nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 370:
Line 370: + + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 09:40, November 12, 2008
, 09:40, November 12, 2008→Chromosome example: Still no substance.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I'm sorry I contradicted myself, Philip. What I meant is that evolution is a theory about the adaptation of life, which does not necessarily require information-gaining mutations. What you are talking about is an argument about the progression of life, which is a consequence of people trying to contradict evolution based on creationist beliefs. To you, Lowkey, the complexity of the system is not the issue, so again I apologize. The fact that it is possible to generate the changes through random mutations is the issue. It is possible, no matter how complicated anyone tries to make it out to be. It's the same thing with the information-gaining mutations. As long as there is one example of an information-gaining mutation, it does not make sense to use this argument. I see an information-gaining mutation. That tells me that information-gaining mutations are possible. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 23:26, 11 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I'm sorry I contradicted myself, Philip. What I meant is that evolution is a theory about the adaptation of life, which does not necessarily require information-gaining mutations. What you are talking about is an argument about the progression of life, which is a consequence of people trying to contradict evolution based on creationist beliefs. To you, Lowkey, the complexity of the system is not the issue, so again I apologize. The fact that it is possible to generate the changes through random mutations is the issue. It is possible, no matter how complicated anyone tries to make it out to be. It's the same thing with the information-gaining mutations. As long as there is one example of an information-gaining mutation, it does not make sense to use this argument. I see an information-gaining mutation. That tells me that information-gaining mutations are possible. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 23:26, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: Regardless of whether you label my argument as about the "progression of life", the unavoidable point is that evolution ''requires'' the addition of enormous amounts of new genetic information. I can't see how evolution going from a "simple" cell with no arms, heart, skin, brain, and so on to humans with all those and much more is not a "progression".
:::::: Simply claiming that it's possible to generate the required changes does not make it so. Lowkey specifically asked you for examples, yet you supplied none.
:::::: And no, it's not as simple as claiming that one information-gaining mutation is enough, for several reasons:
::::::* There is no undisputed example.
::::::* Evolution doesn't require ''one'' but very many (probably millions if not billions). Evidence of ''one'' is not evidence that evolution is capable of providing sufficient such mutations.
::::::* What evolution needs is more information-gaining mutations than information-losing ones. If a hamburger seller makes a loss on every sale, but then eventually sells one for a profit, does that mean that his business is viable?
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)
== Thank you ==
== Thank you ==