nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 59:
Line 59: + + + +
→Mutations don't lead to evolution? New genetic information?: But that was not random.
::So you admit genetic information can change, but not obtain new meaning? I really don't understand your concept of "new meaning". If you have the sentence ''THE HAT WAS RED'' a H->C mutation occurs ''THE '''C'''AT WAS RED''. I would call this new meaning, although you could probably argue that it was 'corrupted' from it's earlier version in that it no longer carries the same meaning, but I don't see that as a problem. And I was commenting on that people have different concepts of what is "evolved", a lot of people believe that dogs are somehow ''more evolved'' than worms. Bacteria are successful, in that they are not static. There happens to be a site that refutes that very article [[http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm]], and I'm very glad they have since I have little time to go through and pick it apart myself. Honestly, I find it hard to go through their lines of reasoning, it seems as if they don't fully grasp the idea of plasmids.
::So you admit genetic information can change, but not obtain new meaning? I really don't understand your concept of "new meaning". If you have the sentence ''THE HAT WAS RED'' a H->C mutation occurs ''THE '''C'''AT WAS RED''. I would call this new meaning, although you could probably argue that it was 'corrupted' from it's earlier version in that it no longer carries the same meaning, but I don't see that as a problem. And I was commenting on that people have different concepts of what is "evolved", a lot of people believe that dogs are somehow ''more evolved'' than worms. Bacteria are successful, in that they are not static. There happens to be a site that refutes that very article [[http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm]], and I'm very glad they have since I have little time to go through and pick it apart myself. Honestly, I find it hard to go through their lines of reasoning, it seems as if they don't fully grasp the idea of plasmids.
::And I wouldn't myself accept a quote from AIG as a satisfactory argument, I have very little respect for their work. However, they are used commonly on this site as an appropriate if not authoritative source. It's just that if a preacher spent his whole life studying the bible and said once: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that an invisible supernatural being exists which was able to create everything we know." despite explaining afterwards what he meant, and backing up his claims in numerous books, it would be misleading to use this quote single-handedly to try and discredit his life's work. Although, I do thank you for changing it to read a little more accurately. Perhaps you should pick up ''What Evolution Is'' by Mayr, it's written for the general reader (I assume you haven't taken undergrad biology courses?) and sums up Mayr's reasoning well. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::And I wouldn't myself accept a quote from AIG as a satisfactory argument, I have very little respect for their work. However, they are used commonly on this site as an appropriate if not authoritative source. It's just that if a preacher spent his whole life studying the bible and said once: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that an invisible supernatural being exists which was able to create everything we know." despite explaining afterwards what he meant, and backing up his claims in numerous books, it would be misleading to use this quote single-handedly to try and discredit his life's work. Although, I do thank you for changing it to read a little more accurately. Perhaps you should pick up ''What Evolution Is'' by Mayr, it's written for the general reader (I assume you haven't taken undergrad biology courses?) and sums up Mayr's reasoning well. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::: A mutation is a ''random'' change. Did you ''randomly'' change a letter in the sentence "THE HAT WAS RED", or was some ''intelligent design'' involved on your part? How about trying that again with a ''random'' change, and see what you get. I've done the same sort of thing a number of times before, but I always make a ''random'' change (close my eyes, move the cursor back an arbitrary number of spaces, then press a key at random, before opening my eyes). And you know what? I've ''never'' had to repeat that because I've actually added new information!
::: Furthermore, information is not normally found in isolation. If your sentence was in a discussion about a person and their clothing, then "THE CAT WAS RED" would make no sense, despite it being grammatically correct.
::: Now it is ''theoretically possible'' that the sentence is in a context where there is a cat, and elsewhere creationists have admitted that the odd ''extremely rare'' information-gaining mutation might occur, so even if the Nylon bug is one, it's about the only one (and it's about the only one people keep telling me about), whereas if evolution was true, there should be ''many'' examples. And the odd very rare such mutation is going to be swamped by all the information-destroying ones, so it offers little comfort to evolution. By the way, the article you linked to is ''not'' a response to the one I linked to, although it does have a link to such a response.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)