Linux, in good Unix tradition, is designed to build things in pieces, which can work together. A number of Linux filesystems are designed to be layered on top of other filesystems. One such filesystem is the distributed, fault-tolerant Glusterfs (http://www.gluster.org/). You should be able to layer it on top of a number of other filesystems which can do versioning or snapshots (e.g. ZFS or Btrfs).
My vote would be for teaching the metric system in math and science classes, and teaching the imperial units in history and social studies classes. We should not scrap knowledge of the past. We can respect the fact that the mile and furlong go back to ancient Rome, and make sure children know the history. But at the same time, it would be nice to have a system that is logical.
The problem with converting everything to the metric system is, not everything can be expressed in it using whole numbers. As was pointed out above, a tall person is over 6 feet tall. Maybe people just need to increase their size to an average of 2 meters:-)
Actually, the good news is Linspire doesn't remove "both kinds of free in order to make it happen" for software that is Open Source. Their new CnR is now free to use, as well as having an Open Source client which is free to modify and improve. The only thing you have to pay for is proprietary software, but now you can at least get much of it in one place (and hopefully they can increase that as well).
both the Koran and bible are very clear about converting or killing nonbelievers
I can't speak for the Koran, but the Bible's instructions for killing are not pointed at just any non-believers. There were distinctions made between most non-believers and those who practiced e.g. child sacrifice by immolation, or who had been especially cruel in the past. Also, these instructions were given to specific people for specific situations, not general instructions on how to treat people.
There are also notable anti-killing statements, even in the "bloody" old testament. For example, there was a case of a vassal group who had been partly slaughtered by king Saul (contrary to previous promises), and who were given justice by king David. There are also many instances of God condemning the slaughter of innocents or even complacency when others did so. Though the response (retributive slaughter of the slaughterers) may seem excessively bloody to our western secular mindset, it can be justified much as is the death penalty.
This is in contrast to the mindset of fanatical Islamic, Buddhist, or even "Christian" terrorists who justify retribution, not on a "specific killing for specific killing" basis, but on a "oneupmanship" basis of escalating violence.
This is not to discount the reasons used by e.g. bin Laden to justify 9-11. I'm sure they believe they have good reasons for their crusade against the "infidels", and maybe they do have reason to complain. I'm just pointing out that their response to the purported problems is not directed at the right people and in the right quantity, to be justified (if you were judging them by the Bible). Since they aren't going by the Bible, but by the Koran, maybe they can claim justification there, I don't know.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'the translator.'
I was generically referring to the RNAP+tRNA that perform the transcription and translation of the gene into a protein. My point was that just adding a copy of a gene (even with modified "settings") won't cause the RNA transcription and translation to operate differently to produce different proteins than it would have normally been able to produce (i.e. within the range of capabilities it already has).
After completing the deciphering of the ~35000 genes of the human genome, genetic researchers admitted that the relatively low number of genes means that the human genome "is a lot more complicated than we thought". Scientists once thought that in general, each gene contained instructions for building one specific protein. But now scientists are left wondering how only ~35000 genes can direct production of the hundreds of thousands of components that together make up the human body.
How genes are "read" seems to be the key. Just like a few words can be arranged in many different ways to form sentences, so each gene can be read in combination with other genes to produce ten or more different proteins, according to what the body needs. However, what determines how the instructions are read in the DNA to produce the different products is largely unknown at this time.
Scientists commonly claim that gene duplication is responsible for evolutionary development in many cases. However, one such article claimed that the duplicated gene changed in ways that "were not random" (in other words, not due to mutations). Perhaps a better explanation is that the two genes were designed that way, much as a computer programmer may copy, paste, and modify a working function into another slightly different function.
Interestingly, scientists now know the genetic sequences of a few groups of bacteria which were beforehand predicted to have a pattern pointing back to a single common ancestor, as expected by evolutionists. But the results run contrary to the predictions, and (coming from an evolutionary world view) scientists postulate that different species somehow must have traded genes ("horizontal transfer"), or alternately, that life must have arisen independently multiple times. The latter, of course, would require much more favorable odds than have been shown.
I don't want to discount scientific evidence either. However, due to my world view, I see different results from most of it, and in the cases I cannot explain, I suspend judgment until such time as I have more information.
check out the early genetic study of fruit flies. Random mutation is clearly documented in these early experiments...
The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information. For example, there are no known cases in which antibiotic resistance is the result of new genetic information. An information loss can confer resistance in several ways. New (even helpful, adaptive) traits can come from loss of genetic information (which is to be expected from mutations).
Yes, Homeobox mutations in e.g. fruit flies can cause growth of an extra pair of wings, but those wings hindered flying due to a lack of muscles, and would have been eliminated by natural selection. And in any case, that was not a case of new genetic information being generated, but a loss of information.
Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information-- these mechanisms create nothing new. For macro evolution to occur, new genes (e.g. for making feathers on reptiles) would be needed.
Remember, this is not just about C14 decay. This is about the myriad different isotopes used....and the fact that they come up with the same answer given the relative half-lifes.
But according to this and other sources, the primary dating method used in dating the fossil bearing geologic column is K-Ar. One method agreeing with itself is nothing exciting. I'd be interested in a demonstration of widespread agreement between all methods within the geologic column.
Well, not being a biologist myself, I thought I would let you provide some examples and I could poke holes in your argument:-)
Seriously, the "debunkings" I've seen so far have been very shallow, suffering from the logical flaws I pointed out in my previous post. I doubt you could do better than the leading scientific journals.
The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information. For example, there are no known cases in which antibiotic resistance is the result of new genetic information. An information loss can confer resistance in several ways. New (even helpful, adaptive) traits can come from loss of genetic information (which is to be expected from mutations).
Yes, Homeobox mutations in e.g. fruit flies can cause growth of an extra pair of wings, but those wings hindered flying due to a lack of muscles, and would have been eliminated by natural selection. And in any case, that was not a case of new genetic information being generated, but a loss of information.
Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information--these mechanisms create nothing new. Macroevolution needs new genes (for making feathers on reptiles, for example)
In terms of information science, xx DOES contain more information than x...It also provides a locus for new mutation while preserving the old information (in the other formerly identical strand).
Even if the genetic translation process actuates the copied gene as well as the original, no new function can occur without a corresponding random change in the translator and in all related systems. In the meanwhile, the corresponding reverse mutation is just as likely to have occurred. For that to occur over millions of genes greatly reduces the odds of it happening, even over millions of years.
Show me an "irreducibly complex" feature, and I'll reduce it for you.
Given how poorly science understands things even now, that requires quite a bit of hubris. The deeper we get into details, the more complex it appears. That said, there are a number of evolutionist counter arguments listed below, as to how a supposedly irreducibly complex system could have evolved:
Previously using more parts than necessary for the function.
The parts themselves evolve.
Deployment of parts (gene regulation) evolves.
New parts are created (gene duplication) and may then evolve.
Regarding the first argument, this assumes some (unknown to us) previously useful function of the extra parts. This avoids the issue because you can always claim there was another (unknown) set of parts with an unknown purpose which assisted the evolutionary process, then was discarded. That doesn't mean it ever happened, but even if it did in one case, that doesn't disprove that other irreducibly complex systems do exist.
Similarly, the other three arguments depend on evolution of the parts or related systems. This would imply some better conditions those parts would achieve by evolving. However, in many cases (e.g. proteins), the standard situation is against this ever happening. In the case of proteins, the chirality of life on earth is generally left handed, but in nature proteins occur in equally left and right handed distribution. This goes against probability that all left handed proteins would somehow be "randomly" chosen to form the necessary "better condition" for evolution.
Those who choose to believe in random chance over God, look at the same evidence as those who choose to believe in creation. What is made of that evidence depends on your worldview.
Random mutation can be observed easily in drug-resistant bacteria. The ubiquitous undergraduate biology example of fruit fly genetics also comes to mind.
Drug resistant strains could also be produced from a population of bacteria which had the capability of resistance latent within it. Those strains that are killed off more quickly have less of a chance to continue their line, and those that survive by virtue of already having greater latent resistance, end up appearing as a "new strain" of drug resistant bacteria.
In a recent case demonstrating this at a macro level, most varieties of honey bees are susceptible to Varroa mites, but a small population are already naturally resistant. The naturally resistant population will take time to build up. Recently, a strain of the fungus Metarhizium anisopliae has been found to be highly pathogenic to the mites. These variations already existed in isolation from each other, and it didn't take mutations to produce them.
Mutations can make changes in the genes, but these generally can be shown to be negations of features already existing. For example, what might appear to be an added defensive feature (a snake's poison glands) turns out to be a degraded set of salivary glands, once the structure is studied in detail.
All radioactive decay follows the exact same decay curve with only a change in period (length of time).
Regarding radioactive decay, while the decay rate remains constant, the unknown is the original ratio of isotopes (e.g., C-14 to C-12) that are used for measurement. What is assumed is that the ratio has remained the same throughout history, but this is clearly an assumption we cannot prove one way or the other. There are multiple possibilities as to how the original ratio could have been different.
We've found structures made by humanoids that are at least 500,000 years old.
Based on the above dating methods, which we can't always rely on. We've also found multiple layers of rock, dating over "millions of years" with upright fossilized trees buried through multiple layers. Usually this is explained as a product of rapid burying, followed by erosion and reburying later. However, in this case, you would expect to find signs of erosion between layers, which turns out not to be the case. What does turn out to be the case, is that fossils can be formed much more rapidly than previously thought. We already have petrified forests from Mt. St. Helens 1980 eruption.
There are aquatic fossils found on top of Mount Everest.
Exactly. Millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. Maybe there really was a worldwide flood.
Unless you also discount plate tectonics wholesale and/or expect that Mount Everest was the product of a few millenia of uplifting, why would aquatic creatures be found there?
I believe there is good evidence for rapid sedimentation (see for example turbidites), coupled with massive plate tectonics and widespread volcanism, that yes, could actually form Mt. Everest over a few millenia.
The primary reason to believe that life has required billions of years to evolve on this planet is because it gives people a way out of believing the biblical account.
And actually, no mutation is required to make this happen-- it happens regularly with animal husbandry, where the gene pool is manipulated by e.g. dog owners by selective breeding for desired characteristics. You can start with two wolves (wild stock with all genetic material present) and eventually get every variety of dog.
Natural selection is not a species ELIMINATOR. It is rather a bad-mutation filter.
All three varieties of grass were possible in the original genetic makeup of the grass DNA, otherwise the gene(s) which could be turned on/off by mutation would not have been there to be turned on/off.
So, my point still stands. Yes, mutations can cause a variety of species to show up, that is well known. But all of those species, while not known of, were latent in the genetic makeup of the organism.
Okay, I'm not a biologist, so my example may be flawed. None the less, the duplication of DNA does not add any new information, as the purpose of that DNA strand as it is read off must still be the same as before (albeit perhaps activated positively or negatively).
Regarding Dr. Veith, I haven't compared with others but I wouldn't call nearly 30 papers "a handful". As for his health research, true, it is cutting edge, but it follows with some of the best research done by e.g. Loma Linda University and other recent research showing the benefits of a vegan diet. Definitely not quackery.
Dr. Walter Veith, B.Sc. (Hons), M.Sc. (cum laude), Ph.D., noted for his biological research, a distinguished professor from South Africa:
Would you expect anyone who believes in creation to be well published? Of course not, because of the prejudice against it. However, as long as the articles written don't give away the beliefs of the author, but only deal with facts, some creationists manage to get published in spite of the bias in the system. Of course, most would rather sneer at creationism than provide a counter argument.
Wrong. First of all, even improbable events become almost certain, given enough iterations. Take a one-in-a-million event, and give it two million chances... odds are, it will happen twice. It's highly improbable for anyone to win the lottery, yet someone always does. Mutations occur in every living creature, which is a lot of chances.
Which is exactly why I mentioned combinations. In many, many cases, there are interdependent features of an organism, which would both have to have come into being by random chance at the same time. These cases drastically decrease the chances of a successful combination of mutations. Just having one of the mutations would not be sufficient.
Secondly, you're ignoring the fact that what determines a "successful" mutation is natural selection, and nothing else. You're saying, in effect, "after deleterious mutations are weeded out by natural selection, there's nothing left for natrual selection to work with." Silly.
Let me clarify. There is as great a chance of a random mutation reversing a favorable feature as of creating it in the first place. Thus, you cannot just have one successful selection at a time; you must have the positive selections remain "selected" while additional positive selections proceed. Thus, natural selection at the genetic level depends on a pool of successful mutations happening over time, more often than the reverse mutations.
And, at a macro level, natural selection as we actually can observe it today, occurs by successful animal groups flourishing and reproducing, while unsuccessful ones die off. However, this selection can only occur from a diverse genetic pool. In other words, a purebred animal has lost the genetic information that would have made it a mongrel, while the mongrel has a more diverse genetic mix (which is why purebred animals have many diseases and problems mongrels do not have).
"Natural selection is an ELIMINATOR. In other words, if there are two variations of a creature, the theory goes that natural selection chooses the "fittest" or "best", and allows the "unfittest" or "weakest" to become extinct."
In which case, there must be a large number of varieties to select from. Which is where mutations come in. Up to here, we should be in agreement. If not, tell me where I'm off base.
Now, even well known evolutionist writers (e.g. Richard Dawkins) tell us the probability of successful combinations of mutations is very, very low. If so, the probability of having anything for natural selection to operate on is very, very low. Thus, a belief in evolution requires much faith.
Regarding the replacement of genetic information from one of the parents, this assumes you have parents to begin with. At the individual cell's level, if you have DNA, you must have a working cell of some sort (we've at this point skipped past millions of years of evolution...). Anyway, assuming you have a working cell with DNA, any mutation will either be a change or loss of existing information. This would be analogous to (for example) a 4k memory chip with all bits set or cleared to important values. Changing any of those bits will not add additional information, as it can only replace existing values in the process. If those values were important, then the result was a loss of information. If negligible (e.g. eye color) then it was not a loss, but neither was it a gain. In no case could it be a gain, because for that gene to have meaning the cell must already have a mechanism for translating that gene into a productive feature. (In the computer analogy, there must be a separate program for operating on the 4k of data in the memory chip, otherwise the memory has no useful function).
The same principles apply at lower or higher levels of evolutionary development.
As for the assertion you make that "There are people in non-biological specialties who stumble across some bullshit that confirms their preconceived notions", the professor whose articles I referred to was a noted professor of evolutionary biology, with the preconceived notion of atheism and evolution, yet the evidence he found was compelling enough to change his mind.
Sure, everybody has preconceived opinions-- but I suspect that for many evolutionists, it is their strong desire to eliminate God from the equation that drives their research. Not surprising when you consider how badly Christians have misrepresented God at times.
I'd be interested to hear any comments on these. They seem compelling to me, especially coming from a respected biologist. (And yes, I have had college level science classes).
Regarding his "hilarious" assertions about radiometric dating (http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_radio metricdating.htm), he did provide references to respected scientific journals. If even one example shows a system to be flawed, I would be cautious about trusting it without cross checking. The book you linked to (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html) is interesting, and did claim numerous cross checks have been done. Still, these can only show accuracy into the known past, and don't deal with possible changes in the ratios of elements measured in the various tests (though the linked book asserts that such changes are unlikely).
Another possibility I didn't see addressed on either site is that the elements of the earth have been around in their present form much longer than life on earth, thus explaining the great age of the rocks, while leaving room for the possibility of life on earth relatively recently.
Yes, evolution has been tested by predictions of what we might find in the fossil record. However, it has not always passed the test. Geologists and biologists have repeatedly been surprised when they didn't find what they expected. Of course, they adjusted the theory each time.
However, what if there was another way to explain the evidence?
There is. Check out the site of this noted biologist, a former atheist, who became a creationist based on the evidence he uncovered:
Actually, there are some noted scientists who believe in an intelligent designer. One, a biologist who was formerly atheist, became a creationist because of the evidence he discovered in his research:
As for your argument, yes, evolution is a logical system. That doesn't mean it is correct, as something can be internally logical but not have all the facts. Neither does creationism have all the facts, but the point is, it does have at least as much evidence in it's favor as evolution does.
There are a number of misconceptions taught in schools (if not in higher scientific circles) that are not very scientific. For example, the idea that natural selection can cause evolution. Natural selection can only (as the name would indicate) choose among existing genetic material. Another one, that DNA mutations can cause evolution, is more likely, but in most known cases, it actually causes "devolution". In fact, even the cases which seem to provide benefits to the offspring can be shown to be a loss of genetic information.
So, to summarize, it's not all as cut and dried as it might seem. Check out the evidence at the link above, and from other scientific sources who aren't blatantly anti-creationist, and give both sides a fair hearing.
If you only take part of the Bible as literally true, your faith will fall like a pack of cards. What is the logical reason for the need of a savior if death (evolution over time) came before sin?
On the other hand, you don't need to check your brain at the door when becoming a Christian. Here's a noted biologist, former atheist, who became a creationist based on the evidence he discovered:
Okay, I'll bite on the last one. Let's say we don't stop teaching evolution, but at least allow an alternate view, of the best of modern biology, to be presented. Here's a noted biologist, former atheist, who became a creationist based on the evidence he discovered:
I agree that a God that created us would expect us to use our brains. However, at least give both sides of the debate a fair hearing (which is what I believe is being asked for).
The problem is, the fossils that supposedly clearly point to evolution, don't actually do that so clearly after all. Darwin had a theory for which he was trying to find evidence, and since then, the evidence has been increasingly against the theory.
If you look at the supposed age of fossils, as I have, you will discover a series of assumptions which depend upon each other in a circular fashion. For example, these fossils are X million years old because they are in this layer. This layer is X million years old, because we found Y fossil in it, which we know to be X million years old, because it is always found in the same layer elsewhere. Other dating methods make assumptions of (for example) constant radio isotope decay rates (when in fact we know the rates can change based on outside factors). There are the stalactites that are "millions of years old", which turn out to have grown in the last century. And the fossilized trees, which look strangely similar to ones covered by Mount St. Helens.
Regarding point two, there are those who don't see a conflict between evolution and a creator. It is certainly possible, if you disregard the biblical record. The problem here is if you believe there was death (evolution over time) before "sin", then there is no logical basis for a savior. Then, the reason for the existence of Christianity is gone.
So, to be consistent, you must either throw out Christianity or evolution. Before you discard Christianity, I suggest at least giving a fair hearing to the intelligent design argument-- from an informed scientist, not a "bible beating fundamentalist" who doesn't really know why they believe what they believe. Check out this site by a noted biologist, former atheist, who based on the evidence he uncovered, became a creationist:
Slashdot Mirror
Linux, in good Unix tradition, is designed to build things in pieces, which can work together. A number of Linux filesystems are designed to be layered on top of other filesystems. One such filesystem is the distributed, fault-tolerant Glusterfs (http://www.gluster.org/). You should be able to layer it on top of a number of other filesystems which can do versioning or snapshots (e.g. ZFS or Btrfs).
My vote would be for teaching the metric system in math and science classes, and teaching the imperial units in history and social studies classes. We should not scrap knowledge of the past. We can respect the fact that the mile and furlong go back to ancient Rome, and make sure children know the history. But at the same time, it would be nice to have a system that is logical.
The problem with converting everything to the metric system is, not everything can be expressed in it using whole numbers. As was pointed out above, a tall person is over 6 feet tall. Maybe people just need to increase their size to an average of 2 meters :-)
Actually, the good news is Linspire doesn't remove "both kinds of free in order to make it happen" for software that is Open Source. Their new CnR is now free to use, as well as having an Open Source client which is free to modify and improve. The only thing you have to pay for is proprietary software, but now you can at least get much of it in one place (and hopefully they can increase that as well).
Good news all around.
I can't speak for the Koran, but the Bible's instructions for killing are not pointed at just any non-believers. There were distinctions made between most non-believers and those who practiced e.g. child sacrifice by immolation, or who had been especially cruel in the past. Also, these instructions were given to specific people for specific situations, not general instructions on how to treat people.
There are also notable anti-killing statements, even in the "bloody" old testament. For example, there was a case of a vassal group who had been partly slaughtered by king Saul (contrary to previous promises), and who were given justice by king David. There are also many instances of God condemning the slaughter of innocents or even complacency when others did so. Though the response (retributive slaughter of the slaughterers) may seem excessively bloody to our western secular mindset, it can be justified much as is the death penalty.
This is in contrast to the mindset of fanatical Islamic, Buddhist, or even "Christian" terrorists who justify retribution, not on a "specific killing for specific killing" basis, but on a "oneupmanship" basis of escalating violence.
This is not to discount the reasons used by e.g. bin Laden to justify 9-11. I'm sure they believe they have good reasons for their crusade against the "infidels", and maybe they do have reason to complain. I'm just pointing out that their response to the purported problems is not directed at the right people and in the right quantity, to be justified (if you were judging them by the Bible). Since they aren't going by the Bible, but by the Koran, maybe they can claim justification there, I don't know.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'the translator.'
I was generically referring to the RNAP+tRNA that perform the transcription and translation of the gene into a protein. My point was that just adding a copy of a gene (even with modified "settings") won't cause the RNA transcription and translation to operate differently to produce different proteins than it would have normally been able to produce (i.e. within the range of capabilities it already has).
After completing the deciphering of the ~35000 genes of the human genome, genetic researchers admitted that the relatively low number of genes means that the human genome "is a lot more complicated than we thought". Scientists once thought that in general, each gene contained instructions for building one specific protein. But now scientists are left wondering how only ~35000 genes can direct production of the hundreds of thousands of components that together make up the human body.
How genes are "read" seems to be the key. Just like a few words can be arranged in many different ways to form sentences, so each gene can be read in combination with other genes to produce ten or more different proteins, according to what the body needs. However, what determines how the instructions are read in the DNA to produce the different products is largely unknown at this time.
Scientists commonly claim that gene duplication is responsible for evolutionary development in many cases. However, one such article claimed that the duplicated gene changed in ways that "were not random" (in other words, not due to mutations). Perhaps a better explanation is that the two genes were designed that way, much as a computer programmer may copy, paste, and modify a working function into another slightly different function.
Interestingly, scientists now know the genetic sequences of a few groups of bacteria which were beforehand predicted to have a pattern pointing back to a single common ancestor, as expected by evolutionists. But the results run contrary to the predictions, and (coming from an evolutionary world view) scientists postulate that different species somehow must have traded genes ("horizontal transfer"), or alternately, that life must have arisen independently multiple times. The latter, of course, would require much more favorable odds than have been shown.
I don't want to discount scientific evidence either. However, due to my world view, I see different results from most of it, and in the cases I cannot explain, I suspend judgment until such time as I have more information.
check out the early genetic study of fruit flies. Random mutation is clearly documented in these early experiments...
...and the fact that they come up with the same answer given the relative half-lifes.
The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information. For example, there are no known cases in which antibiotic resistance is the result of new genetic information. An information loss can confer resistance in several ways. New (even helpful, adaptive) traits can come from loss of genetic information (which is to be expected from mutations).
Yes, Homeobox mutations in e.g. fruit flies can cause growth of an extra pair of wings, but those wings hindered flying due to a lack of muscles, and would have been eliminated by natural selection. And in any case, that was not a case of new genetic information being generated, but a loss of information.
Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information-- these mechanisms create nothing new. For macro evolution to occur, new genes (e.g. for making feathers on reptiles) would be needed.
Remember, this is not just about C14 decay. This is about the myriad different isotopes used.
But according to this and other sources, the primary dating method used in dating the fossil bearing geologic column is K-Ar. One method agreeing with itself is nothing exciting. I'd be interested in a demonstration of widespread agreement between all methods within the geologic column.
Well, not being a biologist myself, I thought I would let you provide some examples and I could poke holes in your argument :-)
Seriously, the "debunkings" I've seen so far have been very shallow, suffering from the logical flaws I pointed out in my previous post. I doubt you could do better than the leading scientific journals.
The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information. For example, there are no known cases in which antibiotic resistance is the result of new genetic information. An information loss can confer resistance in several ways. New (even helpful, adaptive) traits can come from loss of genetic information (which is to be expected from mutations).
Yes, Homeobox mutations in e.g. fruit flies can cause growth of an extra pair of wings, but those wings hindered flying due to a lack of muscles, and would have been eliminated by natural selection. And in any case, that was not a case of new genetic information being generated, but a loss of information.
Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information--these mechanisms create nothing new. Macroevolution needs new genes (for making feathers on reptiles, for example)
In terms of information science, xx DOES contain more information than x...It also provides a locus for new mutation while preserving the old information (in the other formerly identical strand).
Even if the genetic translation process actuates the copied gene as well as the original, no new function can occur without a corresponding random change in the translator and in all related systems. In the meanwhile, the corresponding reverse mutation is just as likely to have occurred. For that to occur over millions of genes greatly reduces the odds of it happening, even over millions of years.
Given how poorly science understands things even now, that requires quite a bit of hubris. The deeper we get into details, the more complex it appears. That said, there are a number of evolutionist counter arguments listed below, as to how a supposedly irreducibly complex system could have evolved:
Regarding the first argument, this assumes some (unknown to us) previously useful function of the extra parts. This avoids the issue because you can always claim there was another (unknown) set of parts with an unknown purpose which assisted the evolutionary process, then was discarded. That doesn't mean it ever happened, but even if it did in one case, that doesn't disprove that other irreducibly complex systems do exist.
Similarly, the other three arguments depend on evolution of the parts or related systems. This would imply some better conditions those parts would achieve by evolving. However, in many cases (e.g. proteins), the standard situation is against this ever happening. In the case of proteins, the chirality of life on earth is generally left handed, but in nature proteins occur in equally left and right handed distribution. This goes against probability that all left handed proteins would somehow be "randomly" chosen to form the necessary "better condition" for evolution.
Those who choose to believe in random chance over God, look at the same evidence as those who choose to believe in creation. What is made of that evidence depends on your worldview.
Random mutation can be observed easily in drug-resistant bacteria. The ubiquitous undergraduate biology example of fruit fly genetics also comes to mind.
Drug resistant strains could also be produced from a population of bacteria which had the capability of resistance latent within it. Those strains that are killed off more quickly have less of a chance to continue their line, and those that survive by virtue of already having greater latent resistance, end up appearing as a "new strain" of drug resistant bacteria.
In a recent case demonstrating this at a macro level, most varieties of honey bees are susceptible to Varroa mites, but a small population are already naturally resistant. The naturally resistant population will take time to build up. Recently, a strain of the fungus Metarhizium anisopliae has been found to be highly pathogenic to the mites. These variations already existed in isolation from each other, and it didn't take mutations to produce them.
Mutations can make changes in the genes, but these generally can be shown to be negations of features already existing. For example, what might appear to be an added defensive feature (a snake's poison glands) turns out to be a degraded set of salivary glands, once the structure is studied in detail.
All radioactive decay follows the exact same decay curve with only a change in period (length of time).
Regarding radioactive decay, while the decay rate remains constant, the unknown is the original ratio of isotopes (e.g., C-14 to C-12) that are used for measurement. What is assumed is that the ratio has remained the same throughout history, but this is clearly an assumption we cannot prove one way or the other. There are multiple possibilities as to how the original ratio could have been different.
We've found structures made by humanoids that are at least 500,000 years old.
Based on the above dating methods, which we can't always rely on. We've also found multiple layers of rock, dating over "millions of years" with upright fossilized trees buried through multiple layers. Usually this is explained as a product of rapid burying, followed by erosion and reburying later. However, in this case, you would expect to find signs of erosion between layers, which turns out not to be the case. What does turn out to be the case, is that fossils can be formed much more rapidly than previously thought. We already have petrified forests from Mt. St. Helens 1980 eruption.
There are aquatic fossils found on top of Mount Everest.
Exactly. Millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. Maybe there really was a worldwide flood.
Unless you also discount plate tectonics wholesale and/or expect that Mount Everest was the product of a few millenia of uplifting, why would aquatic creatures be found there?
I believe there is good evidence for rapid sedimentation (see for example turbidites), coupled with massive plate tectonics and widespread volcanism, that yes, could actually form Mt. Everest over a few millenia.
The primary reason to believe that life has required billions of years to evolve on this planet is because it gives people a way out of believing the biblical account.
And actually, no mutation is required to make this happen-- it happens regularly with animal husbandry, where the gene pool is manipulated by e.g. dog owners by selective breeding for desired characteristics. You can start with two wolves (wild stock with all genetic material present) and eventually get every variety of dog.
Natural selection is not a species ELIMINATOR. It is rather a bad-mutation filter.
All three varieties of grass were possible in the original genetic makeup of the grass DNA, otherwise the gene(s) which could be turned on/off by mutation would not have been there to be turned on/off.
So, my point still stands. Yes, mutations can cause a variety of species to show up, that is well known. But all of those species, while not known of, were latent in the genetic makeup of the organism.
Okay, I'm not a biologist, so my example may be flawed. None the less, the duplication of DNA does not add any new information, as the purpose of that DNA strand as it is read off must still be the same as before (albeit perhaps activated positively or negatively).
Regarding Dr. Veith, I haven't compared with others but I wouldn't call nearly 30 papers "a handful". As for his health research, true, it is cutting edge, but it follows with some of the best research done by e.g. Loma Linda University and other recent research showing the benefits of a vegan diet. Definitely not quackery.
Dr. Walter Veith, B.Sc. (Hons), M.Sc. (cum laude), Ph.D., noted for his biological research, a distinguished professor from South Africa:
r ofessing_creation.asp?vPrint=1
Would you expect anyone who believes in creation to be well published? Of course not, because of the prejudice against it. However, as long as the articles written don't give away the beliefs of the author, but only deal with facts, some creationists manage to get published in spite of the bias in the system. Of course, most would rather sneer at creationism than provide a counter argument.
Read this for more background:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/p
Wrong. First of all, even improbable events become almost certain, given enough iterations. Take a one-in-a-million event, and give it two million chances... odds are, it will happen twice. It's highly improbable for anyone to win the lottery, yet someone always does. Mutations occur in every living creature, which is a lot of chances.
Which is exactly why I mentioned combinations. In many, many cases, there are interdependent features of an organism, which would both have to have come into being by random chance at the same time. These cases drastically decrease the chances of a successful combination of mutations. Just having one of the mutations would not be sufficient.
Secondly, you're ignoring the fact that what determines a "successful" mutation is natural selection, and nothing else. You're saying, in effect, "after deleterious mutations are weeded out by natural selection, there's nothing left for natrual selection to work with." Silly.
Let me clarify. There is as great a chance of a random mutation reversing a favorable feature as of creating it in the first place. Thus, you cannot just have one successful selection at a time; you must have the positive selections remain "selected" while additional positive selections proceed. Thus, natural selection at the genetic level depends on a pool of successful mutations happening over time, more often than the reverse mutations.
And, at a macro level, natural selection as we actually can observe it today, occurs by successful animal groups flourishing and reproducing, while unsuccessful ones die off. However, this selection can only occur from a diverse genetic pool. In other words, a purebred animal has lost the genetic information that would have made it a mongrel, while the mongrel has a more diverse genetic mix (which is why purebred animals have many diseases and problems mongrels do not have).
Okay, referring to this page: http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_natura lselection.htm
Can we agree that:
"Natural selection is an ELIMINATOR. In other words, if there are two variations of a creature, the theory goes that natural selection chooses the "fittest" or "best", and allows the "unfittest" or "weakest" to become extinct."
In which case, there must be a large number of varieties to select from. Which is where mutations come in. Up to here, we should be in agreement. If not, tell me where I'm off base.
Now, even well known evolutionist writers (e.g. Richard Dawkins) tell us the probability of successful combinations of mutations is very, very low. If so, the probability of having anything for natural selection to operate on is very, very low. Thus, a belief in evolution requires much faith.
Regarding the replacement of genetic information from one of the parents, this assumes you have parents to begin with. At the individual cell's level, if you have DNA, you must have a working cell of some sort (we've at this point skipped past millions of years of evolution...). Anyway, assuming you have a working cell with DNA, any mutation will either be a change or loss of existing information. This would be analogous to (for example) a 4k memory chip with all bits set or cleared to important values. Changing any of those bits will not add additional information, as it can only replace existing values in the process. If those values were important, then the result was a loss of information. If negligible (e.g. eye color) then it was not a loss, but neither was it a gain. In no case could it be a gain, because for that gene to have meaning the cell must already have a mechanism for translating that gene into a productive feature. (In the computer analogy, there must be a separate program for operating on the 4k of data in the memory chip, otherwise the memory has no useful function).
The same principles apply at lower or higher levels of evolutionary development.
As for the assertion you make that "There are people in non-biological specialties who stumble across some bullshit that confirms their preconceived notions", the professor whose articles I referred to was a noted professor of evolutionary biology, with the preconceived notion of atheism and evolution, yet the evidence he found was compelling enough to change his mind.
Sure, everybody has preconceived opinions-- but I suspect that for many evolutionists, it is their strong desire to eliminate God from the equation that drives their research. Not surprising when you consider how badly Christians have misrepresented God at times.
Regarding his comments on natural selection, I assume you are referring to these:
a lselection.htm
o metricdating.htm), he did provide references to respected scientific journals. If even one example shows a system to be flawed, I would be cautious about trusting it without cross checking. The book you linked to (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html) is interesting, and did claim numerous cross checks have been done. Still, these can only show accuracy into the known past, and don't deal with possible changes in the ratios of elements measured in the various tests (though the linked book asserts that such changes are unlikely).
http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_natur
I'd be interested to hear any comments on these. They seem compelling to me, especially coming from a respected biologist. (And yes, I have had college level science classes).
Regarding his "hilarious" assertions about radiometric dating (http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_radi
Another possibility I didn't see addressed on either site is that the elements of the earth have been around in their present form much longer than life on earth, thus explaining the great age of the rocks, while leaving room for the possibility of life on earth relatively recently.
Yes, evolution has been tested by predictions of what we might find in the fossil record. However, it has not always passed the test. Geologists and biologists have repeatedly been surprised when they didn't find what they expected. Of course, they adjusted the theory each time.
h tm
However, what if there was another way to explain the evidence?
There is. Check out the site of this noted biologist, a former atheist, who became a creationist based on the evidence he uncovered:
http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_main.
Actually, there are some noted scientists who believe in an intelligent designer. One, a biologist who was formerly atheist, became a creationist because of the evidence he discovered in his research:
h tm
http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_main.
As for your argument, yes, evolution is a logical system. That doesn't mean it is correct, as something can be internally logical but not have all the facts. Neither does creationism have all the facts, but the point is, it does have at least as much evidence in it's favor as evolution does.
There are a number of misconceptions taught in schools (if not in higher scientific circles) that are not very scientific. For example, the idea that natural selection can cause evolution. Natural selection can only (as the name would indicate) choose among existing genetic material. Another one, that DNA mutations can cause evolution, is more likely, but in most known cases, it actually causes "devolution". In fact, even the cases which seem to provide benefits to the offspring can be shown to be a loss of genetic information.
So, to summarize, it's not all as cut and dried as it might seem. Check out the evidence at the link above, and from other scientific sources who aren't blatantly anti-creationist, and give both sides a fair hearing.
If you only take part of the Bible as literally true, your faith will fall like a pack of cards. What is the logical reason for the need of a savior if death (evolution over time) came before sin?
h tm
On the other hand, you don't need to check your brain at the door when becoming a Christian. Here's a noted biologist, former atheist, who became a creationist based on the evidence he discovered:
http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_main.
You sound very angry.
h tm
Okay, I'll bite on the last one. Let's say we don't stop teaching evolution, but at least allow an alternate view, of the best of modern biology, to be presented. Here's a noted biologist, former atheist, who became a creationist based on the evidence he discovered:
http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_main.
The problem is, the fossils that supposedly clearly point to evolution, don't actually do that so clearly after all. Darwin had a theory for which he was trying to find evidence, and since then, the evidence has been increasingly against the theory.
If you look at the supposed age of fossils, as I have, you will discover a series of assumptions which depend upon each other in a circular fashion. For example, these fossils are X million years old because they are in this layer. This layer is X million years old, because we found Y fossil in it, which we know to be X million years old, because it is always found in the same layer elsewhere. Other dating methods make assumptions of (for example) constant radio isotope decay rates (when in fact we know the rates can change based on outside factors). There are the stalactites that are "millions of years old", which turn out to have grown in the last century. And the fossilized trees, which look strangely similar to ones covered by Mount St. Helens.
Regarding point two, there are those who don't see a conflict between evolution and a creator. It is certainly possible, if you disregard the biblical record. The problem here is if you believe there was death (evolution over time) before "sin", then there is no logical basis for a savior. Then, the reason for the existence of Christianity is gone.
So, to be consistent, you must either throw out Christianity or evolution. Before you discard Christianity, I suggest at least giving a fair hearing to the intelligent design argument-- from an informed scientist, not a "bible beating fundamentalist" who doesn't really know why they believe what they believe. Check out this site by a noted biologist, former atheist, who based on the evidence he uncovered, became a creationist:
http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/beginning_main.h tm