nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 93:
Line 93: + + + + + + +
→To be taken seriously: The direction of change; information
::::As for creationists having no problem with mutations, speciation, or changes in gene frequency, what can I say other than those are the base mechanisms for evolution. Mutations cause changes in gene frequency which over time cause speciation which is an evolved (meaning changed, not improved) form of the previous species. To be honest I do not see what the argument is about if Creationists have no problem with mutation, speciation or gene frequency variation.
::::As for creationists having no problem with mutations, speciation, or changes in gene frequency, what can I say other than those are the base mechanisms for evolution. Mutations cause changes in gene frequency which over time cause speciation which is an evolved (meaning changed, not improved) form of the previous species. To be honest I do not see what the argument is about if Creationists have no problem with mutation, speciation or gene frequency variation.
::::--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:09, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
::::--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:09, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
::::: I agree that some fields overlap; geology, for example, has an ''operational'' component (studying the rocks as they are) and an ''origins'' component (trying to explain how they came to be the way that they are).
::::: You were trying to tell me that Germ Theory had its origins in evolution, but now you quote me Girolamo Fracastoro (1478‑1553) and Agostino Bassi (1773-1856) as being involved with the roots of the field, yet they predated Darwin's evolution! That doesn't support your point; it undermines it!
::::: It is incorrect to say that the "scientific community" don't make the distinction. I linked to a book by a member of the scientific community. Okay, ''most'' of them don't ''make'' the distinction, but how many of them deny it? And as I've said, there clearly ''is'' a distinction.
::::: Your description of "changes of genomic material" completely glosses over what direction the change is in. Does it ''increase'' genetic ''[[information]]'', or decrease it? Simply adding "genetic material" is not the same as adding genetic ''information''. The former is like adding random letters to a how-to manual, and the latter is like adding new instructions. The former is meaningless, but the latter conveys meaning. The hypothetical first single cell didn't have the genetic ''information'' for hair, eyes, skin, blood, feathers, etc. etc. To go from that first cell to birds, mammals, etc., evolution has to add ''information''—instructions for building those organs. Just adding sequences of A, G, T, and G, doesn't cut it; the genes need to have specific instructions to assemble specific amino acids to make specific proteins to build those organs. Natural selection doesn't provide that ''information''—it removes the less fit, it doesn't create new information. Mutations ''destroy'' information, they don't add it. Changes in gene frequency are not additions of new information.
::::: Mutations, natural selection (leading to changes in gene frequency) and speciation ''are'' proposed mechanisms of evolution, but they are insufficient mechanisms because they don't add information. Natural selection and mutations are also part of the creation model (natural selection was explained by a creationist prior to Darwin), but mutations are a ''downhill'' (information-losing) process, and natural selection is a mechanism that weeds out the less fit, but does not create the more fit. Speciation is a result of those and similar mechanism, but doesn't add new organs, functions, and abilities; it is the result of ''removal'' of genetic information.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:13, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't see what [[molecular biology]] has to do with [[evolution]]. In science, assertions and assumptions don't count. We need facts, and once we have them we can find out whether they confirm or contradict our theories. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:16, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't see what [[molecular biology]] has to do with [[evolution]]. In science, assertions and assumptions don't count. We need facts, and once we have them we can find out whether they confirm or contradict our theories. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:16, 9 May 2007 (EDT)