carnivore due to mutation loss?

Think about Adam and Eve. They could have had at most 4 alleles for any given gene. Yet most genes in humans have many useful alleles. From where do you think all that information came?

As you see, a huge amount of information evolved just from Adam's time.

There are many favorable mutations known. The vast majority of them we never see, but now and then we happen to be able to document one and how it happened.

Would you like to see some examples?

Are you sure? Bacteria can theoretically live forever. They never wear out or age. How does that stop new information from appearing? After all, we can directly observe it. Shouldn't laws of nature conform to reality?

Boltzmann, who was the man who put thermodynamics on a mathematical bases, was an enthusiastic Darwinian. Do you think it's possible that he knew something about the 2nd Law that you don't?

So do newborn infants. A lot of things run against wearing out and death.

If you'de like we can examine your claims a little more rigorously. What processes, required for evolution, are prohibited by the 2nd Law?

 

It came from God on Day 6 of creation.

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

Indeed. A loss of information can be a favorable change - such as winged beetles on an island loosing their wings and increasing their survival rate (because they are not blown out to sea). Even so, it is a loss of information. This downhill change is the opposite of what is required for molecules to man evolution.

AiG makes a good analogy - it's like a business man claiming that many small losses will eventually add up at the end of the year to show a profit.

God created thermodynamics and He tells us that all life on earth was created in six solar days - ruling out the possibility of evolution. In this case, my "source" is superior to yours in both credibility and knowledge of the subject matter.

Newborn infants follow the genetic instructions they are given. If they don't eat, they die. If they don't breath, they die. It seems to me infants follow the laws of thermodynamics the same as everything else.

For starters, information must spontaneously arise in matter. This is an impossibility. It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials... they do not ultimately become more complex. Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and ordered arrangements. Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.

However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe.

In order to buck this trend, an outside force or influence must be exerted. We call this life. Lets face it... if our chemicals and molecules did what would come naturally to them, they would all break down and decay (such as what happens in death - when life is no longer exerting that outside force or influence).

One thing we know from science is that life only comes from life - it does not, and cannot spontaneously appear - just as information does not spontaneously appear. Just as information must come from information, life must come from life. Insomuch, the two are the same in that they are neither matter nor energy.

How does all of this relate to chemical evolution? Since the important molecules of living systems (DNA, protein, etc.) are more energy rich than their precursors (amino acids, heterocyclic bases, phosphates, and sugars), classical thermodynamics would predict that such macromolecules will not spontaneously form. To do so requires and outside intelligent influence.

 

Barbarian observes:
Think about Adam and Eve. They could have had at most 4 alleles for any given gene. Yet most genes in humans have many useful alleles. From where do you think all that information came?

Not possible. Two people can only have four alleles of any gene at most. Try again.

Says nothing about information or genes. Try again.

Barbarian observes:
There are many favorable mutations known.

You've been misinformed, Gup. Those beetles still have their wings, complete with all features, but they have one additional thing: the elytra (wing covers) are fused, preventing them from using the wings. Darwin mentioned that one.

Here's a nice paper, showing several directly observed mutations adding information.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931.pdf

There are a lot of other examples. Would you like more?

Another example is loss of teeth in birds. They still have the genes for teeth, and you can even induce teeth to grow in fetal birds. What happened is a new gene that repressed teeth evolved. This new information prevents teeth.
Would you like to learn about that?

Since I found AIG altering the statements of scientists to make it appear they believe what they don't, I don't pay much attention to what they say.

Barbarian observes:
Boltzmann, who was the man who put thermodynamics on a mathematical bases, was an enthusiastic Darwinian. Do you think it's possible that he knew something about the 2nd Law that you don't?

Nope. "Solar" is your addition to scripture to make it more acceptable to you. At any rate, Boltzmann certainly would know more than you do about the second law.

Barbarian on things violating disorder:
So do newborn infants. A lot of things run against wearing out and death.

So do other organisms. But they still violate your version of the second law.

So does evolution. You just don't want to admit it.

Barbarian asks:
What processes, required for evolution, are prohibited by the 2nd Law?

Sorry. Not required for evolution. Only mutation and natural selection.

You've just declared that hurricanes are impossible.

Not in living things. They grow and elaborate. Since you can't identify any process required for evolution that violates the second law, we will have to conclude that it does not prohibit evolution.

Evolution doesn't require that. It only requires a change in allele frequency in populations. Directly change only requires mutation and natuaral selection.

Evolution is not about the origin of life. Try again.

Still can't think of anything?

 

"How about the fact that in order for evolution to have happened, there must have been tremendous advances - gains - in genetic information. "

Yes, and how many times have you been pointed to some of the mechanisms by which this "information" (still waiting for a definition of this from you that can be used to quantify the "information" in a given sequence to let us know for sure if your assertions are correct) arises? Duplication and subsequent mutation is my favorite because it is so easy to see and so hard to dismiss. Mutation of a duplicate of a gene does not fit into your assertion the all mutations are harmful because the original gene remains to perform the original function while the duplicate is free to mutate until it performs a new function. YOu have been given examples of these before and have had to handwave the examples away. You can find no actual fault with the proposal.

There are other ways, too. There are all sorts of variations in the types of mutations that can take place and the effects of these mutations. For instance it was pointed out in this post http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/94.html#000005 how the evolution of one of the genes involved in vancomycin resistance came about through an insertion, a deletion and a point mutation.

An even more powerful method is to add something called alternative sliping to the mix. Basically what this means is the when the introns are removed and the exons spliced together to make genes, that this can happen in multiple ways allowing one gene to make multiple and different proteins. When you add the other mechanisms in with this, is sudddenly becomes a powerful source of novelty. For example, it is thought that human evolution has been drive nin part by Alu elements that have been widely transposed through the human genome. I have read that it is a fairly simple mutation to change these sequences such that they have a codon that makes them reconizable as an exon waiting to be spliced in. In this manner, the existing exons can remain unchanged making their same old proteins while new exons become available to be spliced in to make new and different proteins.

These type of processes firmly refute your assertions that there is no way for this to happen.

"Yet the entire theory of evolution is predicated on this happening billions and billions of times."

Since you are unaware of the above, perhaps you are unaware of the following.

Did you know that there is good evidnece that the whole genome was duplicated at once in the vertebrate lineage at least once, perhaps more? This gives a huge number of genes at one time that are free to begin mutating into other useful genes. But is there evidence that this actuall happened?

Alan Christoffels, Esther G. L. Koh, Jer-ming Chia, Sydney Brenner, Samuel Aparicio, Byrappa Venkatesh, Fugu Genome Analysis Provides Evidence for a Whole-Genome Duplication Early During the Evolution of Ray-Finned Fishes, Mol. Biol. Evol. 21(6):1146-1151. 2004.

Comparison of the genomes have shown that humans have many specific, single copy genes that are derived from genes with multiple copies in the fish. So it does seem that the copies can diverge into useful and different genes.

Another bit of evidence that is consistent with the idea that duplication and mutation is an important mechanism for generating novel genes is the fact that so many genes can be grouped into families that share very similar genetic sequences even though the functions can often be quite different.

"Moreover, this has to happen rapidly - the changes must occur all at once or the mutations will be quickly selected out as useless structures."

So, tell us what would happen if we had a gene and we dupplicated it. One copy continued to perform the old function while the other copy mutated. Why would this be selected against?

"This means we should be able to observe clear, irrefutable examples. But we do not."

You have been given clear examples which you are only able to deny but not to refute.

But there is another aspect. Most single mutations are not great leaps forward. Some are great leaps backward and get selected against. Just how do you expect to find and isolate a mutation that allows for, say, a 1% increase in the effectiveness of some ability? Would that not most likely be lost in the noise?

We have been over this before. The three positions in each codon are not equivilent. Changes to the first position will make a major change to the amino acid called for and will drastically change the protein. If it is a useful protein, this will most likely destroy the use and be selected against. Although if it was a copy, this could lead to a whole direction in function. Changes to the second position will still generally replace the amino acid with one of different properties but not nearly so different as changes to the first position. Changes to the third position will generally either still call for that same amino acid or for one with very similar properties. In this manner, small changes can be made to the sequence. They are not so drastic as to cause a loss of function. But they may make the protein a little more effective or a little less effective and allow natural selection to act.

But these are not the drastic changes that are going to stand out in order to give you examples. But I am willing to predict that as we begin to sequence genes from more and more humans that these varieties in alleles will begin to be shown to have small but recognizable effects.

But you have also been shown examples of such improvements. The family in Italy, I think, that has a gene variant that allows them to be less susceptible to heart problems. Another is the group of people with a 10% higher genetic ability to carry oxygen in the blood.

"The 2nd law of thermodynamics deals with that issue."

The secod law only says that the amount of useful energy available to do work is constanly decreasing for the universe as a whole. It has nothing that ays evolution is not possible because of it. You have been shown all this countless time before. If you wish to insist, then I must ask you to tell us in very specific terms just what it is that entropy prevents and for you to show your math.

"Check out this actual scientific debate."

That is not an actual scientific debate. Those happen in peer reviewed journals. Let us know when some of those assertions made by AIG, which have been widely refuted in convincing terms, can be found in any of the major science journals.

 

I freely admit that I am no expert and am not qualified to defend the science from the technical evidence.

However I am a voracious reader of these kinds of debates from all over the web and there is one constant which runs through all of it. Yec's are always silenced when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of the debate. ALWAYS. Without exception. Just look at this forum, how many times has UTE dragged up old threads in an attempt to get the debate moving forward? The answer is countless. You guys never see these debates through. Care to tell me why that is, or would you rather just tell me that I don't believe Genesis and that I call God a liar and start threads about a couple hundred scientists signing some petition?

 

Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

One can only spend so much time here debating. We give them good arguments, but they are as the rich man's kin in Luke 16:

Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Moses and the prophets were the bearers of the Word of God. Abraham said that they would not listen to the Word of God - even if someone came back from the dead to tell them that word. In conjuction with Mat 7:6 we can see that one can only spend so much time trying to convince someone of the Word of God before it becomes futile. Ultimately, people are going to believe what they are going to believe - regardless of the evidence.

There is overwhelming Biblical evidence that the earth is young - in fact there is no dipute about that. The heart of the issue is whether or not biblical evidence is "permissable in court". Evolutionists say no - that this does not describe reality. However, without the reality of Genesis 1-11, we have no basis whatsoever for any christian doctrine - and no basis for Jesus' death and resurrection. Creationists say the opposite. Creationists take the opposite approach to the man in Luke 16. Creationists have chosen to believe God's Word (Moses - the writer of Genesis - and the prophets) as written - and use that as the basis for our faith... and our science (just as Newton, Joule, Pasteur - and the vast majority of the pre-Darwin scientists did).

Bear in mind that no YEC claims that one cannot be saved unless they believe in a young earth. However, evolution is the champion at undermining all Biblical authority and doctrine - from morality to even the reality of Jesus Christ himself.

 

In fact, most Christians dispute that statement. Why even bother saying something like that? You've even taken part in that dispute on this very forum.

The heart of the issue is whether one can somehow make Genesis show that the Earth is young. And most Christians have concluded that one cannot.

Christians know that statement is false.

 

So you have no answer for my last response to you? OK.

"We give them good arguments..."

Where? I have yet to see it.

There is an incredible amount of data in support of evolution, in support of an ancient earth and in support of a very old universe. I have yet to see a young earth theory that can account for all of the observations that lead one to conclude thses things about the creation. You have often claimed that you can do so, but these explanations never seem to actually materialize. We'll get some analogies that bear no resemblance to the subject and some assertions that cannot be supported, but never a well thought out, predictive, testable, falsifiable alternate. And we never will.

 

Not surprising as most persons on Planet Earth dispute Christianity -

Mat 7:14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Just because someone is convinced enough to become a Christian doesn't mean they have mastered christian doctrine. Any sound hermeneutical study of scripture leads to a literal reading of Genesis. It's a good thing we don't decide Bible doctrine based on the majority vote - as the majority of the world doesn't even believe in Jesus.

I have yet to see any Biblical debate regarding origins even come close to favoring anyting but a literal reading of Genesis. In fact, it is the evolutionist argument that the Bible is entirely silent regarding our origins and evolution - that is a de facto concession it seems.

It's really awkward when someone who is holding an ax says "what ax... I don't see an ax".

Clearly Genesis says that the earth was made in six days. Clearly, anyone can ad up the dates in the historical geneologies and get ~ 6000 years. Unless one dismisses these things as something other than literal history, there is no other possible explaination.

Add to this the fact that Jesus himself - as well as many prophets, apostles, etc all treat Genesis history as literal, and you have a complete picture which leaves ABSOLUTELY no room for any other interpretation.

You are - as 2Peter 3 says - willingly ignorant of the truth.

2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Those who do not take Noah's flood (or the other literal history of Genesis) literally are called "scoffers, walking after their own lusts". The Bible has used this description before:

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

I have just given you ample scripture that supports the idea that not taking Genesis creation literally leads to a loss of morality. But lets delve into an example - let's take homosexual marriage - this is currently a hot button issue.

Where is marriage ordained and instituted? Genesis 1 and 2.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Then Jesus quotes this passage as though it were a real, literal passage:

Mar 10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put [her] away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Why is marriage for 1 man and 1 woman for life? Jesus said the reason for that morality was the literalness of the creation of Adam and Eve - in that God created one man and one woman - not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. The institution of marriage was created and ordained in the beginning of creation with Adam and Eve. If, however, there was no Adam and Eve - and God didn't create one man and one woman - if evolution is true - then there is no moral basis for homosexual marriage to be wrong.

In fact, the passage in Romans chapter 1 I gave you - which describes how a person who believes evolution (gives the creation credit for the Creator's work) - directly correlates a belief in natural history with severe immorality - including homosexuality:

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (Gup: sounds like an evolutionist/humanist to me)
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. (Gup: yet another reference to the literal history of Moses)

2Ti 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned [them];
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Then you are willingly ignorant of the truth, as the Bible describes.

 

Actually this post is a bit off topic for this thread... I'll copy it to a new thread - you can respond there.

 

Do you have an on topic post for us?

 

This thread has been off topic for a while - which is why I created a new thread.

 

It has not been too far off topic. We were still talking about the OP specifically into page two and we were still discussing the more general but related subject of mutations even at the bottom of the last page. In fact, the last post on the previous page is a fairly long response of mine to you pointing out some severe errors in your view and claims.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/92/3.html#000044

I would personally consider it still on topic if you were to respond. I would be real curious for you to respond to the first section and tell us all why you think that if a gene gets duplicated and one of the duplicated mutates until it performs a new function that we should not consider that new information. Or why if a transposable element gets inserted into an intron and then mutates, making the intron an exon that is useful and new, why that is not new information. I would be curious on your view of the data that shows that the whole vertebrate genome has ben duplicated at least once, creating numerable opportunites for genes to diverge give rise to new sequences and new functions. I would like your response to my explanation of why we should rarely expect to see huge changes that leap up and scream "BENEFICIAL MUTATION OVER HERE" and instead we should see little changes. I would like to see your explanation and math for how the fact that there is an increasing amount of energy unavailable to do work in the universe means that evolution is not possible. I'd like to know why it is that YEers never enter into real scientific debate in the only forum that matters: peer reviewed journals.

And if you now choose to respond, I must ask that you go back to the original post and not this summary.

 

Barbarian on GUP's assertion that there is no dispute about Biblical evidence showing the Earth is young.
In fact, most Christians dispute that statement.[/quote]

I'm not saying you're disputing Christianity. God doesn't care whether you like the way He managed creation or not.

That is not a requirement to be a Christian.

As you learned earlier, YE creationism is not a Christian doctrine. It is a belief invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists, and then proslytized to others.

As Augustine observed, there is no way to twist Genesis into a literal account. The text itself shows that it cannot be literal unless you accept God saying things that are not true.

If you accept the Bible without the YE creationist additions, you will be in the majority, but you will also be right.

Barbarian observes that GUP has even seen the dispute here among Christians:
You've even taken part in that dispute on this very forum.

If you had said "My opinion is that a literal version of Genesis is correct", that would have been a true statement. But you said there was no dispute about it. That was a false statement.

It says nothing about evolution, but it specifically denies the YE doctrine of ex nihilo creation of life. But since we can directly observe evolution, that's not a problem for Christians.

Barbarian observers:
The heart of the issue is whether one can somehow make Genesis show that the Earth is young. And most Christians have concluded that one cannot.

Yep. That's why YE creationists start denying what's in Genesis as soon as it's pointed out.

Since "yom" can mean any of a number of different amounts of time, including ages, lifetimes, and literal days, any or none of those might apply to the use in Genesis.

Unfortunately, not. There are a lot of problems with that. Would you like to learn about some of them?

I've repeatedly asked for someone to show me where He said it was all literal, but every time, they change the subject. Can you do it? Please don't tell me that if Jesus cited a verse, that must mean it was literal.

I wouldn't go that far with you. You're just very stubborn about letting God do it His way.

That's not what it says. Because Scripture does not say what you'd like it to say, you insert additional material to make it more acceptable to you.

Barbarian observes:
Christians know that statement is false.

It might if I let you keep your additions. But I'm not going to do that. If you can't do it with Scripture as it is, I'm not going to be impressed with any of your additions.

Sorry. No bunny trails allowed. Stay on topic.

GUP, does a man who observes that hammers drive nails give the hammer credit for the Carpenter's work? (pun intended) C'mon, GUP.

 

Ah, for some strange reason Helen is limiting her thinking to only human babies in this matter. There are countless species that lay eggs and abandon them to raise themselves. They suffice to do away with any validity someone might suppose this "requires maternal care" idea might have concerning the spurious argument that things always spontaneously degrade and never develop. All the arguments against evolution are like this; seeming to have a superficial point, but empty of any real point on careful examination.

 

To continue the idea of how genetic data confirms that higher carnivore relationships that are implied by molecular and fossil evidence, I offer another recent paper that took a detailed look at the relationships among the carnivores using six different genes, three nuclear and three mitchondrial. Once again the indepenent phylogenies are shown to agree.

Flynn JJ, Finarelli JA, Zehr S, Hsu J, Nedbal MA., Molecular phylogeny of the carnivora (mammalia): assessing the impact of increased sampling on resolving enigmatic relationships, Syst Biol. 2005 Apr;54(2):317-37.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16012099&query_hl=6