nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 169:
Line 169: + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog (view source)
Revision as of 14:40, July 1, 2008
, 14:40, July 1, 2008→More replies to archived comments: Reply to JPohl
::::: It varies the gene pool, which allows for different types of mutation and more dramatic diversification.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: It varies the gene pool, which allows for different types of mutation and more dramatic diversification.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:31, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:31, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: "''We both know the Earth is round, so the trip is still possible, if not extended.''": So? Like all analogies, it's not perfect. Evolution doesn't go around in circles like travelling around the Earth, so that reply is invalid, and the objection remains: mutations go in the wrong direction.
:::::: "''[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html This] and [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html this] are good links on information theory.''": No, they are not good links at all. From memory of checking the first one out before, it has little of substance. The second is a disagreement over a particular case, not a general look at information, and has some errors in it that I can identify.
:::::: "''I'm not following your claim here. The mutation happened, and it is proof against evolution?''": I said "evidence", not "proof". If you don't understand the difference, read the relevant sections in my [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]. Creationism ''also'' proposes mutations, so the fact that a mutation happened is not evidence favouring evolution.
:::::: "''They didn't trumpet the metabolisation of citrate as "new information", but rather as a complex mutation that dramatically distinguished it from earlier generations. It would be like coming back to Earth in 100,000 years and finding that humans suddenly have two-foot-long third legs.''": The New Scientist article quoted Jerry Coyne saying "it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events, ... That's just what creationists say can't happen.". What creationists say "can't happen" is an ''increase in information''. So if you are claiming that nobody is claiming this to be an increase in information, they you are claiming that Jerry Coyne doesn't know what he's talking about regarding what creationists claim (which could be the case, actually!). As for your example, a short third leg probably doesn't require new information anyway. We already have the information for legs, so failure (mutation) of a switch might result in a third one (it's happened with animals), and another fault (mutation) might cause that third leg to be stunted. So if Lenski's discovery is like this, then it really is the case that it doesn't support evolution, because microbes-to-microbiologist evolution requires ''new'' genetic information.
:::::: "''[Sexual reproduction] varies the gene pool, which allows for different types of mutation and more dramatic diversification.''": That sounds like hand-waving to me, rather than an argument of substance.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:40, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::Philip,
:::::Philip,