Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
There is still not one example given of NEW genetic information being created. Not one EVER.

Only mutations and duplications.

The reason that I continue to raise the same point is because there has not been one answer to it. NOT ONE.

It is completely laughable.
You'll write paragraphs upon paragraphs that are all meaningless and not provide me with one example.

I love it.
 
I don't want any discussion.
I don't want any well worded paragraphs.

Give me one example. In 1-2 sentences.
It cannot be a mutation or duplication.


GIVE ME JUST 1 EXAMPLE OR SHUT UP
SIMPLE
 
pavilion103 said:
There is still not one example given of NEW genetic information being created. Not one EVER.

Only mutations and duplications.

The reason that I continue to raise the same point is because there has not been one answer to it. NOT ONE.

It is completely laughable.
You'll write paragraphs upon paragraphs that are all meaningless and not provide me with one example.

I love it.
Click to expand...

Whats your definition for information?
 
Bottom line is you need a "gain-of-function"

This doesn't include:
Adaptive Immunity
Gene duplication
Degraded information
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria

Go ahead and give me 1 example.
1-2 sentences.
 
Just posting this here because I forgot to watch it...did anyone watch it?

"Everything And Nothing" S1 Ep2 - "Nothing" SBS on Demand:
http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/144367171515/Everything-And-Nothing-S1-Ep2-Nothing
Aired on 23 February 2014, Expires on 2 March 2014, 11:05pm.

Nothing - In the second part of this intriguing documentary, Professor Jim Al-Khalili explores science at the very limits of human perception, where we now understand the deepest mysteries of the universe lie. Jim sets out to answer one very simple question - what is nothing? His journey ends with perhaps the most profound insight about reality that humanity has ever made. Everything came from nothing. The quantum world of the super-small shaped the vast universe we inhabit today, and Jim can prove it. (Part 2 of 2) (From the UK) (Documentary)

In the beginning was energy.
Energy created matter and antimatter theoretically in equal proportions.
For every matter particle created, an antimatter particle was supposed to have been created, eg. electrons and positrons, neutrinos and antineutrinos.
This has been experimentally observed on frequent occasions in nuclear laboratories.
A complete periodic table of antimatter was envisaged by Charles Janet in 1929.
In 1995, CERN announced that it had successfully brought into existence nine antihydrogen atoms.
On 26 April 2011, ALPHA announced that they had trapped 309 antihydrogen atoms, some for as long as 1,000 seconds (about 17 minutes).
Antimatter cannot be stored in a container made of ordinary matter because antimatter reacts with any matter it touches, annihilating itself and an equal amount of the container.

Most of the matter and antimatter that formed initially during the Big Bang mutually annihilated, except for the matter of which our universe is composed.
The background radiation that appears as "snow" on analogue TV is thought to be the energy released by this annihilation.

The Dirac equation, formulated by Paul Dirac around 1928 as part of the development of relativistic quantum mechanics, predicts the existence of antiparticles along with the expected solutions for the corresponding particles. Since that time, it has been verified experimentally that every known kind of particle has a corresponding antiparticle. The CPT Theorem guarantees that a particle and its antiparticle have exactly the same mass and lifetime, and exactly opposite charge. Given this symmetry, it is puzzling that the universe does not have equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Indeed, there is no experimental evidence that there are any significant concentrations of antimatter in the observable universe.

There are two main interpretations for this disparity: either the universe began with a small preference for matter (total baryonic number of the universe different from zero), or the universe was originally perfectly symmetric, but somehow a set of phenomena contributed to a small imbalance in favour of matter over time. The second point of view is preferred, although there is no clear experimental evidence indicating either of them to be the correct one.
 
Religion obvious has no place in the science class.
Click to expand...

Agreed

But intelligent design (any sort if a creator) is a (the only) logical conclusion based on scientific evidence.
Click to expand...

No it's not, If you think it is, go prove it scientifically and get your nobel prize.

Teach natural selection and the loss of genetic information and duplications and mutations. But then say there are two schools of thought.


1) intelligent design - because of xyz
2) macro evolution - because of xyz
Click to expand...

intelligent design is to the evolution theory what Astrology is to Astronomy.

There is no scientific debate on the two options, evolution is proven intelligent design is not. All the nonsense about there being two competing theories is nonsense.

intelligent design isn't even a theory, it's a hypothesis that is baseless.

If the two ideas were people, evolution would be a person who has graduated with multiple diplomas and a PHD while intelligent design is at his first day of kinder garden and he forgot his lunch.


To present one and not the other is intellectually dishonest. You wouldn't go I to great detail on either but you'd raise both as possible proposed explanations.
Click to expand...

They are not equal,

Science classes teach real science,

They teach Astronomy not Astrology
they teach heliocentric models not geocentric models
they teach spherical earth not flat earth

its not up to the science class to examine every crack pot theory that hasn't been proven.
 
pavilion103 said:
Religion obvious has no place in the science class.

But intelligent design (any sort if a creator) is a (the only) logical conclusion based on scientific evidence.

Teach natural selection and the loss of genetic information and duplications and mutations. But then say there are two schools of thought.

1) intelligent design - because of xyz
2) macro evolution - because of xyz

To present one and not the other is intellectually dishonest. You wouldn't go I to great detail on either but you'd raise both as possible proposed explanations.
Click to expand...

Hey pavillion,

A couple of times I've tried to engage you in the other religion thread (which you seem to be taking a break from) about your assertions regarding evolution and directed you to a couple of sources of information that dispute your claims.

You've always avoided the topic and never engaged with me in any meaningful dialogue, and then seemed to leave the thread.

Nevertheless I thought I would try again.

Have you read any of the following books by Frank Ryan?

Darwin's Blind Spot.
Mystery of Metamorphosis
Virolution

All thought-provoking reads that you might enjoy.




Cheers

Sir O
 
Sir Osisofliver said:
Hey pavillion, A couple of times I've tried to engage you in the other religion thread (which you seem to be taking a break from) about your assertions regarding evolution and directed you to a couple of sources of information that dispute your claims. You've always avoided the topic and never engaged with me in any meaningful dialogue, and then seemed to leave the thread. Nevertheless I thought I would try again. Have you read any of the following books by Frank Ryan? Darwin's Blind Spot. Mystery of Metamorphosis Virolution All thought-provoking reads that you might enjoy. Cheers Sir O
Click to expand...

Hey mate.
Apologies if it appears that I have avoided you in the past.
With these threads I tend to come and go a bit depending on what other thing I'd like to focus on.

I enjoy the discussion but there isn't too much point spending forever on it.

Happy to discuss things with you, as with anyone else.
 
Our culture is based on Christianity and our laws are based on Christian principals.

Christianity is part of our history and there is absolutely NO reason it shouldn't be discussed in schools as part of a RE program.

If/when science discovers ALL of the answers to how we got here, that might be the time to review the content of the RE program, but it's still an undeniable part of our history so should always have a place in our education system.

Since we have become a multicultural society, other religions could get a brief mention so that if children want to investigate them further that's up to them.

Our government should FIRMLY resist the atheist's desire to keep the children of today ignorant of our Christian history.
 
pavilion103 said:
And no I haven't read those books.
Click to expand...

Well they are easily available to you, you can find them at public libraries... warning you now that they will directly challenge your assertions.

I found them very interesting reading as many people think they understand Evolution, and these books have an impressive level of perspective.

What are your views out of curiosity?
Click to expand...

My views on ...

Religion...... (not usually complementary)
Science..... (interesting...but full of specialities that are generally beyond me)
Scepticism.... (healthy)
Philosophy.... (my own...)
Things metaphysical... (I enjoy finding wonder)

Cheers

Sir O
 
pavilion103 said:
I don't want any discussion.
I don't want any well worded paragraphs.

Give me one example. In 1-2 sentences.
It cannot be a mutation or duplication.


GIVE ME JUST 1 EXAMPLE OR SHUT UP
SIMPLE
Click to expand...

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/new-genes-arise-quickly/

shutup.jpg

Surely if genes are mutating then this is the most obvious sign of evolution? Or did some deity programme the genes to mutate and form "new" genes?
 
trainspotter said:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/new-genes-arise-quickly/ <img src="https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=56950"/> Surely if genes are mutating then this is the most obvious sign of evolution? Or did some deity programme the genes to mutate and form "new" genes?
Click to expand...

They are not experiencing a gain of function.
Mutation only deals with information already present.

Can anyone else provide a better answer?

One example please people.
 
pavilion103 said:
An encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose
Click to expand...

Life is not an information phenomena. It's a biochemical one.
DNA does not store information, just biochemical potential, subject to the laws of physics and chemistry, not the laws of information.
DNA is NOT information. Just a complex molecule whose structure decides its function. It doesn't send information to RNA to create proteins. It just reacts.
Evolution only requires the genetic code to change. Nothing more.
 
pavilion103 said:
They are not experiencing a gain of function.
Mutation only deals with information already present.

Can anyone else provide a better answer?

One example please people.
Click to expand...

Ermmmm you obviously did not read the link?

Once the new function has been assumed, and the gene is essential, selection then acts to preserve its new function by eliminating new mutations (“purifying selection”).
Click to expand...
 
pavilion103 said:
They are not experiencing a gain of function.
Mutation only deals with information already present.

Can anyone else provide a better answer?

One example please people.
Click to expand...

Are you asking for Saltation?

"In biology, saltation (from Latin, saltus, "leap") is a sudden change from one generation to the next, that is large, or very large, in comparison with the usual variation of an organism. The term is used for nongradual changes (especially single-step speciation) that are atypical of, or violate gradualism - involved in modern evolutionary theory."

link
 
And what new function?
What is the example?


And
No I'm not arguing for slow or fast changes.
Just an increase in information.
 
pavilion103 said:
I don't want any discussion.
I don't want any well worded paragraphs.

Give me one example. In 1-2 sentences.
It cannot be a mutation or duplication.


GIVE ME JUST 1 EXAMPLE OR SHUT UP
SIMPLE
Click to expand...

New information is arrived at by a to stage process,

1, duplication of an existing gene

2, Mutation of this new duplicated copy.

here is a video that explains the process and gives examples.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top