New Book - The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

[Crunchy Cat]

Yes, the initial conditions are an issue.

Say, you wanted life to be a hunk of lead as a starting point.

Would your silly theory hold up?

Generally, when you are interested in a topic you look at the subject matter. Does it seem likely that a hunk of lead is a subject matter for life? One of the issues with your approach is that it is not clear what you are after. Are you trying to understand how life on Earth started? The answer is nobody knows; however, there are theories based on existing evidence. The one thing that is clear is that life did start on Earth at some point as very simple organisms. The farthest tracable common ancestor to humans are virus'.

From my POV you are evaluating my thinking from your standards.

I would never write this.

Flawed thinking (usually due to various forms of bias) is the number one obstacle to understanding.

 

[Trippy]

No, again as I just posted to Noodler “Natural Selection” is not Evolution.

Ummmm...

Yes, it is...
Natural Selection on Wiki

Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

It even cites one of the specific examples that I mentioned:

The natural genetic variation within a population of organisms means that some individuals will survive and reproduce more successfully than others in their current environment. For example, the peppered moth exists in both light and dark colors in the United Kingdom, but during the industrial revolution many of the trees on which the moths rested became blackened by soot, giving the dark-colored moths an advantage in hiding from predators. This gave dark-colored moths a better chance of surviving to produce dark-colored offspring, and in just a few generations the majority of the moths were dark.

 

[noodler]

But here is the thing, we don’t find the evidences for this in the fossil record.

You're saying there's no evidence for natural selection in the fossil record? Which fossil record is this?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Incorrect. Logic is a human abstraction of basic observable relationships.

Incorrect. I can produce correct logical statements that are incorrect in reality.

Can you see you contradict yourself?

Not at all. The abstraction of logic is very basic. There are many many more relationships that are not basic which is why logic is not representative of all of reality. Take the relationship of eigenstates for example. They are very real, they are detectable, and they are anything but basic. Logic is a great tool to help explore and understand them; however, logic on its own will never ever produce an eigenstate... ever. Similary, because logic is so basic it can be formulated into assertions that are logically correct except they don't match reality.

 

[James R]

Jack_:

Can you give me an example of a recursive function so I know what you're talking about?

wiki it

I don't want wikipedia's definition. I want yours.

No it doesn't. The start of life is not part of the theory of evolution.

This is silly, if you do not know the properties of the starting point, how can you possibly know the properties down the road.

This sounds like science to me.

There are many areas of science where we don't know the "starting point". Science often discovers parts of the solution to a mystery and not the whole mystery. Gradually, scientists chip away at the frontiers of knowledge. That's how science works.

But, life is proven more than can be expressed by chemistry.

Got a reference to the proof?

Sure, I do not need one.

When do planets defy the laws of nature?

Do they ever get away from their orbits because they want to.

Say, are you going to let me teach you about the failings of Relativity or are you going to run in that thread?

One minute you're talking about life and chemistry; the next you're talking about planetary motion and relativity. Try to stay on topic, please.

I asked you for the proof that life is "more than can be expressed by chemistry". I'm still waiting.


Crunchy Cat:

I think he is referring to a recursive function...

You and I may have an idea what he's referring to. I want to see if he knows what he's talking about. He looked like he knew something about relativity in another thread, but on further inspection it turned out that he didn't.

 

[Anita Meyer]

“ Originally Posted by Anita Meyer
No, again as I just posted to Noodler “Natural Selection” is not Evolution. ”

Ummmm...

Yes, it is...
Natural Selection on Wiki

Trippy, I’m not denying natural selection isn’t happening… what I am saying is that linking natural selection to evolutionary processes is all postulation!

There is no proof of it. The DNA is still the same… the birds that had adapted here on the Galapagos island are still the same bird with a little variation in the beaks since they may feed off of narrow flowers which they need to get their beak into on a continual basis for food.

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

 

[noodler]

The DNA is still the same… the birds that had adapted here on the Galapagos island are still the same bird with a little variation

So, you have a genetic analysis of the Galapagos finches that shows they all have the same DNA, there are no unique genetic alterations, or genes that have been lost (as you have claimed is what speciation causes--the loss of information)?

Isn't the lost information just rewritten as different information,in fact?

 

[Trippy]

Trippy, I’m not denying natural selection isn’t happening… what I am saying is that linking natural selection to evolutionary processes is all postulation![

There is no proof of it. The DNA is still the same… the birds that had adapted here on the Galapagos island are still the same bird with a little variation in the beaks since they may feed off of narrow flowers which they need to get their beak into on a continual basis for food.

Seriously.
You're trying to tell me that you don't think that beak morphology in Darwin's Finches is controled by Genetics?

Do you want me to link to a couple of papers that I've found that tie beak morphology and skeletal structure in Darwin's Finches to the expression of certain genes, and the enzymes they control?

They might be strongly similar, but I doubt they're identical.

Besides which, you're completely missing the point that I was referring to, inspite of my explicit statements that I wasn't referring to that specific aspect.

I was referring to the responses of Geopsiza fortis and G. Scadens on the island of Daphne to the changes in the specific make up of the biomass in response el nino/la nina conditions. One set of conditions favours seeds of a certain type, while the other set favours seeds of another type. In response to these changes, the finches evolve between two significantly different populations with statistically significant differences in beak morphology.

If nothing else, the evolution of things such as MRSA prooves you wrong.

 

[Trippy]

Darwin's finches: Population variation and sympatric speciation

Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin's Finches

A phylogeny of Darwin's finches based on microsatellite DNA length variation

Thirty years of evolution in Darwin's finches

Genetic Control of Beak Variation in Darwin’s Finches: The Long and Short of It

Beak Variation in Darwin's Finches: It's in the Genes

The Phylogeny paper is especially important, because it details the radiation of Darwins Finches from their common ancestor BY GENETIC ANALYSIS.

 

[Enmos]

Trippy, I’m not denying natural selection isn’t happening… what I am saying is that linking natural selection to evolutionary processes is all postulation!

Err.. natural selection IS an evolutionary (mechanism) process.

There is no proof of it.

Yes, there is.

The DNA is still the same…

No, it isn't.

the birds that had adapted here on the Galapagos island are still the same bird with a little variation in the beaks since they may feed off of narrow flowers which they need to get their beak into on a continual basis for food.

Wrong. Environmental pressures (such as available food sources) selected for different kinds of beaks. With a different food source comes a different lifestyle etc. This is, together with isolation, how speciation occurs.

 

[Anita Meyer]

Trippy,

Firstly, thank you for all the supplied links, however these are nothing I haven’t read already in past studies.

Originally Posted by Anita
The DNA is still the same… the birds that had adapted here on the Galapagos island are still the same bird with a little variation ”

So, you have a genetic analysis of the Galapagos finches that shows they all have the same DNA, there are no unique genetic alterations, or genes that have been lost (as you have claimed is what speciation causes--the loss of information)?

Isn't the lost information just rewritten as different information,in fact?

Seriously.
You're trying to tell me that you don't think that beak morphology in Darwin's Finches is controled by Genetics?

Do you want me to link to a couple of papers that I've found that tie beak morphology and skeletal structure in Darwin's Finches to the expression of certain genes, and the enzymes they control?

They might be strongly similar, but I doubt they're identical.

Besides which, you're completely missing the point that I was referring to, inspite of my explicit statements that I wasn't referring to that specific aspect.

I was referring to the responses of Geopsiza fortis and G. Scadens on the island of Daphne to the changes in the specific make up of the biomass in response el nino/la nina conditions. One set of conditions favours seeds of a certain type, while the other set favours seeds of another type. In response to these changes, the finches evolve between two significantly different populations with statistically significant differences in beak morphology.

If nothing else, the evolution of things such as MRSA prooves you wrong.

Firstly Trippy, in order to say that something has mutated you need to have added DNA, which is not the case here. I’m not saying there is no tandem repeats (duplicates) in the DNA and I’m not saying either that the DNA is not rearranged. But what I am saying is that in order for you to claim that an animal has evolved or mutated you first have to show proof of ADDED information - as in new DNA that was not previously there before.

In which to my knowledge HAS NOT HAPPENED!

Now when you talk about the MRSA bacteria the same thing applies here. This in not a step up in evolution, since the MRSA bacteria has neither added information or a loss of information. It is still the same bacteria with its original DNA. MRSA has become immune to certain antibiotics because some receptors (that it already had in its DNA) had been turned on to allow it to survive in an hostile environment. But there is no proof that any new information was added. Now if MRSA does not function as it should this tells us that it has a loss of information in its geno.

What I’m trying to put across to you Trippy and whoever else may be reading… You cannot claim evolution or mutation has occurred without first proving that NEW DNA has been added that was not previously there before and this cannot be tandem repeats or rearrangements in the geno. Therefore "natural selection" is not mutation and does not make/change a living thing into something else. Cats are still cats and dogs are still dogs!


Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

 

[sifreak21]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=595Hy-te7-E

evolution micro vs macro explained check it out anita and others

 

[spidergoat]

Anita, you are incorrect. First of all, it's not at all certain what information means in terms of quantifying it. Secondly, evolution is just change, not necessarily additions.

 

[Trippy]

Firstly Trippy, in order to say that something has mutated you need to have added DNA, which is not the case here. I’m not saying there is no tandem repeats (duplicates) in the DNA and I’m not saying either that the DNA is not rearranged. But what I am saying is that in order for you to claim that an animal has evolved or mutated you first have to show proof of ADDED information - as in new DNA that was not previously there before.

In which to my knowledge HAS NOT HAPPENED!

Un. Believable.
First you try to redefine evolution.
Then you try to redefine natural selection.
Now you're trying to redefine mutation?

I suggest you toddle off down to the nearest bookshop, buy yourself a dictionary, and look the word up.

http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/BioInfo/MUT/Mut.Definition.html

A Mutation occurs when a DNA gene is damaged or changed in such a way as to alter the genetic message carried by that gene.

Beak morphology is controled by enzymes.
Enzymes are controled by genes.
There are genetic differences between the different species of Darwins Finch.

Now when you talk about the MRSA bacteria the same thing applies here. This in not a step up in evolution, since the MRSA bacteria has neither added information or a loss of information. It is still the same bacteria with its original DNA. MRSA has become immune to certain antibiotics because some receptors (that it already had in its DNA) had been turned on to allow it to survive in an hostile environment. But there is no proof that any new information was added. Now if MRSA does not function as it should this tells us that it has a loss of information in its geno.

What I’m trying to put across to you Trippy and whoever else may be reading… You cannot claim evolution or mutation has occurred without first proving that NEW DNA has been added that was not previously there before and this cannot be tandem repeats or rearrangements in the geno. Therefore "natural selection" is not mutation and does not make/change a living thing into something else. Cats are still cats and dogs are still dogs!

Wrong.
It's only neccessary to show that an inheritable trait has changed.
Beak morphology is an inheritable trait.
Drug resistance is an inheritable trait.

 

[Anita Meyer]

Enzymes are controled by genes.

No it just proves that some enzymes that were already there in the first place (in the DNA) where turned on while others may have been turned off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=595Hy-te7-E

evolution micro vs macro explained check it out anita and others

There is still no ADDED INFORMATION even if it is someone’s “opinion” concerning Micro and Macro… In the end, Dogs are still dogs and Cats are still cats no matter which way the evolutionist wishes to see it!

Delusions about this resemble the wings of an Ostrich.


Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

 

[spidergoat]

Dog and cats had a common ancestor that was neither a dog or a cat. In fact, dogs didn't even exist before people created them. They are domesticated, which is a form of artificial selection. And show us your tits.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

There is still no ADDED INFORMATION even if it is someone’s “opinion” concerning Micro and Macro… In the end, Dogs are still dogs and Cats are still cats no matter which way the evolutionist wishes to see it!

The problem with the "no new information" stance is that if the religious fanatic who is quoting it is asked to define what they actually mean by "information" it invariably leads them to a position where numerous irrefutable biological examples of "new information" can be presented to them.

Thus they deliberately hide what is precisely meant by information and always refuse to define it - thus if examples are given prior to defining it they are able to hand-wave away the example by claiming it doesnt fit the criteria which they refuse to elaborate upon.

So Anita - would you care to give us a clear definition of what you mean by information?

Can you also give us a hypothetical example of what would be classed as new information?

 

[sifreak21]

No it just proves that some enzymes that were already there in the first place (in the DNA) where turned on while others may have been turned off.





There is still no ADDED INFORMATION even if it is someone’s “opinion” concerning Micro and Macro… In the end, Dogs are still dogs and Cats are still cats no matter which way the evolutionist wishes to see it!

Delusions about this resemble the wings of an Ostrich.


Author Anita Meyer anitameyer@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/theprimordiallanguage.html

so monkeys and humans were never one in the same?

 

[Trippy]

No it just proves that some enzymes that were already there in the first place (in the DNA) where turned on while others may have been turned off.

And how, precisely, do you think that occurs.

BY CHANGES IN GENETIC STRUCTURE and genetic information.

 

[spidergoat]

New evidence that the spiral formed symbolic writing as long as 30,000 years ago:

The next most prolific signs were the open angle symbol and the dots, both appearing at 42 per cent of the sites throughout this period. The vast majority of the remaining symbols are each present in around one-fifth of the French caves, the exceptions being the cordiform (roughly a love-heart shape), reniform (kidney shape), scalariform (ladder shape) and spiral, which all turned up in just a handful of sites. "The spiral only appears in two out of the 146 sites throughout the entire time period, which really surprised me as it is a common motif in many later cultures," says von Petzinger.​

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527481.200-the-writing-on-the-cave-wall.html