of duplicated genes did increase the information content.

I amy even have a slight issue with RD where he says mutation actually reduces the information content. This is arguably true, if we are talking about the functional information, in that a mutation, by itself, is an error, and so degrades the functional information content.

We end at he same point, though, in that it is the mutated copies of genes that provide the raw material for the process of selection to work on, in selecting the 'useful' new information from the useless or harmful.

In physics, 'information' has a somewhat more simple usage. This can lead to some confusion.

 

 

What I don't understand in this is how a new functional gene can arise randomly. If most mutations are harmful to the organism, how can new functional gene arise? There is no clue how the other mutations that are not harmful can be coordinated with the rest of the DNA. Logically, 99% of beneficial mutations forming new genes should be non-coding since they won't go along with the other codes in the DNA. This is why I think evolutionists assume that even beneficial mutation support evolution. There is no indication of that in the observation of DNA.

    As we know, duplication do not add new information in the genome, it only copies an existing one. So, the only other possibility that is left to do that job is mutation. But since mutation are random, we stuck on the problem that there should be 99% non-coding DNA.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hanntonn, it is not really

Hanntonn, it is not really complicated.

There is nothing stopping those observed processes of deletion, duplication, mutation, and relocation, from eventually transforming any given DNA sequence into any other, given enough time, by purely random processes. Purely by such mechanisms, repeatedly and randomly applied, there will a finite probability, even if very small, that you can eventually get any other sequence you care to specify.

Do you disagree? If so, why?

Imagine if you have two slightly different DNA sequences, differing in only one base-pair which happens to confer some advantage on the organism. Why could that change not occasionally occur by pure chance mutation? Would you consider that enhancement represented an increase in information? What if it required a duplication event followed by a mutation to an improved form?

What kind of variation do you consider constitutes an 'increase of information'? And why could such variations not occur with at least some low but finite probability?

Natural selection, by favouring the reproduction of positive changes, and weeding out bad ones, 'simply' increases the chances of arriving at favourable versions by ensuring that the versions generated by each copying error that spread thru the population will be dominated by the favourable, and to an extent, neutral ones.

You are close - the human genome contains about 98% non-coding.

It is suspected, and there are indications, that it still  serves some function.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Dawkins was

jcgadfly wrote:

Dawkins was set up by some creationist asshats whose only goal was an attempt to discredit him. He didn't want to waste time giving an answer that the creationists wouldn't understand only to have it end up on the cutting room floor.

Ok, lets say you say the truth. Explain the process by with information is added in the genome. If it is true, it must be comprehensible isn't? If you don't explain it, it's normal that we won't understand.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:jcgadfly

hanntonn wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Dawkins was set up by some creationist asshats whose only goal was an attempt to discredit him. He didn't want to waste time giving an answer that the creationists wouldn't understand only to have it end up on the cutting room floor.

Ok, lets say you say the truth. Explain the process by with information is added in the genome. If it is true, it must be comprehensible isn't? If you don't explain it, it's normal that we won't understand.

It isn't all that difficult to understand how it is possible, in basic terms. Read my previous post.

And I will repeat, the human genome IS 98% non-coding.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Hanntonn,

BobSpence1 wrote:

Hanntonn, it is not really complicated.

There is nothing stopping those observed processes of deletion, duplication, mutation, and relocation, from eventually transforming any given DNA sequence into any other, given enough time, by purely random processes. Purely by such mechanisms, repeatedly and randomly applied, there will a finite probability, even if very small, that you can eventually get any other sequence you care to specify.

If mutations are random and that they happen to be rarely beneficial, most of the time neutral, more often harmful than beneficial, then evolution should show a pattern of non-evolution but with a tendency towards harmfulness. There should be devolution, not evolution. There are no guarantee that a bird with longer wings would survive more than another one with short wings. Everything evolutionists suppose is a whole bunch of assumption. There is no proofs at all. If non-coding DNA shows that it is in fact coding, then evolution is simply false.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Do you disagree? If so, why?

 Imagine if you have two slightly different DNA sequences, differing in only one base-pair which happens to confer some advantage on the organism. Why could that change not occasionally occur by pure chance mutation? Would you consider that enhancement represented an increase in information? What if it required a duplication event followed by a mutation to an improved form?

It's simple. You know that a duplication is very unlikely to happen. From that duplication to be followed by a mutation is most unlikely. But for a mutation to be beneficial is most most unlikely. Since evolution has not been observe, why believe something so unlikely to have happened. I said that 99% of DNA should be non-coding between the rest of the DNA, but if we're talking about the whole DNA, it should be a lot less than that. If coding DNA is found in the Junk DNA, then it is impossible for me that it could happen randomly. So, you must find a process that is not random.

BobSpence1 wrote:
What kind of variation do you consider constitutes an 'increase of information'? And why could such variations not occur with at least some low but finite probability?

An increase in information is for me, an adding of DNA that show pattern in it and that this pattern work with the general pattern of the rest of the DNA. There is not process that can do that.  So, you must assume that it can happen by chance.

BobSpence1 wrote:

You are close - the human genome contains about 98% non-coding.

It is suspected, and there are indications, that it still  serves some function.

In fact, that 98 % non-coding sequences do code for something. The code is just harder to be seen. See for yourself. This is recent discovery. http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm

Anyway, what I meant to say is that if mutations are random, there should be only 1% of DNA that would code with the rest of DNA. Knowing this, there would be no guarantee that there wouldn't be two different codes or even a thousand different languages not even related one to another in the same organism.

Your hypothesis is as hard to accomplish as to form by random mutation a book with sentences followed by other ones with meaning in both and between them. From that to form meaning in paragraph and in chapters, and the whole book. This hypothesis is harder for me to believe than intelligent design. To that, we must add the problem that each mutations would render impossible the organism to mate.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:It isn't

BobSpence1 wrote:

It isn't all that difficult to understand how it is possible, in basic terms. Read my previous post.

And I will repeat, the human genome IS 98% non-coding.

I was writing when you posted.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
If beneficial mutations are

If beneficial mutations are random, the complete symetry that we see in the animal world should not be. symetry is not something that happen by chance an neither by natural selection since total symetry do not confer advantage over a relative symetry of body.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:BobSpence1

hanntonn wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Hanntonn, it is not really complicated.

There is nothing stopping those observed processes of deletion, duplication, mutation, and relocation, from eventually transforming any given DNA sequence into any other, given enough time, by purely random processes. Purely by such mechanisms, repeatedly and randomly applied, there will a finite probability, even if very small, that you can eventually get any other sequence you care to specify.

If mutations are random and that they happen to be rarely beneficial, most of the time neutral, more often harmful than beneficial, then evolution should show a pattern of non-evolution but with a tendency towards harmfulness. There should be devolution, not evolution. There are no guarantee that a bird with longer wings would survive more than another one with short wings. Everything evolutionists suppose is a whole bunch of assumption. There is no proofs at all. If non-coding DNA shows that it is in fact coding, then evolution is simply false.

 

Woah, woah, woah...you might want to think this through.  You've just given the factual details of evolution but you've come to the wrong conclusion.  You are right, the bird with short wings won't work as well, so that mutation would likely die out.  The beneficial mutation would likely be passed down with slightly more regularity than the neutral or harmful one, and so over many many generations that mutation would be bred into the gene pool with more frequency.

 

That is exactly how evolution works.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
No. I really said that there

No. I really said that there is no guarantee that the bird with longer wings will survive more than the one that has short one. if the predator happens to like more those with longer wings, it will even be harmful. So, even beneficial mutations on the DNA level may be harmful in real life. But you might really re-think this through yourself. If mutations are random, why should there be simetry that don't confer advantage to a specie. For example, why shouldn't elephant have a bunch of mouse legs on their back? isn't that a neutral mutation? And you've still not told me how could animals with mutations reproduce with those with no mutations. You'll say that it goes slowly. But in everyday life, we don't see mutations. If a mutated animal could mate with the other one of is specie, there would be no mutations. There would be a remix with the pool of gene and with time the mutation would be erased.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:BobSpence1

hanntonn wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Hanntonn, it is not really complicated.

There is nothing stopping those observed processes of deletion, duplication, mutation, and relocation, from eventually transforming any given DNA sequence into any other, given enough time, by purely random processes. Purely by such mechanisms, repeatedly and randomly applied, there will a finite probability, even if very small, that you can eventually get any other sequence you care to specify.

If mutations are random and that they happen to be rarely beneficial, most of the time neutral, more often harmful than beneficial, then evolution should show a pattern of non-evolution but with a tendency towards harmfulness. There should be devolution, not evolution. There are no guarantee that a bird with longer wings would survive more than another one with short wings. Everything evolutionists suppose is a whole bunch of assumption. There is no proofs at all. If non-coding DNA shows that it is in fact coding, then evolution is simply false.

No.

Only the beneficial or neutral ones will reproduce into future generations, so evolution can only be  in the direction of better adaption to whatever environment the organism finds itself in.

The bad ones don't survive, so die out.

If longer wings help a bird fly better, then any birds who, by random chance have longer wings, will be more successful and will have more offspring than those with shorter wings, so will come to dominate. It really is that simple.

It happens all the time in bacteria - those who happen to develop a mutation which makes them resistant to our antibiotics will come to dominate in the population. We have to keep developing new antibiotics, or combine them in ways that make it harder for the bacteria to evolve immunity. We see it much more readily in bacteria because they can go through many generations in a day. That is evolution happening in front of us. Special experiments have been set up using bacteria to test aspects of evolution.

Non-coding DNA is non-coding, that has been established. There are theories that some of it helps evolution by keeping copies of old genes around that may occasionally mutate into something useful.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Do you disagree? If so, why?

 Imagine if you have two slightly different DNA sequences, differing in only one base-pair which happens to confer some advantage on the organism. Why could that change not occasionally occur by pure chance mutation? Would you consider that enhancement represented an increase in information? What if it required a duplication event followed by a mutation to an improved form?

It's simple. You know that a duplication is very unlikely to happen. From that duplication to be followed by a mutation is most unlikely. But for a mutation to be beneficial is most most unlikely. Since evolution has not been observe, why believe something so unlikely to have happened. I said that 99% of DNA should be non-coding between the rest of the DNA, but if we're talking about the whole DNA, it should be a lot less than that. If coding DNA is found in the Junk DNA, then it is impossible for me that it could happen randomly. So, you must find a process that is not random.

I acknowledged it is unlikely, especially if I am not considering selection effects. For the purposes of my argument there, I simply asked you what counts as 'new information'. If you just mean beneficial, then there is a non-zero chance than new information can indeed emerge purely by random mutation. IOW it is NOT impossible.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
What kind of variation do you consider constitutes an 'increase of information'? And why could such variations not occur with at least some low but finite probability?

An increase in information is for me, an adding of DNA that show pattern in it and that this pattern work with the general pattern of the rest of the DNA. There is not process that can do that.  So, you must assume that it can happen by chance.

Which can definitely happen by chance, at some low but non-zero level. That is all that is required for evolution to be possible.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

You are close - the human genome contains about 98% non-coding.

It is suspected, and there are indications, that it still  serves some function.

In fact, that 98 % non-coding sequences do code for something. The code is just harder to be seen. See for yourself. This is recent discovery. http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm

Anyway, what I meant to say is that if mutations are random, there should be only 1% of DNA that would code with the rest of DNA. Knowing this, there would be no guarantee that there wouldn't be two different codes or even a thousand different languages not even related one to another in the same organism.

Your hypothesis is as hard to accomplish as to form by random mutation a book with sentences followed by other ones with meaning in both and between them. From that to form meaning in paragraph and in chapters, and the whole book. This hypothesis is harder for me to believe than intelligent design. To that, we must add the problem that each mutations would render impossible the organism to mate.

If you actually do the calculations, the crucial difference in evolution is that it proceeds in small steps, with bad mutations being filtered out at each step (each generation). This makes an enormous difference to the probability of evolution to a given total change, compared to the probability of such a change occurring in one step.

It as if you randomly changed a letter at a time, and if it makes more sense than before, you keep that letter and move to the next place, otherwise you try another letter. That way you only have to try 26 letters plus space at each step. If you had to try three letters at a time, you would have to try 19883 possible combinations of letters (27 cubed), and only move forward 3 steps. So the smaller you can make the evolutionary steps, the faster it can go.

I realize that example was a little simplistic to generate actual intelligible sentences, but the principle is valid in showing how step-by-step  random searching-plus-selection is vastly easier to come up with successful results than the idea of a dramatic change in one generation.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:No. I really

hanntonn wrote:

No. I really said that there is no guarantee that the bird with longer wings will survive more than the one that has short one. if the predator happens to like more those with longer wings, it will even be harmful. So, even beneficial mutations on the DNA level may be harmful in real life. But you might really re-think this through yourself. If mutations are random, why should there be simetry that don't confer advantage to a specie. For example, why shouldn't elephant have a bunch of mouse legs on their back? isn't that a neutral mutation? And you've still not told me how could animals with mutations reproduce with those with no mutations. You'll say that it goes slowly. But in everyday life, we don't see mutations. If a mutated animal could mate with the other one of is specie, there would be no mutations. There would be a remix with the pool of gene and with time the mutation would be erased.

If, in the circumstances, longer wings attract predators, then by definition it is not a beneficial mutation, so will not evolve.

Beneficial means allowing the organism to survive and have more descendants in the environment it is in, including any other species it has to contend with.

If animals with mutations could not breed with animals with no mutations, then only identical twins could reproduce, which clearly is not the case.

Mutations which prevent breeding are negative and die out.

Mutations which reduce fertility with those without the mutation, but still allow some interbreeding to allow the mutation to spread through part of the population, are one of the possible causes of speciation, ie  the population will become two species. Speciation has been observed happening in some insect populations.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:No. I really

hanntonn wrote:

No. I really said that there is no guarantee that the bird with longer wings will survive more than the one that has short one. if the predator happens to like more those with longer wings, it will even be harmful. So, even beneficial mutations on the DNA level may be harmful in real life. But you might really re-think this through yourself. If mutations are random, why should there be simetry that don't confer advantage to a specie. For example, why shouldn't elephant have a bunch of mouse legs on their back? isn't that a neutral mutation? And you've still not told me how could animals with mutations reproduce with those with no mutations. You'll say that it goes slowly. But in everyday life, we don't see mutations. If a mutated animal could mate with the other one of is specie, there would be no mutations. There would be a remix with the pool of gene and with time the mutation would be erased.

Of course there is no guarantee, that is one of the reasons evolution takes a very long time.  Many beneficial mutations will not survive, and many negative ones will survive, at least for a while.  But even a tiny percentage change will make a huge difference over millions of years, and evolution happens over those time scales.  The whole point of evolution is that those genetic traits give the proginey a better chance of survival, even if it is a tiny chance.  Over time that makes big changes.

 

Your line about mutations being erased just isn't correct, that isn't how genes work.  Maybe Bob or someone can explain it to you better, or give you technical terminology if that is what you want.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
We do see mutations in

We do see mutations in everyday life, not just in bacteria.

Birth defects in new-born children can be one result.

Some cancers are the result of mutations.

Occasionally someone gets a positive one, which can be lead to an inborn immunity to some serious diseases, such as the medieval Black Death and AIDS.

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf119/sf119p05.htm

That sort of positive mutation are going to be the most likely to be detectable on a timescale short enough for us to study easily, because of the dramatic effect.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote: No. I really

hanntonn wrote:

No. I really said that there is no guarantee that the bird with longer wings will survive more than the one that has short one. if the predator happens to like more those with longer wings, it will even be harmful. So, even beneficial mutations on the DNA level may be harmful in real life. But you might really re-think this through yourself. If mutations are random, why should there be simetry that don't confer advantage to a specie. For example, why shouldn't elephant have a bunch of mouse legs on their back? isn't that a neutral mutation? And you've still not told me how could animals with mutations reproduce with those with no mutations. You'll say that it goes slowly. But in everyday life, we don't see mutations. If a mutated animal could mate with the other one of is specie, there would be no mutations. There would be a remix with the pool of gene and with time the mutation would be erased.

 

You have a number of problems here.

1. A mutation that is neutral now, may be positive later as the environment changes.  And the environment always changes.  It may also have a negative or neutral effect in the changed environment.  There is no way for the mutation or DNA or organism to know in advance what the results will be.  So mutations happen, all the time.  And what happens, happens.

2. Evolution is NOT about survival of an adult.  It is all about the adult having grandchildren.  That is, the adult survives, the children survive and the grandchildren survive.  Evolution is about populations of organisms surviving and reproducing in a particular ecological niche.

3. We do reproduce with organisms that have mutated.  Remember my post earlier?  You and I and every other human on the planet have 150-200 mutations in our cells.  Yet we are able to reproduce way too often - looking at the global population.  It is not an issue because it happens many times every day all over the world.  If it was going to be a problem, we would have noticed by now. 

4. Evolution happens for many reasons.  Our organism moves into an ecological niche that the other organisms in the same population are not exploiting.  And for some mutation, neutral in the old niche, in the new environment, our organism out reproduces all the other dudes from his/her group that try to follow.  So our organism reproduces spectacularly and all the others reproduce as usual.  Guess which genes are passed on? 

Let's use an example - wing length.  The advantage of wing length is flight distance.  You can see this all around - sail planes have very long narrow wings - because they were modeled on the albatross.  A bird that flies enormous distances without landing.  It is all about energy - does the bird have enough stored energy to make a particular flight?  And "enough" includes not only how much energy the bird can store, but also how much they need to move through the air.  Short wings have to flap more and use more energy on long distances.  Long wings they can glide more and so use less energy on long distances.  Note:  short wings - live in bushes or don't fly far.  Long wings - fly far in open country or over oceans.

(It all has to do with something called the "aspect ratio" which is valid for birds and airplanes.  I'm not an expert - but if interested, you could start here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_flight )

So assume you have a population of shore birds.  There is an island offshore with plenty of food and nesting sites.  But almost all of these birds have wings too short to fly out there.  But one bird has wings just a little longer - and so is able to fly out and have all that food and all those nesting places just for themselves.  If male, he is stronger because he has more food, so he fathers more chicks.  If female, more of her chicks survive and she has more eggs.  If the populations become separated enough - there is no magic amount - a new species will begin.  Sure, once the population of longer winged birds is large enough, their evolutionary advantage is no longer true.  We are back to energy constraints - it often requires more energy to change back than to deal with the resource limitations.  And those shore birds that the new species evolved from are still there.  There is no resource advantage to competing with the old species in their own niche.

True, a fair amount of assumptions.  Walk along any long shoreline - Great Lakes, any ocean, Black Sea - and you will see similar environments.  Shore birds - island birds - deep water birds.  Different aspect ratios.  Different environments.  Also, what information gain?  Why does the change need an information gain?  The wing length difference could be less than a centimeter - but if it confers enough of an energy advantage, that is enough to drive evolution.

And species is an arbitrary division thought up by people.  There are no "kinds", there are no firm lines between closely related species.  Ring species are an example.

The classic example of a ring species is the Arctic Tern.  But the domestic dog qualifies as well.  And dogs have lived with humans over 10,000 years.  Take a medium sized wolf, domesticate it, and then breed for particular traits.  Like easy to handle.  Like won't eat the baby.  Like will help herd prey over a cliff.  What we now have are Chihuahuas that can not breed with Great Danes.  A male Great Dane would kill a female Chihuahua, and a male Chihuahua can not tie a female Great Dane.  But Chihuahuas can breed with other small dogs and slightly larger dogs.  And a Great Dane can breed with other large dogs and slightly smaller dogs.  All the way until you get to those medium size dogs in the middle.  A classic ring species.

5.  Let's go back to environmental changes, ecological niches and evolution.  The ecological niche is defined as the place a species likes to hang out.  Some species are really particular about their niche - they are specialists.  An example is the praying mantis in the Amazon jungles that looks like an orchid.  It has a lot of energy invested in it's frills and it has a restricted diet.  Some species are not at all particular about their niche - they are generalists.  They have invested a lot of energy in being able to take advantage of many different resources.  Crows.  Humans.

Environmental changes.  Sure, volcanoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, rivers drying up or overflowing or changing their beds.  But also more subtle - fewer pounds per acre of a particular nut, fruit or flower due to shifts in climate.  A predator moving into or out of their area.  These changes may also produce new species, extinctions or no change at all.  Many factors may influence how a species responds to the change - whether the species we are examining is a generalist, specialist, or depends on another species that goes extinct.  There is no order here, no grand plan. 

When scientists first started really looking at species interaction, they were expecting to see some sort of stately dance.  After all, if god/s/dess is looking over the wilderness, it should be, well, godlike.  Nope.  Not even close.  So far, we have not found ways to predict which species will survive, evolve, or go extinct.  There is no apparent order or reason.  It's all random.

My apologies for the wall of text.  I don't usually bother to write a book on any subject.  I have only hit the highlights of what you need to understand to begin to have a clue as to what evolution really is.  Really, you need to take a few classes or read some scholarly works before you really can begin to understand this really complex subject.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Of course

mellestad wrote:

Of course there is no guarantee, that is one of the reasons evolution takes a very long time. 

There is no guarantee and that is one reason why evolution takes so long and will take so long to be accepted. The problem is that you must assume each steps as facts, which they are clearly not, to be able to see the big picture. For me, even if one step of evolution could be done by chance, there is a big problem in the assertion that every steps could be done like that. You seem to look at natural selection as if it was intelligent. You seem to think that if one mutation doesn't work, it will try something else. But the fact is that it could do the same mutation many times and the good mutation wouldn't even come up. So the probability are so low that for me it is clearly impossible. You'd clearly have to show me life arising by itself to prove to me that it could happen.

Don't you see that even if you would make one sentence by chance with scrabble letters, it doesn't make the possibility of writing of book more possible?


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:We do see

BobSpence1 wrote:

We do see mutations in everyday life, not just in bacteria.

Birth defects in new-born children can be one result.

Some cancers are the result of mutations.

Occasionally someone gets a positive one, which can be lead to an inborn immunity to some serious diseases, such as the medieval Black Death and AIDS.

What we see here is different than anything evolution has to say. If everyone of us has 200 mutations in us, than it seems to me that harmful mutations are more frequent than neutral mutations since we see cancers everywhere on the planet. If harmful mutations are more frequent, it is obvious that evolution doesn't build anything, but destroys everything.

About the immunity, it is obvious that such a mutation is positive. The problem is doesn't confer any new ability. I've read something not a long time ago that the non-coding DNA was in fact responsible for some of the organism's problems and that it could mutate the DNA in order to preserve the organism. So, you really don't know if these positive mutations are in fact no mutation at all, but clearly an adaptation of the system that is already coded to do this. Why not everyone survived to the black death then? maybe the DNA didn't have much time to mutate and only the strongest people survived.

About the new abilities that evolution propose arised by chance, if new abilities are no more detectable than this, then organisms with these mutations won't be preserved more than the ones without. It would be the same with harmful mutations. If harmful mutations are not detectable on global scale if they don't change a lot of stuff, then they will preserved as much as the organisms without that harmful mutation. On a long time scale, every organism should have a lot of harmful mutations. Since no one will  have an advantage over others, they will keep having harmful mutations until every organisms becomes bunch of crap.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:3. We do reproduce

cj wrote:

3. We do reproduce with organisms that have mutated.  Remember my post earlier?  You and I and every other human on the planet have 150-200 mutations in our cells.  Yet we are able to reproduce way too often - looking at the global population.  It is not an issue because it happens many times every day all over the world.  If it was going to be a problem, we would have noticed by now.

That's another problem I pointed out. Since mutations can be preserved without us noticing it, then maybe harmful mutations are in fact preserved globally on a long time scale except the very harmful ones. Since harmful mutations occur more often than beneficial ones, organisms should tend toward disorder, exactly the same way it would happen if everyone was changing letters a book they would have and preserving those that were similar to the previous one. On a long time scale, every book would become unreadable.

cj wrote:
Evolution happens for many reasons.  Our organism moves into an ecological niche that the other organisms in the same population are not exploiting.  And for some mutation, neutral in the old niche, in the new environment, our organism out reproduces all the other dudes from his/her group that try to follow.  So our organism reproduces spectacularly and all the others reproduce as usual.  Guess which genes are passed on?

You don't know these positive mutations aren't commanded by the DNA. This is called microevolution. And if it's true that positive genes make us reproduce more, then the theological gene must be superior since religious people reproduce more then non-religious people. There are no indication in nature anyway that superior animals survive more than inferior ones. You assume this, but the only thing that is seen is that the strongest ones survive and the weakest dies. If the weakest animal happen to have a new positive gene, he will die like everyone else. So natural selection is not there to push evolution up, it is only there to keep the species strong.

cj wrote:
Let's use an example - wing length.  The advantage of wing length is flight distance.  You can see this all around - sail planes have very long narrow wings - because they were modeled on the albatross.  A bird that flies enormous distances without landing.  It is all about energy - does the bird have enough stored energy to make a particular flight?  And "enough" includes not only how much energy the bird can store, but also how much they need to move through the air.  Short wings have to flap more and use more energy on long distances.  Long wings they can glide more and so use less energy on long distances.  Note:  short wings - live in bushes or don't fly far.  Long wings - fly far in open country or over oceans.

Again, you have no proofs that the bird with longer wings will survive more than the one will shorter ones. If that bird happen to not have stronger muscles at the same time, it will be harmful for him because it will be harder to fly away from a predator. He might make longer distances, but if he isn't able to start flying, there is no point there. If he happen to have stronger muscles without the longer wings, that will also be harmful because it will be harder to start to fly. So, natural selection is in fact going against evolution.

cj wrote:
True, a fair amount of assumptions.  Walk along any long shoreline - Great Lakes, any ocean, Black Sea - and you will see similar environments.  Shore birds - island birds - deep water birds.  Different aspect ratios.  Different environments.  Also, what information gain?  Why does the change need an information gain?  The wing length difference could be less than a centimeter - but if it confers enough of an energy advantage, that is enough to drive evolution.

Assumptions that harmful mutations will not go along with good ones, these assumptions, assumptions that beneficial mutations aren't only caused by the DNA itself, assumptions that mutations will make the species progress toward new kinds of ability (not only longer wings, but also a new leg for example. A short leg not being an advantage, why should it be preserved). Also, we must assume that all this happened when there are no transitional fossils to show it. This is way to many assumptions for a theist to take. If you were a theist yourself, you wouldn't risk yourself on a so unsecure path. All these assumptions prove that evolution is unfounded and that it should not be taught in school like if it was science. No, truly it is a fairy tale.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
There are millions of

There are millions of christians that find these assumptions too unfounded to believe the theory and you can't see that there is a weakness in evolution? Why blame others that they do not understand something when we must believe it on faith? After that, we are called naive Yes, truly funny. The faithful ones that call us naive. I'm still waiting to see an elephant with mouse legs on it back.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:There are

hanntonn wrote:

There are millions of christians that find these assumptions too unfounded to believe the theory and you can't see that there is a weakness in evolution? Why blame others that they do not understand something when we must believe it on faith? After that, we are called naive Yes, truly funny. The faithful ones that call us naive. I'm still waiting to see an elephant with mouse legs on it back.

The elephant with mouse legs on it's back is exactly the type of thing YOU should be looking for. Such a chimera would disprove evolution.

The fact that we don't see such things strengthens the theory. But, hey, thanks for playing.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:The elephant

jcgadfly wrote:

The elephant with mouse legs on it's back is exactly the type of thing YOU should be looking for. Such a chimera would disprove evolution.

The fact that we don't see such things strengthens the theory. But, hey, thanks for playing.

Isn't a mouse leg on an elephant's back a neutral mutation? Yes, since it doesn't matter for the elephant if he has that on it back. On elephant with mouse legs on it back won't survive less than one without. So, indeed there should be plenty of what we call useless organs if evolution was true. This is why evolution is a fairy tale. There has never been found one useless organs. Isn't it obvious that evolution is false?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:jcgadfly

hanntonn wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

The elephant with mouse legs on it's back is exactly the type of thing YOU should be looking for. Such a chimera would disprove evolution.

The fact that we don't see such things strengthens the theory. But, hey, thanks for playing.

Isn't a mouse leg on an elephant's back a neutral mutation? Yes, since it doesn't matter for the elephant if he has that on it back. On elephant with mouse legs on it back won't survive less than one without. So, indeed there should be plenty of what we call useless organs if evolution was true. This is why evolution is a fairy tale. There has never been found one useless organs. Isn't it obvious that evolution is false?

It's also clade jumping (crossing between two branches of the evolutionary tree) Elephants and mice aren't the same species (I hope you knew that beforehand).

The fact that there are no clade jumping chimeras supports the theory of evolution. You would probably understand that if you had the rocks to do the research that Sapient suggested.

I see. You think that "vestigial organ" means "useless organ" when it actually means that said organ no longer has it's original function. Feel free to tell me what current function your appendix serves - not what researches think it may do because you don't take science seriously. What function does your appendix currently perform?

Incidentally, if they do discover the appendix has a new function, it will have evolved to perform it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:BobSpence1

hanntonn wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

We do see mutations in everyday life, not just in bacteria.

Birth defects in new-born children can be one result.

Some cancers are the result of mutations.

Occasionally someone gets a positive one, which can be lead to an inborn immunity to some serious diseases, such as the medieval Black Death and AIDS.

What we see here is different than anything evolution has to say. If everyone of us has 200 mutations in us, than it seems to me that harmful mutations are more frequent than neutral mutations since we see cancers everywhere on the planet. If harmful mutations are more frequent, it is obvious that evolution doesn't build anything, but destroys everything.

About the immunity, it is obvious that such a mutation is positive. The problem is doesn't confer any new ability. I've read something not a long time ago that the non-coding DNA was in fact responsible for some of the organism's problems and that it could mutate the DNA in order to preserve the organism. So, you really don't know if these positive mutations are in fact no mutation at all, but clearly an adaptation of the system that is already coded to do this. Why not everyone survived to the black death then? maybe the DNA didn't have much time to mutate and only the strongest people survived.

About the new abilities that evolution propose arised by chance, if new abilities are no more detectable than this, then organisms with these mutations won't be preserved more than the ones without. It would be the same with harmful mutations. If harmful mutations are not detectable on global scale if they don't change a lot of stuff, then they will preserved as much as the organisms without that harmful mutation. On a long time scale, every organism should have a lot of harmful mutations. Since no one will  have an advantage over others, they will keep having harmful mutations until every organisms becomes bunch of crap.

It is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts.

Harmful mutations are an inevitable product of the random nature of mutation.

Your mistake is to assume that the effects of harmful mutations will always completely cancel the effects of any beneficial ones.

The random nature of mutation means that not everyone will get enough really bad mutations to kill them, but they will reduce their chances of having descendants, so those particular mutations will not become part of the species genetic heritage.

It is a balance. There will be an optimum level of mutation for a given species in a particular environment.

Too many, and like you say, the harmful effects will seriously affect the survival of the species.

Too few, and it will not generate enough potentially beneficial changes to allow a species to change and adapt to its environment better.

NOTE: I use the word 'species' in the basic sense of a group of inter-breeding creatures.

The rate of mutation itself evolves, so that species that have found a very stable environment tend to have a lower rate of mutation, which requires more accurate DNA copying mechanisms and better mechanisms to detect and repair errors.

Sharks seem to be an example of this. The ocean areas they inhabit are relatively stable, the main variations are due to temperature changes, and they are capable of swimming long distances to find areas in the sea which are comfortable to them. Fossil records show they have changed relatively little for millions of years.

The immune response requires the immune cells to develop the ability to recognize the 'chemical signature' of invading cells they have never encountered before, which requires genetic changes, and then to generate new kinds of antibodies to attack the new 'invaders'.

There is a balance, a trade-off, between a good immune system and susceptibility to cancer. An inherently low mutation rate minimizes the risk of cancerous cells forming, but reduces the ability of the immune system to respond to new pathogens.

This is similar to the broader trade-off, the balance, between the benefits of low mutation rates in reducing the chances of dying (or really, of not having offspring) due to bad mutations, and the benefits of high mutation rates in allowing a species to evolve to better adapt to its environment, especially if that environment is changing.

The random nature of mutations also helps the whole system to work, by ensuring that each individual will have a slightly different set of genes and other non-coding DNA, so if conditions change, or some new disease appears, not everyone will die.

This 'genetic diversity' is very important, but so is the need to get new beneficial changes spread through the species, which will reduce diversity. Another balancing act.

The benefits of spreading good genes through a species means that all species, from bacteria up, do things to mix up the genes in the group. In single cell organisms this is done by explicit swapping of nuclear material between individuals, and other mechanisms of 'horizontal gene transfer', see  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_conjugation.

In multi-cell organisms, like ourselves, sexual reproduction has this effect, probably why it evolved. Some animals still have sex as an option, ie, they also can reproduce asexually. This allows them to adjust the rate at which mutations are distributed around the group, so if there is some advantage in being able to spred genes around, like to fight new diseases or changes in the environment, there will be more sexual reproduction, but if things are very stable, there will be less, so reducing the chances of a bad mutation being spread around to everyone and then having them all die off.

So, hanntonn, you have identified some of the of problems of mutation, but you haven't thought it through.

Like so much in any complex system, such as Life, there are balances and trade-offs.

Of course, if there had been a benevolent conscious designer in control, none of these mechanisms would be necessary. He could just 'design' each species to be able to live quite happily in the places he set them down in, and not throw in all these disease organisms to mess things up.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:hanntonn

jcgadfly wrote:

hanntonn wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

The elephant with mouse legs on it's back is exactly the type of thing YOU should be looking for. Such a chimera would disprove evolution.

The fact that we don't see such things strengthens the theory. But, hey, thanks for playing.

Isn't a mouse leg on an elephant's back a neutral mutation? Yes, since it doesn't matter for the elephant if he has that on it back. On elephant with mouse legs on it back won't survive less than one without. So, indeed there should be plenty of what we call useless organs if evolution was true. This is why evolution is a fairy tale. There has never been found one useless organs. Isn't it obvious that evolution is false?

It's also clade jumping (crossing between two branches of the evolutionary tree) Elephants and mice aren't the same species (I hope you knew that beforehand).

The fact that there are no clade jumping chimeras supports the theory of evolution. You would probably understand that if you had the rocks to do the research that Sapient suggested.

I see. You think that "vestigial organ" means "useless organ" when it actually means that said organ no longer has it's original function. Feel free to tell me what current function your appendix serves - not what researches think it may do because you don't take science seriously. What function does your appendix currently perform?

Incidentally, if they do discover the appendix has a new function, it will have evolved to perform it.

How about our own tail-bone? Or the bones in the skeletons of whales which correspond to the rear legs?

Or the little flaps of skin in some snakes and legless-lizards where the rear legs used to be?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:jcgadfly

BobSpence1 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

hanntonn wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

The elephant with mouse legs on it's back is exactly the type of thing YOU should be looking for. Such a chimera would disprove evolution.

The fact that we don't see such things strengthens the theory. But, hey, thanks for playing.

Isn't a mouse leg on an elephant's back a neutral mutation? Yes, since it doesn't matter for the elephant if he has that on it back. On elephant with mouse legs on it back won't survive less than one without. So, indeed there should be plenty of what we call useless organs if evolution was true. This is why evolution is a fairy tale. There has never been found one useless organs. Isn't it obvious that evolution is false?

It's also clade jumping (crossing between two branches of the evolutionary tree) Elephants and mice aren't the same species (I hope you knew that beforehand).

The fact that there are no clade jumping chimeras supports the theory of evolution. You would probably understand that if you had the rocks to do the research that Sapient suggested.

I see. You think that "vestigial organ" means "useless organ" when it actually means that said organ no longer has it's original function. Feel free to tell me what current function your appendix serves - not what researches think it may do because you don't take science seriously. What function does your appendix currently perform?

Incidentally, if they do discover the appendix has a new function, it will have evolved to perform it.

How about our own tail-bone? Or the bones in the skeletons of whales which correspond to the rear legs?

Or the little flaps of skin in some snakes and legless-lizards where the rear legs used to be?

Was this for me or for the guy who wants to see mouse legs on the backs of elephants?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ah, sorry, jc, I should have

Ah, sorry, jc, I should have made it clearer I was supporting your point with more examples.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Ah, sorry,

BobSpence1 wrote:

Ah, sorry, jc, I should have made it clearer I was supporting your point with more examples.

 

I had a feeling but I'm little more than a hobbyist in the sciences and I thought I had screwed something up.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
Supposedly vestigial

Supposedly vestigial organs.

You guys are right in arguing for vestigial organs, since evolution couldn't be true without it. But the problem is that vestigial organs are only a deletion of some complexity. So, even if it's true that evolution wouldn't be true without vestigial organs, you also need to have the existence of the contrary of vestigial organs in order that evolution be true. I would call these "useless organs". Also, there should be plenty of these things if it's really random. But we don't see useless organs, only supposedly vestigial ones. So, lets examine your examples of vestigial organs.

1. Appendix:

You said: Incidentally, if they do discover the appendix has a new function, it will have evolved to perform it.

I just can't believe this has been written. If all organs happen to be found to have a function, you would still assume that it had none in the past? Ironically, your signature just under this is "Men become civilized in proportion to their readiness to doubt". It doesn't seems to me that you are ready to doubt what you've said about the Appendix. So, what function does the appendix have?

Researchers say the appendix serves the purpose of keeping good bacterias alive when someone gets a disease. The appendix keeps bacterias in a secure place in order to replenish bacterias in the intestine. The appendix is important for the immune system. See for yourself. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/10/08/30907.aspx
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21153898/
Really, how scientific do you think your hypothesis is that the appendix served no purpose in the past?

2. The tail bone.

The tail bone is an attachement for multiple muscles. Again, see for yourself. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/309486-overview

Was I really called ignorant before?

3. the pelvis bone of whales.

These bones are needed for reproduction. whale's reproductive organs are attached to it.

4. legless lizards

Wait a minute, legless lizards do not have any vestigial legs to show that they ever had legs. Where are the transitional fossils? This can be easily rejected by showing that dolphins have limbs, yet they do not show any signs that they ever were on firm ground. And if you think they did, well where are the transitional fossils? There should be some at least since these legs can't have disappeared in a few years.

If you guys were really evolutionists, you'd propose that legless lizards never had legs, but they are indeed working on it to get these legs.
 

mouse legs on the back of an elephant.


Coming back on the idea of useless organs, I said that if evolution is true, there must be plenty of useless organs since complex system cannot be formed by chance all at once. If one complex system in an organism can arise by chance and be kept by evolution, then you must have plenty of other systems that won't be too harmful to the organism that will evolute at the same time. If not, then you can't get a functioning complex system to work at all since before it complete formation, that complex system would have to be unfunctioning. If evolution would erase that incomplete system, then you wouldn't be able to get even one functioning new system. This is why we, creationists are looking for transitional fossils and there are none. Every animal found in fossils have complete organs with no signs of evolution.

This is also why I said there could be mouse like legs (not real mouse legs, so it's not a crossing between two branches) on the back of elephants, or any other illogical systems. Chimeras would be possible with evolution because random mutations cannot decide what is logical and what is not. This is also why I said that complete symetry in nature should not exist. Only relative symetry could exist since natural selection do not decide what can happen on the DNA level.

If natural selection would eliminate useless organs, then there couldn't be any new organs since new organs must start by being useless before being formed. I say there should be at least 10% of organs that should be useless in order to permit evolution (yes, it is subjective that percentage). Well gess what, there are none.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Was this for

jcgadfly wrote:

Was this for me or for the guy who wants to see mouse legs on the backs of elephants?

This is so laughable in fact. I've never seen any evolutionists argue against themselves. You were arguing that evolution predict no useless organs. Well, if it's the case, how do you get irreducibly complex system in place. If anything useless is eliminated, then irreducibly complex system cannot form. Well, evolutionists argue for a step-by-step evolution of irreducibly complex system. And now you're arguing against that. I simply cannot understand your so confusing position. I reassert it, how do you get new complex system without going through a transitional form all by a step-by-step process? a transitional form would require a useless system. I'm not asking for one example that could be explaining by a bad comprehension of the functioning of the organ. There should be plenty, guys.

So, in fact, you guys are arguing for a non-evolution hypothesis. This is unbelievable.

What is confusing is when evolutionists argue for random mutations when it comes to DNA talk, but they argue against randomness when it comes to biological appearances of organisms. This is really confusing.