Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

jpapadpapa · Jan 25, 2004, 09:33 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
While I realize the article was not meant as a complete case against evolution, it would help if one could have shown that evolution has never been observed, before making use of Einstein's Gulf to disprove it. This is purely rhetorical because, as I established on page one, it has.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually, I don't believe that you did establish that. You showed that sometimes a loss of genetic material can be beneficial, but isn't this just natural selection? There is a common misconception that Creationists do not believe in natural selection. There is no doubt that occasionally a genetic mutation will be beneficial, but it is still a loss or corruption of genetic information. No one has observed evolution in action. No one has observed one species change into another.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
*yawn*
You know if you want what to take it personal thats fine but stop acting so ignorant, all the science is available readily for you and we will do nothing to stop you learning from it. And seeing as you're on the internet, there's no excuse not know the facts, especially when you make bold claims such as "The point that needs to be made is that scientists have yet to find a mutation that actually increases genetic information", when quite clearly thats wrong. You didn't even make it out like you were perhaps unsure, you basically stated that like it was a fact. And thats what pisses me off.

Anyway, look here and scroll down to Deletions and Insertions.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

As for this arguement, here's a great quotation I found from a question and answer session:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I had an evolutionist biologist tell me that new information could be added through polyploidal mutations and successive mutations. What’s wrong with this?

Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc. do not help the evolutionary cause. While they represent an increase in amount of DNA, they do not constitute an increase in the amount of functional genetic information—these create nothing new. Molecules-to-man evolution needs new genes (for making feathers on reptiles, for example). <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Also, I think if the question raised by Einstein's Gulf is a valid one, then it deserves to be answered regardless of the purported proof of evolution. If we assume that evolution is true, then why don't we try to explain this idea?

Finally, I found another site that may be of interest to some:

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/index.htm

Jan 25, 2004, 09:33 pm	#67 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by While I realize the article was not meant as a complete case against evolution, it would help if one could have shown that evolution has never been observed, before making use of Einstein's Gulf to disprove it. This is purely rhetorical because, as I established on page one, it has.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually, I don't believe that you did establish that. You showed that sometimes a loss of genetic material can be beneficial, but isn't this just natural selection? There is a common misconception that Creationists do not believe in natural selection. There is no doubt that occasionally a genetic mutation will be beneficial, but it is still a loss or corruption of genetic information. No one has observed evolution in action. No one has observed one species change into another. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by yawn You know if you want what to take it personal thats fine but stop acting so ignorant, all the science is available readily for you and we will do nothing to stop you learning from it. And seeing as you're on the internet, there's no excuse not know the facts, especially when you make bold claims such as "The point that needs to be made is that scientists have yet to find a mutation that actually increases genetic information", when quite clearly thats wrong. You didn't even make it out like you were perhaps unsure, you basically stated that like it was a fact. And thats what pisses me off. Anyway, look here and scroll down to Deletions and Insertions.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> As for this arguement, here's a great quotation I found from a question and answer session: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I had an evolutionist biologist tell me that new information could be added through polyploidal mutations and successive mutations. What’s wrong with this? Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc. do not help the evolutionary cause. While they represent an increase in amount of DNA, they do not constitute an increase in the amount of functional genetic information—these create nothing new. Molecules-to-man evolution needs new genes (for making feathers on reptiles, for example). <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Also, I think if the question raised by Einstein's Gulf is a valid one, then it deserves to be answered regardless of the purported proof of evolution. If we assume that evolution is true, then why don't we try to explain this idea? Finally, I found another site that may be of interest to some: http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/index.htm I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.