“No new information”? So all the gene variations to make all the types of dogs that exist all existed in the wolf? No, different variations arose within dog/wolf populations that were selected for or against - traits like short hair vs long hair, long limbs vs short limbs, long muzzle vs short muzzle, etc, etc.
How are you going to stop this variation from arising in a population, considering that DNA cannot be replicated with 100% accuracy? Once this variation exists, how is it not going to be subject to natural selection?
Change in the DNA of a population is evolution by definition. This is not a matter of transcription control (for those of you in Rio Linda, that would be the turning on and off of genes in response to environment - you drink milk, you turn on the lactase gene that makes the lactase enzyme that metabolizes lactose).
The difference between a Methocillin resistant bacteria and a non resistant one is not that the non resistant one didn't turn on its Methocillinase gene - it is that it doesn't HAVE a mutated enzyme capable of metabolizing Methocillin - it doesn't HAVE a Methocillinase gene.
Before Methocillin was invented as an antibiotic that couldn't be metabolized by Penicilinase - there WAS no gene that could metabolize Methocillin, and if that variation arose, it would have been eliminated from the population because it would be genetic dead weight.
If by “evolution” you mean “the common descent of all species” say so, as they are not the same thing.
This is like someone saying ‘erosion is not observable’ and when I point out that it is, they point out that by ‘erosion’ they mean ‘the formation of the Grand Canyon’ - which they insist was not created by erosion over millions of years, but by the release of water from ‘the foundations of the deep’ within a few thousand years.
Can you tell me with a straight face that the bacteria that digest nylon, a substance that didn't exist until mankind invented it, LOST information?
We domesticated a wolf, and through LOSS of information, we derived the beagle, the greyhound, the wolfhound, the pitbull, the yorkie, and the bloodhound?
This so called “loss of information” seems to be able to derive a HOST of useful and beneficial traits that increase survivability in populations.
Your understanding of antibiotic resistance is negligible, and your friend is either a lousy teacher or doesn't have an inkling of what he is talking about.
And you end as you started, with your futile strawman of Athiest/Evolutionist.
Is the Pope an “Atheist/Evolutionist” for saying “there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”?
“By “evolutionist” you mean scientist?”
No, I mean evolutionist. There are many PhD level scientists who do not believe the theory of evolution.
You can find a list of aome of them here:
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
““No new information”? So all the gene variations to make all the types of dogs that exist all existed in the wolf?”
That’s correct. God built variation into his creation. I’ll repeat what I said before..... mutations do not add information and this is not even arguable. It is observable science. Natural selection adds no information either... it only selects from available traits.
My question is very simple... you claim that information is added. From where? One of the laws of Information Science is that information always (law...never observed otherwise) comes from an intelligent source...it has never been observed to originate by itself in matter. That being the case, you have to show me the intelligent source.
I’m saying that God created with variability built in and that He is the intelligent source.
“How are you going to stop this variation from arising in a population,”
I’m not....
“Once this variation exists, how is it not going to be subject to natural selection?”
I really don’t understand this argument..... if there was variability in the creation, of course that variability would be subject to natural selection.
“Change in the DNA of a population is evolution by definition.”
If that’s the definition, we have no argument. Unfortunately that may be your definition of evolution but evolution that is taught in our schools is this:
everything came from nothing
life came from non-life
we all have that common ancestor
Somehow, somewhere along the way, asexual reproduction gave way to sexual reproduction. There just happened to be two creatures with two different sets of plumbing but the exact right DNA that evolved at the same time in the same place and their plumbing turned out to be just right, one had sperm and the mechanism to inject it into the the other and it just happened to fertilize the eggs had by the other who also had that whole reproductive system that went along with it.
Observed? no. Testable? No. Repeatable? No. Falsifiable? No.... but it had to happen that way, otherwise we’d have to bow to the authority of a creator.
“The difference between a Methocillin resistant bacteria and a non resistant one is not that the non resistant one didn’t turn on its Methocillinase gene - it is that it doesn’t HAVE a mutated enzyme capable of metabolizing Methocillin - it doesn’t HAVE a Methocillinase gene.
Before Methocillin was invented as an antibiotic that couldn’t be metabolized by Penicilinase - there WAS no gene that could metabolize Methocillin, and if that variation arose, it would have been eliminated from the population because it would be genetic dead weight.”
I will have to research this and get back to you. While I’m doing that, I encourage you to look into whether mutations add information to the genome.
“If by “evolution” you mean “the common descent of all species” say so, as they are not the same thing.”
Allmendream, I’m sorry... but that is what is being taught in classrooms all over America..
“Can you tell me with a straight face that the bacteria that digest nylon, a substance that didn’t exist until mankind invented it, LOST information?”
Yes. I can also tell you that bacteria that was revived from the mid 1800s were resistant to the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin neither of which had been developed until the mid 1900s. Either they saw it coming or they already had the mutation.
“This so called “loss of information” seems to be able to derive a HOST of useful and beneficial traits that increase survivability in populations.”
Loss of information doesn’t necessarily have to be deletarious. A beetle on a windy island can lose the information for wings. He would then not be blown out to sea.
The hemoglobin mutation associated with sickle cell anemia also makes you resistant to malaria... that could be considered a mutant benefit.
“Your understanding of antibiotic resistance is negligible, and your friend is either a lousy teacher or doesn’t have an inkling of what he is talking about.”
My friend’s pedigree is this:
PhD in Microbiology
Postdoctoral Fellow
College professor teaching molecular genetics at the graduate level.
Currently a research microbiologist doing molecular analysis of bacterial interactions and molecular genetics.
Has had more than 20 papers published in scientific journals on the subject of microbiology.
I believe that speaks for itself.
“Is the Pope an “Atheist/Evolutionist” for saying “there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”?”
What the Pope does or doesn’t think or say is of no consequence to me and has no bearing on what is truth.
I have answered you respectfully and with out rancor. I’d appreciate it if you would do the same.