“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.
No, that is not correct. Short muzzles do not exist in the wolf, but they do exist in the bull mastiff.
Mutations CHANGE the “information” in the genome. Research all you want to. It was a mutation in the genes that control the shape of the muzzle that caused a short muzzled dog - that variation does not exist in the wolf population - it arose as a variation among dogs through mutation and was selected for in some breeds.
There is far more genetic variation among all different breeds of dogs than exists in the wild wolf populations. This variation arose through mutation. There are no wire coated short legged floppy eared wolves.
A pedigree? Is he a dog?
What the Pope said has bearing on your ridiculous strawman that to accept Evolution is to be an atheist.
Can you make a reasoned argument against a scientific theory without arguing against atheism?
Apparently not.
GGG is this you again? I seem to remember a “friend” with a “pedigree”.
Interesting that he should use the example of breeds of dog to demonstrate evolution. All breeds of dog are of the Genus Canis, and the Specie C. lupus, and are IN FACT, ALL THE SAME SPECIES. Thus, his own argument that we can see evolution in action is laughable. Dogs (OF ALL BREEDS), and wolves will interbreed and product fertile offspring, the classical definition of species. And “scientifically,” no matter how you slice it, they’re the SAME species. (Let alone that science determines what species are closely related by the classification of the time, like the hyrax being closely related to the pachyderms, but that was recently decided, I mean “discovered.”)
A wolf didn’t transform into a dog. According to the same science (classification if you will), that “allmendream” uses to make his dog wolf allegory, a dog is a in fact wolf, with traits selected by breed. We just named it “dog” in english but scientifically, it’s Canis C. lupus, same name, same species. I absolutely love the unfamiliarity with science that’s always on display by people who attempt to flout science as their trump card in an argument, ie. the idea of evolution from nothing (as you’ve explained), cannot ever be part of science, so this poster backs it up with more false claims of “We changed a wolf into a dog” ranting. Now, I’ll finish reading the posts.