Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The quest for new genetic information

Expand Messages
  • annika4se
    Hi,
    Message 1 of 10 , Jan 26, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      <I supplied with you such proof, from the nylon eating
      bacteria. The substrate didn't exist until the
      1930's, so they cannot have had the right enzyme to
      break down that molecule until nylon was first
      invented, because nothing in nature would have given
      them a reason to have such enzyme before the 1930's

      A: I specifically told you to not mention the poor old nylon bug
      since the example has already been refuted thorougly on AiG and
      other YEC sites, and since I'm quite tired of only getting the nylon
      bug as an example of evolution eventhough its not. Since I mentioned
      it, you should have read why it is refuted at AiG and try to list
      arguments against the refutation, but you haven't tried to do that.
      You just repeat what has already been refuted.
      I can therefore remind you from a YEC site; That some germs were
      already resistant to man-made antibiotics before these were invented
      is common knowledge to microbiologists. Soil samples from villages
      where modern antibiotics had never been used show that some of the
      germs are already resistant to drugs like methicillin which have
      never existed in nature. Bacteria revived from the frozen intestines
      of explorers who died in polar expeditions carried resistance to
      several modern antibiotics, which had not been invented when the
      explorers died.
      Bacteria resistance is normally due to LOSS of information (or
      rearrangement) but never due to NEW genetic information. Also:
      1 `Supergerms' are actually not `super' at all. They are generally
      less hardy, and less fit to survive outside of the special
      conditions in hospitals.

      2. There are many instances in which germs become resistant by
      simple selection of resistance which already existed (including
      that `imported' from other bacteria).

      3. Where a mutational defect causes resistance, the survival
      advantage is almost always caused by a loss of information. In no
      case is there any evidence of an information-adding, `uphill' change.

      4. `Supergerms' give no evidence to sustain the claim that living
      things evolved from simple to complex, by adding information
      progressively over millions of years.

      > The fact is that I gave you
      > an example of a
      > one due to LOSS of genetic info,

      And since you misunderstand b-d to be something other
      than more complex info, no wonder you can't see when
      you've been refuted.

      A: Please read about ribonucleotides, if that's what you are
      referring to, on a YEC site. Preferably by Ph D Jonathan Sarfati who
      refutes you here:
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i1/enzymes.asp .
      Besides, don't you realize that you place yourself in a corner by
      not being able to list an example of NEW genetic information, the
      same way I have given you an example of LOSS of genetic info?

      On the contrary, your "rebuttal" to the nylon-eating
      bacteria only show that you completely misunderstand
      what it's breakdown of an artificial substance really
      represents. Nothing in all the world could have
      prepared it to anticipate the need to be able to
      digest nylon, before nylon was invented. How you
      could think they managed to do so without creating new
      genetic information only testifies to your ignorance
      of the matter.

      A: You hereby prove that you have not read about the nylon-bug at a
      YEC site, and it's sad that this poor old bug is the only example
      that evolutionists have to support their case with, and yet it has
      already been refuted! It shows your ignorance to study the nylon
      bugs from other sources than those which are pro evolution.
      I will repeat what AiG says in the end of this e-mail. You can make
      further studies at:
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

      > Quite expected since noone under
      > the sun has been
      > able to do that,

      have you checked every square inch of the universe?

      A: Noone under the sun, has been able to present one valid example
      of new genetic information. Not Richard Dawkins or anyone else. The
      first who suceed must be getting the Nobel prize.

      Rather, you don't understand enough of the primary
      basics of biology to even know whether you've been
      refuted.

      A: And you do? Why do you then try to use the nylon bug as support
      for evolution eventhough it has already been refuted at AiG?

      >> Your questions certainly would never be asked by
      > somebody that had had the first 2 weeks of
      > college-level biology.
      >
      > A: I guess you here mean evolutionists, and of
      > course you're right.

      No, I said "somebody that had had the first 2 weeks of
      college-level biology." I didn't say "evolutionists".

      A: In that case you are wrong, because I can list lots of scientists
      who DO ask similar questions like I do, for instance Ph D Jonathan
      Sarfati that I mentioned previously, or Dr Carl Wieland, etc. You
      are wrong again with other words, and that's probably because you
      refuse to study YEC sites.

      On the contrary, they get a good understanding of the
      basics, so that they have no need to ask the kind of
      questions that misinformed or deliberately deceptive
      creationists ask.

      A: Of course they avoid questions and analogies that make their
      philosophy look silly. They can't avoid the reality though; If they
      are true evolutionists, they must believe that a handful of bacteria
      can turn into football players by themselves. Don't blame me. I'm
      not the one believing in such magic fairy tales. You are!

      No, we are not "debating", when I have to correct your
      understanding of biology 101 with almost every post.

      A: But you are not correcting me. You are only telling me that I'm
      wrong, and you spend lots of texts repeating this. Why don't you
      spend half the amount of words by telling me where I'm wrong? For
      instance, where am I wrong in claiming that Darwinian evolutionists
      believe that a handful of bacteria can turn into football players?
      Isn't this exactly what you believe? Or is there a designer involved
      somehow?

      > I hear lots
      > of claims that I misrepresent evolution, but I hear
      > no attempt for
      > correcting me.

      Take your fingers out of your ears. Or go take
      biology 101 at your local college.

      A: So you don't know where I'm wrong? Just that I'm wrong?
      Hm...Well, I can't blame you for thinking that a handful of bacteria
      can turn into football players. Yet you believe it could.

      First, does sticking with AIG mean that you are too
      afraid to go get educated in evolution by
      evolutionists in college?

      A: Lots of PhD scientists who are creationists (or ALL of them) have
      received their PhD through secular studies at colleges/universities.

      Second, I wasn't listing the nylon-eating bacteria as
      "microevolution" per se, but as proof of genetic
      change toward more complexity.

      A: Fine, but it's not evidence towards complexity either. So you
      haven't accomplished anything. I asked you to give examples of NEW
      genetic info.

      Because that's abiogenesis, a science that is still
      young, and quite distinct from the issue of already
      existing genes recoding for more complex organisms.

      A: The problem of abiogenesis won't go away if you ignore it. I
      don't believe that football players can arise by themselves from
      nothing, which you are forced to believe. Yet you seem to be of the
      opinion that evolution is so true (evolution must include
      abiogenesis) that it doesn't need to be proven.

      Doesn't matter, the use of existing genes is what
      eventually results in new species. By the way, before
      you ask me for proof of this, how do you define a
      "species"?

      A: So, legs, trunks, eyes, etc did swim around in the primeval goo
      after all since you say that they already existed?
      We are not able to make proper lists with which animal belong to
      which specie (because we don't know which the most original animals
      were) but we have some clues in which species animals belong. For
      instance if they can make a profitable offspring together, then they
      belong in the same group. Other similarities can also work as clues.

      [ralph] What do you think these new genes will look like? You
      say you want genes that have never been there before, but all
      genes are exactly the same in their basic configuration. A "new"
      gene is going to consist of the same 4 base nucleotides that all
      the other genes in the organism have. They may be in a different
      order than any other gene, but if the order of the nucleotides is
      what makes a gene new, then all the types of mutations I
      mentioned below make new genes.

      A: Ralph. Evolutionists must believe that the most complex life in
      our past was once a handful of bacteria. No fish, turtles, dogs,
      lions, elephants, etc. They were totally unheard of because they
      hadn't evolved yet. This means that the information for fur, legs,
      eyes, ears, trunks etc were not heard of either. Bacteria had no
      trunks. Why did trunks come about? Can you see the problem? Not even
      if you try to say that all the building blocks were swimming around
      in the magic primeval goo can you solve this question. Building
      blocks cannot think, and definitely not make long term plans. Every
      single stage of change must be advantegous, so why didn't natural
      selection prevent any of the stages in becoming an elephant? How
      come evoluton could plan to give the elephant 4 legs at the right
      places, 2 ears, teeth, stomach, etc at the right places? And slowly,
      during millions of years...



      For Dave about the nylon bug:
      Evidence against the evolutionary explanation includes:

      There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. When
      activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic
      recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature,
      exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. The
      presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests
      that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the bacterium is under
      stress.

      All five transposable elements are identical, with 764 base pairs
      (bp) each. This comprises over eight percent of the plasmid. How
      could random mutations produce three new catalytic/degradative genes
      (coding for EI, EII and EIII) without at least some changes being
      made to the transposable elements? Negoro speculated that the
      transposable elements must have been a `late addition' to the
      plasmids to not have changed. But there is no evidence for this,
      other than the circular reasoning that supposedly random mutations
      generated the three enzymes and so they would have changed the
      transposase genes if they had been in the plasmid all along.
      Furthermore, the adaptation to nylon digestion does not take very
      long (see point 5 below), so the addition of the transposable
      elements afterwards cannot be seriously entertained.

      All three types of nylon degrading genes appear on plasmids and only
      on plasmids. None appear on the main bacterial chromosomes of either
      Flavobacterium or Pseudomonas. This does not look like some random
      origin of these genes—the chance of this happening is low. If the
      genome of Flavobacterium is about two million bp,7 and the pOAD2
      plasmid comprises 45,519 bp, and if there were say 5 pOAD2 plasmids
      per cell (~10% of the total chromosomal DNA), then the chance of
      getting all three of the genes on the pOAD2 plasmid would be about
      0.0015. If we add the probability of the nylon degrading genes of
      Pseudomonas also only being on plasmids, the probability falls to
      2.3 x 10-6. If the enzymes developed in the independent laboratory-
      controlled adaptation experiments (see point 5, below) also resulted
      in enzyme activity on plasmids (almost certainly, but not yet
      determined), then attributing the development of the adaptive
      enzymes purely to chance mutations becomes even more implausible.

      The antisense DNA strand of the four nylon genes investigated in
      Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas lacks any stop codons.8 This is most
      remarkable in a total of 1,535 bases. The probability of this
      happening by chance in all four antisense sequences is about 1 in
      1012. Furthermore, the EIII gene in Pseudomonas is clearly not
      phylogenetically related to the EII genes of Flavobacterium, so the
      lack of stop codons in the antisense strands of all genes cannot be
      due to any commonality in the genes themselves (or in their
      ancestry). Also, the wild-type pOAD2 plasmid is not necessary for
      the normal growth of Flavobacterium, so functionality in the wild-
      type parent DNA sequences would appear not to be a factor in keeping
      the reading frames open in the genes themselves, let alone the
      antisense strands.

      Some statements by Yomo et al., express their consternation:

      `These results imply that there may be some unknown mechanism behind
      the evolution of these genes for nylon oligomer-degrading enzymes.

      `The presence of a long NSF (non-stop frame) in the antisense strand
      seems to be a rare case, but it may be due to the unusual
      characteristics of the genes or plasmids for nylon oligomer
      degradation.

      `Accordingly, the actual existence of these NSFs leads us to
      speculate that some special mechanism exists in the regions of these
      genes.'

      It looks like recombination of codons (base pair triplets), not
      single base pairs, has occurred between the start and stop codons
      for each sequence. This would be about the simplest way that the
      antisense strand could be protected from stop codon generation. The
      mechanism for such a recombination is unknown, but it is highly
      likely that the transposase genes are involved.

      Interestingly, Yomo et al. also show that it is highly unlikely that
      any of these genes arose through a frame shift mutation, because
      such mutations (forward or reverse) would have generated lots of
      stop codons. This nullifies the claim of Thwaites that a functional
      gene arose from a purely random process (an accident).

      The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability
      can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas
      aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of
      degrading nylon oligomers.9 This was achieved in a mere nine days!
      The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for
      such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and
      selection.

      The researchers have not been able to ascertain any putative
      ancestral gene to the nylon-degrading genes. They represent a new
      gene family. This seems to rule out gene duplications as a source of
      the raw material for the new genes.8


      /Ann
    • Ralph Krumdieck
      ... [ralph] What is this information for fur ? What does it consist of? Where can this information be found?
      Message 2 of 10 , Jan 26, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        > [ralph] What do you think these new genes will look like? You
        > say you want genes that have never been there before, but all
        > genes are exactly the same in their basic configuration. A
        > "new"
        > gene is going to consist of the same 4 base nucleotides that
        > all
        > the other genes in the organism have. They may be in a
        > different
        > order than any other gene, but if the order of the nucleotides
        > is
        > what makes a gene new, then all the types of mutations I
        > mentioned below make new genes.
        >
        > A: Ralph. Evolutionists must believe that the most complex life
        > in
        > our past was once a handful of bacteria. No fish, turtles,
        > dogs,
        > lions, elephants, etc. They were totally unheard of because
        > they
        > hadn't evolved yet. This means that the information for fur,
        > legs,
        > eyes, ears, trunks etc were not heard of either. Bacteria had
        > no
        > trunks. Why did trunks come about? Can you see the problem? Not
        > even
        > if you try to say that all the building blocks were swimming
        > around
        > in the magic primeval goo can you solve this question. Building
        > blocks cannot think, and definitely not make long term plans.
        > Every
        > single stage of change must be advantegous, so why didn't
        > natural
        > selection prevent any of the stages in becoming an elephant?
        > How
        > come evoluton could plan to give the elephant 4 legs at the
        > right
        > places, 2 ears, teeth, stomach, etc at the right places? And
        > slowly,
        > during millions of years...

        [ralph] What is this "information for fur"? What does it consist
        of? Where can this information be found?
      • Dave Wave
        ... But I disagree with you and with any website that says it is NOT an example of a beneficial mutation. So i will continue to set it forth as a good example
        Message 3 of 10 , Jan 26, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- annika4se <biggles.flyger@...> wrote:

          > Hi,
          >
          > <I supplied with you such proof, from the nylon
          > eating
          > bacteria. The substrate didn't exist until the
          > 1930's, so they cannot have had the right enzyme to
          > break down that molecule until nylon was first
          > invented, because nothing in nature would have given
          > them a reason to have such enzyme before the 1930's
          >
          > A: I specifically told you to not mention the poor
          > old nylon bug
          > since the example has already been refuted thorougly
          > on AiG and
          > other YEC sites, and since I'm quite tired of only
          > getting the nylon
          > bug as an example of evolution eventhough its not.

          But I disagree with you and with any website that says
          it is NOT an example of a beneficial mutation. So i
          will continue to set it forth as a good example of
          beneficial mutation regardless of your wish to be done
          with it, and continue to request that YOU argue
          against it, instead of hiding behind other website
          articles written by other people, a practice you
          wouldn't accept from an evolutionist if all they did
          was quote talkorigins articles everytime they answered
          you.

          How about if YOU don't bring up the "nylon-bug",
          because AiG has already been refuted by some website?
          Wow, your hiding behind website articles suddenly
          doesn't look too appealing, eh?

          > Since I mentioned
          > it, you should have read why it is refuted at AiG
          > and try to list
          > arguments against the refutation, but you haven't
          > tried to do that.

          that's because I am debating YOU. Not "AiG". If you
          wish to employ their arguments in your defense, YOU
          post them here. Don't waste your time saying AiG has
          already refuted the Nylon-eating bacteria as a model
          for beneficial mutation, if you aren't going to post
          their arguments here. I'm not debating them. Perhaps
          your telling me to go elsewhere to see why you are
          right, testifies to the lack of information you
          personally have on this subject?

          Do you see me telling you to "just" go and look at
          talkorigins or some other pro-evolution site, when you
          disagree with me? How about if I said, "But
          talkorigins has already refuted your denial of the
          nylon-eating bacteria, so if you wish to continue
          disagreeing with me, you should have posted a
          refutation of their arguments." ?

          Do you accept your reasoning when other people use it?


          Didn't think so.

          > You just repeat what has already been refuted.
          > I can therefore remind you from a YEC site; That
          > some germs were
          > already resistant to man-made antibiotics before
          > these were invented
          > is common knowledge to microbiologists. Soil samples
          > from villages
          > where modern antibiotics had never been used show
          > that some of the
          > germs are already resistant to drugs like
          > methicillin which have
          > never existed in nature.

          First, I cannot be expected to 'refute' this, if you
          don't give specifics. YOU brought up this rebuttal.
          So YOU give the specifics. I will not use my response
          time on the computer to hunt down original text
          entries that you just wave off to me. and No, you
          can't force into me your own superficial acceptance of
          cited articles. If you want to use the methicillin
          example, I need a lot more than just a casual
          anecdote. YOU are responsible to provide the text for
          articles which YOU use to "refute" me. Would you
          think a casual anecdote from talkorigins, as opposed
          to a full text, would suffice for me to "refute" you?
          You agree then that your citation of a citation at AiG
          doesn't place the other guy under the least bit of
          obligation to do your own footwork for your own
          arguments. Citing an anecdote is NOT an "argument".

          Second, again, if I used a paraphrase or partial quote
          from talkorigins.org, would you use YOUR time to hunt
          down the original text in question? Oh, you don't
          like doing other people's footwork? Neither do I.

          > Bacteria revived from the
          > frozen intestines
          > of explorers who died in polar expeditions carried
          > resistance to
          > several modern antibiotics, which had not been
          > invented when the
          > explorers died.

          Again, please provide the specifics. No, the magazine
          article reference citation isn't good enough. YOU are
          attempting to make use of phrases and arguments IN
          that article, so i want to be sure that you've
          actually seen the article itself and aren't just
          quote-mining. I could throw similar superficial
          quotes and anecdotes at you from talkorigins, but I
          hold myself to a higher standard than to simply pawn
          off my responsibility to answer you, onto some mere
          quote.

          > Bacteria resistance is normally due to LOSS of
          > information (or
          > rearrangement) but never due to NEW genetic
          > information.

          This repeats your previous error of not knowing the
          difference between b-s and b-d, which is otherwise
          standard information on the subject. I already said
          that a loss of information, that turns "I saw the
          batter", into "I saw the bat", thus qualifies as new
          information, simply because the loss changes the
          meaning of the coding sequence entirely, and into
          something that didn't exist before. You merely waved
          that off, seemingly telling of your great lack of
          familiarity with even the basics of the basics of DNA.

          > Also:
          > 1 `Supergerms' are actually not `super' at all. They
          > are generally
          > less hardy, and less fit to survive outside of the
          > special
          > conditions in hospitals.

          Irrelevant.

          > 2. There are many instances in which germs become
          > resistant by
          > simple selection of resistance which already existed
          > (including
          > that `imported' from other bacteria).

          Irrelevant, all we need is a single case of beneficial
          mutation to show how evolution works. Just because
          you refuse to give a concrete definition of
          "information" doesn't give you the right to deny new
          abilities to organisms.

          > 3. Where a mutational defect causes resistance, the
          > survival
          > advantage is almost always caused by a loss of
          > information. In no
          > case is there any evidence of an information-adding,
          > `uphill' change.

          Almost always? What exceptions are you not telling us
          about?

          > 4. `Supergerms' give no evidence to sustain the
          > claim that living
          > things evolved from simple to complex, by adding
          > information
          > progressively over millions of years.
          >
          > > The fact is that I gave you
          > > an example of a
          > > one due to LOSS of genetic info,
          >
          > And since you misunderstand b-d to be something
          > other
          > than more complex info, no wonder you can't see when
          > you've been refuted.
          >
          > A: Please read about ribonucleotides, if that's what
          > you are
          > referring to, on a YEC site. Preferably by Ph D
          > Jonathan Sarfati who
          > refutes you here:
          >
          http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i1/enzymes.asp

          First, no, I wasn't talking about ribonucleotides.

          Second, as I've had to remind you several times
          already, I am debating YOU, not AiG. You will not
          accept refutations of AiG if I simply give the
          internet address of an article at talkorigins, which
          tells me that you don't approve of other people
          following in your own footsteps. The number of times
          you've tried to pawn off your responsibilities to
          other websites hosted by creationists that have
          slightly more familiarity with evolution than you,
          tells me that the only reason you disagree with
          evolution is because you can always quote AiG to
          refute what we say. From now on, when you cite AiG
          articles to "refute" me, I will probably just follow
          your example, and cite talkorigins articles to
          "refute" you, deal?

          > On the contrary, your "rebuttal" to the nylon-eating
          > bacteria only show that you completely misunderstand
          > what it's breakdown of an artificial substance
          > really
          > represents. Nothing in all the world could have
          > prepared it to anticipate the need to be able to
          > digest nylon, before nylon was invented.

          > A: You hereby prove that you have not read about the
          > nylon-bug at a
          > YEC site,

          So? What is your fixation with YEC sites? They seem
          to be your solitary single reason for refusing to
          believe in evolution. How about if I had said "you
          hereby prove that you have not read about the
          nylon-bug at talkorigins"? Would you suddenly start
          taking to yourself MY responsibility to make my own
          arguments?

          Would you use your time refuting articles I never
          wrote? What would you think of an evolutionist that
          quoted from evolutionist sites as often as you quote
          from YEC sites? Wouldn't that give you a hint that
          they honestly didn't have hardly a superficial
          understanding, and THAT'S why they constantly hide
          behind other people's writings? Why do you expect me
          to think any different of a creationist hiding behind
          YEC sites? The whole problem, of course, is that
          instead of "debating" you, I have to "educate" you,
          which I am not willing to do. Your inability to even
          know the basics of dna, such as b-d, which you guessed
          incorrectly was about ribonucleotides, speaks volumes
          about why you depend on everybody else's stuff to make
          your "own" arguments.

          I had hoped that you had at least one year of college
          biology. But this hope of mine is lost. Your
          constant appeal to what somebody else wrote, testifies
          that YOU don't undestand evolution on your own enough
          to make your own arguments against it, otherwise you
          would.

          > and it's sad that this poor old bug is the
          > only example
          > that evolutionists have to support their case with,
          > and yet it has
          > already been refuted!

          It has not been refuted. I'd like to see you explain
          how this code could exist already in bacteria for
          thousands of years without having been mutated in
          oblivian via it's perfect uslessness for thousands of
          years. Then again, maybe all you are going to do is
          hide behind somebody else's writings?

          > It shows your ignorance to
          > study the nylon
          > bugs from other sources than those which are pro
          > evolution.

          On the contrary, I know AiG very well, and they have
          answered nothing, about the only thing they have shown
          with their nylon-bug rebuttal is to demonstrate why
          they need to keep their definition of dna
          "information" top secret.

          > I will repeat what AiG says in the end of this
          > e-mail. You can make
          > further studies at:
          >
          http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

          Oh, well if you can hide behind other people's
          studies, then you surely support me for following your
          lead (unless you think of yourself as a hypocrite for
          expecting more from others than you expect of
          yourself?)

          You can make further studies at:

          http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html

          Now then....do you support my hiding behind other
          people's writings and pawning off my responsibilities
          to answer directly?

          Or do you believe people are more responsible for
          handling criticisms with their own words and
          arguments?

          > > Quite expected since noone under
          > > the sun has been
          > > able to do that,
          >
          > have you checked every square inch of the universe?
          >
          > A: Noone under the sun, has been able to present one
          > valid example
          > of new genetic information. Not Richard Dawkins or
          > anyone else. The
          > first who suceed must be getting the Nobel prize.
          >
          > Rather, you don't understand enough of the primary
          > basics of biology to even know whether you've been
          > refuted.
          >
          > A: And you do? Why do you then try to use the nylon
          > bug as support
          > for evolution eventhough it has already been refuted
          > at AiG?

          What makes you think AiG has refuted it? I just
          showed you an article where a talkorigins rep refuted
          AiG on this point.

          Don't you just love the idea of quoting other people's
          work to "refute" the person YOU are debating?

          > >> Your questions certainly would never be asked by
          > > somebody that had had the first 2 weeks of
          > > college-level biology.
          > >
          > > A: I guess you here mean evolutionists, and of
          > > course you're right.
          >
          > No, I said "somebody that had had the first 2 weeks
          > of
          > college-level biology." I didn't say
          > "evolutionists".
          >
          > A: In that case you are wrong, because I can list
          > lots of scientists
          > who DO ask similar questions like I do, for instance
          > Ph D Jonathan
          > Sarfati that I mentioned previously, or Dr Carl
          > Wieland, etc. You
          > are wrong again with other words, and that's
          > probably because you
          > refuse to study YEC sites.

          Please cite the source for Dr. Jonathan or Wieland,
          asking the same questions you already asked me. Such
          as your asking me for proof of beneficial mutations by
          saying "Can you list 5 examples of positive mutations
          where new genetic information is involved?", wherein
          the Dr.'s adhere to the same understanding of "new
          genetic code" as you do. Ha ha, not likely.

          Of course this is based on your irrational denial that
          a loss or rearrangement of the DNA code doesn't count
          as "new" information, when no evolutionist ever once
          told you that he used anything OTHER than code loss or
          code rearrangement to argue for beneficial mutations.

          What i'd like to know is where you ever got the idea
          that evolutionists ever credited beneficial mutations
          to anything OTHER than loss in the code or
          rearrangments of code. Did you think we just believe
          that brand new code suddenly appeared mysteriously
          inexplicably as if by magic in an organism?

          > On the contrary, they get a good understanding of
          > the
          > basics, so that they have no need to ask the kind of
          > questions that misinformed or deliberately deceptive
          > creationists ask.
          >
          > A: Of course they avoid questions and analogies that
          > make their
          > philosophy look silly.

          That just means you haven't studied talkorigins and
          other evolutionist websites, where they DO take on the
          questions you think aren't answered, or make them look
          silly.

          Then again, I really shouldn't be pawning off my
          responsibility to answer YOU, to other articles
          written by other people, agreed?

          > They can't avoid the reality
          > though; If they
          > are true evolutionists, they must believe that a
          > handful of bacteria
          > can turn into football players by themselves.

          With millions of years to mutate, yes, that can
          happen. But you missed this because it's the first
          thing you learn about evolution in the first college
          introduction to biology, as evidenced by your
          exclusive reliance on other people's responses.

          > No, we are not "debating", when I have to correct
          > your
          > understanding of biology 101 with almost every post.
          >
          > A: But you are not correcting me. You are only
          > telling me that I'm
          > wrong, and you spend lots of texts repeating this.
          > Why don't you
          > spend half the amount of words by telling me where
          > I'm wrong?

          First, I do an awful lot more than simply repeat "you
          are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong," etc, etc....

          Second, I'm debating YOU, not somebody else, and I
          don't find it very honest for you to hide behind other
          people's anti-evolution articles. Your exclusive
          dependence on them signifies a lack of understanding
          of the subject matter on your part, just as surely as
          it would signify an evolutionist's lack of
          understanding, if they did little more to refute YEC
          claims, then simply citing internet articles at
          talkorigins.org.

          Second, I HAVE told you where you are wrong, several
          times, and you have less of a reason to have missed it
          because I didn't hide behind other people's articles,
          such as on the nylon-eating bacteria, whose substrate
          didn't exist before the 1930's, and therefore any gene
          they may have had that would code for a nylon-molecule
          digestion would have been mutated out of existence
          thousands of years ago due to it's perfect
          uselessness. No, your "cites" about frozen bacteria
          in dead polar explorers doesn't refute me, because you
          provide no specifics, telling me that you don't know
          anymore about the article than you think evolutionists
          do. You cannot expect me to refute an article based
          on nothing more than a partial quote of it. So you go
          find the full text of the article and post it, or else
          stop using anecdotes as "rebuttals".

          > For
          > instance, where am I wrong in claiming that
          > Darwinian evolutionists
          > believe that a handful of bacteria can turn into
          > football players?

          You misunderstand new information to be something
          other than loss and recombination, when evolutionists
          never believed speciation occured apart from the same
          dna base.

          Your denials of my proofs for new information not only
          spring from your misunderstanding of what "new genetic
          information" really is, but also spring from your
          irresponsible and exclusive dependence on other
          people's material.

          Ask Robert Bowman, the moderator of this list, whether
          you are performing your own responsibilities in debate
          by giving me little more than "but this has been
          refuted; see the article at
          htttp://www.answersingenesis...." etc. He will tell
          you that your near total dependence on other people's
          articles doesn't look good for your own personal level
          of education on the subject. Indeed, have you said
          ANYTHING on your own, that wasn't %90% relegated to a
          citation from sombody else's stuff?

          And why doesn't Bowman do what you do? Why doesn't
          Bowman simply tell me that my argument against the
          bible has been answered by somebody else's article
          found at another pro-inerrancy site, and precious
          little more, as you do? Why does he make his own
          arguments? Would you recommend that he, or other
          Christians, do as you do?

          > Isn't this exactly what you believe? Or is there a
          > designer involved
          > somehow?

          Your simplistic question can be answered, but involves
          a lot of information. Given your constant hiding
          behind other people's articles, I am fully confident
          of why you are unable to see your errors. Do you
          seriously think that such a question as "How did a
          handful of bacteria turn into football players?" can
          be answered profitably for somebody who hides behind
          other people's anti-evolution articles all the time?
          What evidence do I have that you'd know enough to know
          when you've been rightly answered?Because you always
          hide behind other people's articles? No, that tells
          me you are NOT educated in the subject enough to know
          the difference.

          > First, does sticking with AIG mean that you are too
          > afraid to go get educated in evolution by
          > evolutionists in college?
          >
          > A: Lots of PhD scientists who are creationists (or
          > ALL of them) have
          > received their PhD through secular studies at
          > colleges/universities.

          I'm not debating them. I'm debating YOU. And you
          don't have to take anymore than 1 year of college
          biology to see that you are totally misunderstanding
          the basics of the basics. like I said before,
          "debating" you is taxing on my patience because we
          don't go back and forth on evidence, I end up rather
          having to educate you on the basic stuff.

          > Second, I wasn't listing the nylon-eating bacteria
          > as
          > "microevolution" per se, but as proof of genetic
          > change toward more complexity.
          >
          > A: Fine, but it's not evidence towards complexity
          > either. So you
          > haven't accomplished anything. I asked you to give
          > examples of NEW
          > genetic info.

          Again, your lack of familiarity with the basics is the
          roadblock preventing you from understanding that loss
          and rearrangement of genetic code DO count often as
          "new information".

          Your previous incorrect guessing at what "b-d" or
          "b-s" was, illustrated how much you really don't
          understand, and therefore why you can't see the forest
          for the trees. I chose to use an expression that
          wasn't found on YEC sites, or found by searching any
          search engine, just as a test to see if you had even
          the faintest inkling of the basics of the basics.
          Nope, you failed miserably. "b-d" and "b-s" are what
          you learn in first-year biology in college. No, you
          will NOT find it on Google. Now what do these
          expressions mean?

          What would you think if a loudmouth democract went
          around saying President Bush was a liar, but didn't
          know what "liar" meant? Oh yeah, that's real
          familiarity with the issues, eh?

          That's about what your incorrect guess at what "b-d"
          amounted to. You go around acting and talking as if
          evolution was just so much lies written by liars, yet
          you don't even know the simplest terms associated with
          it! I no longer wonder at why you can't tell when
          you've been successfully answered.

          > Because that's abiogenesis, a science that is still
          > young, and quite distinct from the issue of already
          > existing genes recoding for more complex organisms.
          >
          > A: The problem of abiogenesis won't go away if you
          > ignore it.

          It will go away when I tell you to quit making our
          discussion unneccesarly complex by adding "where did
          the genes originally come from?", to your existing
          question "do you have beneficial mutations based on
          new genetic material?"

          That question can be answered without the slightest
          reference to abiogenesis, so don't make the debate
          more complicated than it needs to be by asking other
          questions that require different responses on
          different subjects. Unless of course you admit you
          have no idea of the things you talk about.

          Like I said, where a car comes from, is quite a
          different matter from how it functions. Please take
          the questions one at a time. We are talking about the
          function of the car (the function of the dna), not
          where the car ultimately originates (not where the dna
          ultimately comes from)

          > I
          > don't believe that football players can arise by
          > themselves from
          > nothing, which you are forced to believe.

          We don't believe "from nothing". At least not us
          evolutionists who advocate an infinite universe.

          > Doesn't matter, the use of existing genes is what
          > eventually results in new species. By the way,
          > before
          > you ask me for proof of this, how do you define a
          > "species"?
          >
          > A: So, legs, trunks, eyes, etc did swim around in
          > the primeval goo
          > after all since you say that they already existed?

          Have you ever read even ONE evolutionary article
          written by an evolutionist that said this? If not,
          then why do you put up this obviously incorrect and
          strawman caricature of evolution? Arms and legs and
          trunks swimming around in goo? What evolutionist said
          that? None, but I'll grant that this obviously
          childish and false caricature of evolution came
          straight from anti-evolution books and websites. They
          repeat this treacherous misunderstanding as if they
          were determined to distance themselves as far from
          college textbooks on biology as the distance around
          the earth would permit.

          > We are not able to make proper lists with which
          > animal belong to
          > which specie (because we don't know which the most
          > original animals
          > were)

          If you had an understanding of basic biology, you'd
          know the tax.

          > but we have some clues in which species
          > animals belong. For
          > instance if they can make a profitable offspring
          > together, then they
          > belong in the same group. Other similarities can
          > also work as clues.

          Thank you. So if they can make a profiable offspring
          together, then they belong to the same group. So
          obviously you believe that inability to reproduce
          between different kinds of animals is a strong
          indicator of distinction between species? You know,
          like a bear cannot produce offspring by mating with a
          lion, agreed?

          > [ralph] What do you think these new genes will look
          > like? You
          > say you want genes that have never been there
          > before, but all
          > genes are exactly the same in their basic
          > configuration. A "new"
          > gene is going to consist of the same 4 base
          > nucleotides that all
          > the other genes in the organism have. They may be in
          > a different
          > order than any other gene, but if the order of the
          > nucleotides is
          > what makes a gene new, then all the types of
          > mutations I
          > mentioned below make new genes.
          >
          > A: Ralph. Evolutionists must believe that the most
          > complex life in
          > our past was once a handful of bacteria. No fish,
          > turtles, dogs,
          > lions, elephants, etc. They were totally unheard of
          > because they
          > hadn't evolved yet. This means that the information
          > for fur, legs,
          > eyes, ears, trunks etc were not heard of either.
          > Bacteria had no
          > trunks. Why did trunks come about? Can you see the
          > problem? Not even
          > if you try to say that all the building blocks were
          > swimming around
          > in the magic primeval goo can you solve this
          > question. Building
          > blocks cannot think, and definitely not make long
          > term plans.

          Water cannot think, so how do you explain that it
          "knows" to move downhill when on an incline? Physical
          properties? Well then, welcome to the world of the
          properties of dna in living systems.

          Every
          > single stage of change must be advantegous, so why
          > didn't natural
          > selection prevent any of the stages in becoming an
          > elephant?

          Wrong, evolution consists mostly of errant changes in
          the genetic code, because the rise in complexity is
          rare. No evolutionist says that all loss or
          rearranged genetic code is necessarily toward better
          survival or more complexity. Lots of living systems
          go extinct.

          > How
          > come evoluton could plan to give the elephant 4 legs
          > at the right
          > places, 2 ears, teeth, stomach, etc at the right
          > places? And slowly,
          > during millions of years...

          What makes you think the elephant's structures are all
          in the right place? The male seahorse carries the
          fertilized eggs in his body, is that the "right"
          place?

          > For Dave about the nylon bug:
          > Evidence against the evolutionary explanation
          > includes:
          >
          > There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2
          > plasmid. When
          > activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause
          > genetic
          > recombination. Externally imposed stress such as
          > high temperature,
          > exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate
          > transposases. The
          > presence of the transposases in such numbers on the
          > plasmid suggests
          > that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the
          > bacterium is under
          > stress.
          >
          > All five transposable elements are identical, with
          > 764 base pairs
          > (bp) each. This comprises over eight percent of the
          > plasmid. How
          > could random mutations produce three new
          > catalytic/degradative genes
          > (coding for EI, EII and EIII) without at least some
          > changes being
          > made to the transposable elements? Negoro speculated
          > that the
          > transposable elements must have been a `late
          > addition' to the
          > plasmids to not have changed. But there is no
          > evidence for this,
          > other than the circular reasoning that supposedly
          > random mutations
          > generated the three enzymes and so they would have
          > changed the
          > transposase genes if they had been in the plasmid
          > all along.
          > Furthermore, the adaptation to nylon digestion does
          > not take very
          > long (see point 5 below), so the addition of the
          > transposable
          > elements afterwards cannot be seriously entertained.
          >
          > All three types of nylon degrading genes appear on
          > plasmids and only
          > on plasmids. None appear on the main bacterial
          > chromosomes of either
          > Flavobacterium or Pseudomonas. This does not look
          > like some random
          > origin of these genes—the chance of this happening
          > is low. If the
          > genome of Flavobacterium is about two million bp,7
          > and the pOAD2
          > plasmid comprises 45,519 bp, and if there were say 5
          > pOAD2 plasmids
          > per cell (~10% of the total chromosomal DNA), then
          > the chance of
          > getting all three of the genes on the pOAD2 plasmid
          > would be about
          > 0.0015. If we add the probability of the nylon
          > degrading genes of
          > Pseudomonas also only being on plasmids, the
          > probability falls to
          > 2.3 x 10-6. If the enzymes developed in the
          > independent laboratory-
          > controlled adaptation experiments (see point 5,
          > below) also resulted
          > in enzyme activity on plasmids (almost certainly,
          > but not yet
          > determined), then attributing the development of the
          > adaptive
          > enzymes purely to chance mutations becomes even more
          > implausible.
          >
          > The antisense DNA strand of the four nylon genes
          > investigated in
          > Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas lacks any stop
          > codons.8 This is most
          > remarkable in a total of 1,535 bases. The
          > probability of this
          > happening by chance in all four antisense sequences
          > is about 1 in
          > 1012. Furthermore, the EIII gene in Pseudomonas is
          > clearly not
          > phylogenetically related to the EII genes of
          > Flavobacterium, so the
          > lack of stop codons in the antisense strands of all
          > genes cannot be
          > due to any commonality in the genes themselves (or
          > in their
          > ancestry). Also, the wild-type pOAD2 plasmid is not
          > necessary for
          > the normal growth of Flavobacterium, so
          > functionality in the wild-
          > type parent DNA sequences would appear not to be a
          > factor in keeping
          > the reading frames open in the genes themselves, let
          > alone the
          > antisense strands.
          >
          > Some statements by Yomo et al., express their
          > consternation:
          >
          > `These results imply that there may be some unknown
          > mechanism behind
          > the evolution of these genes for nylon
          > oligomer-degrading enzymes.
          >
          > `The presence of a long NSF (non-stop frame) in the
          > antisense strand
          > seems to be a rare case, but it may be due to the
          > unusual
          > characteristics of the genes or plasmids for nylon
          > oligomer
          > degradation.
          >
          > `Accordingly, the actual existence of these NSFs
          > leads us to
          > speculate that some special mechanism exists in the
          > regions of these
          > genes.'
          >
          > It looks like recombination of codons (base pair
          > triplets), not
          > single base pairs, has occurred between the start
          > and stop codons
          > for each sequence. This would be about the simplest
          > way that the
          > antisense strand could be protected from stop codon
          > generation. The
          > mechanism for such a recombination is unknown, but
          > it is highly
          > likely that the transposase genes are involved.
          >
          > Interestingly, Yomo et al. also show that it is
          > highly unlikely that
          > any of these genes arose through a frame shift
          > mutation, because
          > such mutations (forward or reverse) would have
          > generated lots of
          > stop codons. This nullifies the claim of Thwaites
          > that a functional
          > gene arose from a purely random process (an
          > accident).
          >
          > The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon
          > degrading ability
          > can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of
          > Pseudomonas
          > aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no
          > enzymes capable of
          > degrading nylon oligomers.9 This was achieved in a
          > mere nine days!
          > The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special
          > mechanism for
          > such adaptation, not something as haphazard as
          > random mutations and
          > selection.
          >
          > The researchers have not been able to ascertain any
          > putative
          > ancestral gene to the nylon-degrading genes. They
          > represent a new
          > gene family. This seems to rule out gene
          > duplications as a source of
          > the raw material for the new genes.8
          >
          >
          > /Ann

          Well, since you obviously think that "citing from
          websites" and "being personally educated in the
          subject" are equal:

          For Anna about the nylon bug:
          Evidence against the AiG explanation includes:

          >AiG has a new article about the nylon bug on their
          site:
          >
          >http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n3_nylon.asp
          >
          >I'm not a biologist, so I don't know anything about
          this. What do you think?

          As usual, it is typical AiG misunderstanding and
          misinformation.

          First, a little background. Nylon is an artificial
          polymer not found in nature. Indeed, not only is the
          nylon polymer not found in nature, neither are the
          linkages that bind the subunits together. Nylon first
          entered the environment in the 1930's. By 1975,
          bacteria capable of hydrolysing nylon were found in
          wastewater from nylon plants.

          Now, it is obvious that the gene(s) for hydrolysing
          nylon cannot have been present from the beginning, as
          in the absence of the substrate (nylon, not present
          before 1930), the gene product is non-functional, and
          the gene would be mutated to uselessness (or an
          entirely different function) in a few hundred years by
          random mutations, let alone thousands.

          Faced with such an obvious production of a new gene
          with a novel function, the first thing creationists
          tried to do was claim this was a loss of information,
          that the nylonases represented a protein-digesting
          protein (protease) that had lost substrate
          specificity. That of course didn't fly, as the
          nylonases are exquisitely specific, act on no known
          amide bond other than the nylon beta amide bond, and
          have no relationship to any known protease.

          Now AiG is trying to claim that the nylonases are not
          due to random mutation and natural selection. Their
          arguments are spurious to say the least.

          Some more background, in Flavobacterium there are four
          nylonase genes, nylA, nylB and nylB' (which are
          duplicates) and nylC, carried on one plasmid. In
          Pseudomonas there are two nylonase genes (nyl A and
          nyl B, homologous to the nylA and nylB genes in
          Flavobacterium) carried on two different plasmids. The
          nylB gene does most of the heavy lifting, so to speak,
          and it is the nylB gene that was formed from a
          deletion mutation and subsequent frame shift in the
          RSII repetitive element. The key here is that the
          mutation was in an internally repetitive sequence of
          DNA. Frameshifts in non-repetitive sequences usually
          end up with a high probability of producing a
          premature stop codon, resulting in production of short
          non-functional proteins. However, repetitive sequences
          are very likely to not produce premature stop codons,
          and it is likely that long, functional proteins can be
          produced by frameshifts in these proteins. In the case
          of nylB, an insertion of a T at position 99 in the
          repetitive sequence resulted in a start codon and a
          stop codon some 392 amino acids away.

          Now onto AiG's claims.

          "Evidence against the evolutionary explanation
          includes: 1. There are five transposable elements on
          the pOAD2 plasmid."

          Transposable elements are relatively short sequences
          of DNA that can move around the genome by themselves.
          Don Batten suggests the presence of transposable
          elements means the plasmid is "designed" to be
          adaptive. Well, transposable elements can result in
          rapid adaptation, but the mechanism is pure random
          mutation and natural selection. Transposons are not
          specifically targeted anywhere, but jump about at
          random without regard to the cell's "need". They can
          generate new enzymes by producing recombination of
          existing enzymes, but they are just as likely to cause
          damage. One strain produced by researchers had lost
          nylA as the transposable elements cut it out.
          Transposable elements are well known as possible
          agents of evolution.

          "2. All five transposable elements are identical, with
          764 base pairs (bp) each. This comprises over eight
          percent of the plasmid. How could random mutations
          produce three new catalytic/degradative genes without
          at least some changes being made to the transposable
          elements?"

          Firstly, the transposable elements are 880 bp and they
          are not identical, they contain duplications and
          inversions. Now, Don Batten seems to think that it
          would take massive mutations to produce the nylonase
          genes. However, nylB is a one BP insertion, it doesn't
          take much to make these genes (and nylB' is a
          duplicate of nylB). Furthermore, the nylA and nylB
          genes are on different plasmids in Pseudomonas (which
          doesn't have nylC). It is very likely that the genes
          arose on different plasmids and were stitched together
          by the transposable elements at a later stage.
          Furthermore, the transposable elements (IS6100) are
          present in many different bacteria and are very
          strongly conserved, suggesting they do not tolerate
          mutations very well. So given that the transposable
          elements are conserved in sequence between different
          bacteria, and that you don't need many mutations to
          make a functional nylonase, this objection is void.

          "3. All three types of nylon degrading genes appear on
          plasmids and only on plasmids."

          Well, we only HAVE two species of bacteria with these
          genes, and one seems to have got its genes from
          another, so it is hardly surprising. They make a big
          deal that getting all three genes on one plasmid is
          improbable (but not particularly improbable), while
          ignoring that in Pseudomonas the (two) genes are on
          different plasmids and only in Flavobacteria are they
          are on the same plasmid. Transposable elements have a
          habit of carrying genes around, so it is not at all
          unlikely that the genes originally evolved on
          different plasmids, or even the chromosome, and then
          were stitched together into one plasmid in
          Flavobacterium. Furthermore, a large proportion of the
          genes on plasmids deal with xenobiotic handling or
          metabolic functions (nylC is next to a cluster of
          oligopeptide transporters), indeed in Pseudomonas most
          of the xenobiotic degradation genes are on plasmids,
          so it is entirely likely that a xenobiotic handling
          enzyme will arise from mutations of xenobiotic
          handling genes.

          "4. The antisense DNA strand of the four nylon genes
          investigated in Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas lacks
          any stop codons."

          To start off with, this statement is wrong. NylB,
          nylB' and nylC in Flavobacterium have no stop codons
          in the antisense strand, as does nylB in Pseudomonas
          (it doesn't have nylC). Three of the four genes are
          nylB, not four independent genes as implied.

          Now, having no stop codons in the antisense strand
          (that is, the partner of the coding DNA strand,
          remember that DNA is double stranded, and only one
          strand is translated) is a bit unusual, but the
          probability they quote (10-12) is dead wrong, the
          probability is 0.0001. As the three nylB genes are,
          well, nylB, it is not at all unusual for them to share
          this property. Furthermore, as nylB is descended from
          a peptide with many internal repeats, and itself
          contains a fair number of internal repeats, this makes
          it less likely to generate stop codons in the first
          place.

          Don Batten's statement, "Yomo et al. also show that it
          is highly unlikely that any of these genes arose
          through a frame shift mutation, because such mutations
          (forward or reverse) would have generated lots of stop
          codons" is wrong. Yomo et al. show no such thing, they
          don't mention it at all. As noted above, the precursor
          sequence to nylB was an internally repetitious
          sequence, and repetitive sequences are very likely to
          not produce premature stop codons for significant
          lengths.

          Batten also writes "Some statements by Yomo et al.,
          express their consternation..."

          Actually, the statements express their excitement.
          They think they have found a new evolutionary
          mechanism (amongst other things they suggest that new
          genes could be produced from antisense strands of
          functional genes).

          "5. The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon
          degrading ability can be obtained de novo in
          laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain]
          POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of
          degrading nylon oligomers. This was achieved in a mere
          nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a
          special mechanism for such adaptation, not something
          as haphazard as random mutations and selection."

          Oh dear, it happened too fast. In actual fact, it was
          9 days before colonies could grow at all on a simple
          nylon dimer, and three months before fast growing
          strains that could handle linear and cyclic dimers
          were isolated. This is typical of random mutation, a
          simple mutation allows the bacterial to just cope with
          the xenobiotic, allowing it a small selective
          advantage, and subsequent mutations improve on the
          initial weak activity. The time scale is not at all
          unusual for random mutation (if anything a bit slow).

          "6. The researchers have not been able to ascertain
          any putative ancestral gene to the nylon-degrading
          genes. They represent a new gene family. This seems to
          rule out gene duplications as a source of the raw
          material for the new genes."

          Not true, as before, the nylB group comes from a
          frameshift of an internally repetitious gene (so not
          surprisingly it is novel). NylA and NylC have not had
          homologous genes identified as of 2000, but then again
          a lot of bacterial sequencing has been done since, and
          as Don Batten states in a footnote, no Flavobacterium
          genome has yet been sequenced. Gene duplication is a
          major sources of new genes, but frame shifts,
          recombination and so on are all other sources of
          genes.

          The whole article tries to show that the nylB (and
          other genes) cannot occur by random mutation, and must
          occur by directed mutation. They draw attention to
          B-cell hypermutation (which generates diversity in
          antibody genes) in vertebrates as an example of
          "directed" mutation. Unfortunately for them,
          hypermutation in B-cells is pure random shuffling with
          the occasional insertion, deletion and frame shift.

          Generation of the nylon hydrolysing genes is standard
          "mutation followed by selection". The AiG article
          shows once again how poor their understanding of both
          biology and evolutionary theory is.

          References:

          Negoro, S., Biodegradation of nylon oligomers (2000),
          Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 54, 461-466.

          Kato K, Ohtsuki K, Koda Y, Maekawa T, Yomo T, Negoro
          S, and Urabe I. (1995 Oct). A plasmid encoding enzymes
          for nylon oligomer degradation: nucleotide sequence
          and analysis of pOAD2. Microbiology, 141 (Pt 10),
          2585-90.

          Prijambada ID, Negoro S, Yomo T, and Urabe I. (1995
          May). Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes
          in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental
          evolution. Appl Environ Microbiol, 61, 2020-2.

          Yomo, T., Urabe, I. and Okada, H., (1992) No stop
          codons in the antisense strands of the genes for nylon
          oligomer degradation, Proceedings of the National
          Academy of Sciences USA 89, 3780-3784.

          Kato K, Fujiyama K, Hatanaka HS, Priyambada ID, Negoro
          S, Urabe I, and Okada H. (1991 Aug 15). Amino acid
          alterations essential for increasing the catalytic
          activity of the nylon-oligomer-degradation enzyme of
          Flavobacterium sp. Eur J Biochem , 200, 165-9.

          Ohno S. (1984 Apr). Birth of a unique enzyme from an
          alternative reading frame of the preexisted,
          internally repetitious coding sequence. Proc Natl Acad
          Sci U S A , 81, 2421-5

          (from http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html)

          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com
        • annika4se
          Hi, [ralph] What is this information for fur ? What does it consist of? Where can this information be found? A: That is the question Ralph and the reason I do
          Message 4 of 10 , Jan 27, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi,

            [ralph] What is this "information for fur"? What does it consist
            of? Where can this information be found?

            A: That is the question Ralph and the reason I do not believe in
            evolution. Information doesnt arise by itself. I believe the animals
            were originally created as the animals they are.

            Dave:
            Thank you. So if they can make a profiable offspring
            together, then they belong to the same group. So
            obviously you believe that inability to reproduce
            between different kinds of animals is a strong
            indicator of distinction between species? You know,
            like a bear cannot produce offspring by mating with a
            lion, agreed?

            A: Dave, you hereby again PROVE that you have not read the most
            basic information at a YEC site. IF you had read the basic
            information, then you would not ask me this question, because the
            answer can be seen quite clearly in lots of places. You should know
            that the answer is "NO". The other way around (the inability to make
            offspring) is obviously NOT a sign that the animals do not belong to
            the same group. There are even human beings who cannot make
            offspring together, and they are still in the same group. I think
            it's very suitable that you admit that you don't really understand
            what YEC is about.

            But I disagree with you and with any website that says
            it is NOT an example of a beneficial mutation. So i
            will continue to set it forth as a good example of
            beneficial mutation regardless of your wish to be done
            with it, and continue to request that YOU argue
            against it, instead of hiding behind other website
            articles written by other people, a practice you
            wouldn't accept from an evolutionist if all they did
            was quote talkorigins articles everytime they answered
            you.

            A: I don't quote AiG "everytime I answer" so I don't see what the
            problem is. In fact, I seldom do it but only once in a while, and I
            also like to add web links if you wish to make further studies.
            Moreover, I don't mind if you quote from talkorigins, as long as you
            don't always do that, but mostly use your own words. By the look of
            it it looks like I'm more familiar with talkorigins than you are
            with AiG.

            > Since I mentioned
            > it, you should have read why it is refuted at AiG
            > and try to list
            > arguments against the refutation, but you haven't
            > tried to do that.

            that's because I am debating YOU. Not "AiG".

            A: But you already know that my view is the same as AiG and most
            other creationists, so why wasting time going over the same old
            arguments that are refuted at YEC websites? You told me that you are
            very familiar with YEC opinions, so why can't we use your YEC-
            knowledge and move on from there? My must I start with educating you
            what YEC stands for and about their basic opinions?

            Don't waste your time saying AiG has
            already refuted the Nylon-eating bacteria as a model
            for beneficial mutation, if you aren't going to post
            their arguments here. I'm not debating them. Perhaps
            your telling me to go elsewhere to see why you are
            right, testifies to the lack of information you
            personally have on this subject?

            A: Eh? I'm telling you in my own words why I reject evolution as
            well as your attempt to support it. You would have an argument if
            quoting others was the only thing I did, but that is not true. I
            have usually used my own words in my messages to you, but you seem
            bothered the few times I quote AiG. I think it's very useful to
            quote AiG when it comes to the nylon bug, because I didn't want to
            see this example in the first place since 1)is has already been
            refuted at AiG so you should read why before you use it as an
            example 2)I want to see other examples than the same old nylon bug
            in discussions with evolutionists. There should be billions and
            billions of examples for new genetic info or uphill evolution, and
            yet the nylon bug seems to be all there is to use as an attempt.
            What poor support to build the entire philosophy of evolution on.

            Do you see me telling you to "just" go and look at
            talkorigins or some other pro-evolution site, when you
            disagree with me?

            A: I don't behave like that so you have no case.

            How about if I said, "But
            talkorigins has already refuted your denial of the
            nylon-eating bacteria, so if you wish to continue
            disagreeing with me, you should have posted a
            refutation of their arguments." ?

            A: YOU are the one who wanted to bring up the nylon bug and not me.
            This means that you should have started out to read what an ordinary
            YEC-view about it before you started out with your nylon-bug
            argument. It doesn't make sense to try to refute something that is
            clearly already refuted, and you admit yourself that you know AiG
            very well.

            > > some germs were
            > already resistant to man-made antibiotics before
            > these were invented
            > is common knowledge to microbiologists. Soil samples
            > from villages
            > where modern antibiotics had never been used show
            > that some of the
            > germs are already resistant to drugs like
            > methicillin which have
            > never existed in nature.

            First, I cannot be expected to 'refute' this, if you
            don't give specifics. YOU brought up this rebuttal.
            So YOU give the specifics.
            I will not use my response
            time on the computer to hunt down original text
            entries that you just wave off to me.

            A: You brought up the nylon bug argument and I listed the problems
            with it. I didn't want to copy and paste a longer text since you
            would complain about that too. Now you think I wrote too short for
            you to be able to handle. Yet I informed you where you could go to
            get further information. Is it that you want to continue to live in
            agnorance or why are you so reluctant to read info that opposes your
            opinion? Isn't it for your own benefit that you study other
            scientific views than the one you are siding with? Or do you refuse
            to deal with refutations unless they are presented in an appealling
            way? Is it more important for you to win an argument, than finding
            out the truth about something?

            Second, again, if I used a paraphrase or partial quote
            from talkorigins.org, would you use YOUR time to hunt
            down the original text in question? Oh, you don't
            like doing other people's footwork? Neither do I.

            A: YES I certainly would use my time to study the links you provide
            me IF I started out with the argument. YOU are the one claiming to
            have support for evolution and YOU are the one claiming that the
            nylon bug is some kind of support for new genetic info eventhough
            it's not, so then YOU need to study the refutations I provide and go
            from there. You have all info you need to go further and the web
            sites are full of info about sources. I have used my own words, and
            I have also copied a resumé from AiG which explains why the nylon
            bug is useless as an example of evolution. I have no reason
            whatsoever to remake their arguments into other words, specifically
            since they are scientists and have English as their native tongue,
            unlike me.


            > Bacteria revived from the
            > frozen intestines
            > of explorers who died in polar expeditions carried
            > resistance to
            > several modern antibiotics, which had not been
            > invented when the
            > explorers died.

            Again, please provide the specifics. ----

            A: You are welcome to study the links I provided in your own native
            tongue.
            You don't want to go there? Hm...are you afraid of something?
            Hm, I can make a separate message about this nylon bug if you are
            reluctant to check up websites that refute you.

            --I already said
            that a loss of information, that turns "I saw the
            batter", into "I saw the bat", thus qualifies as new
            information, simply because the loss changes the
            meaning of the coding sequence entirely, and into
            something that didn't exist before. You merely waved
            that off, seemingly telling of your great lack of
            familiarity with even the basics of the basics of DNA.

            A: I have already refuted your text-attempt with examples. Even
            Dawkins has showed that you need a designer to get a useful computer
            program, and you won't get a better text by throwing in duplicate
            letters in a book randomly. I also specifically asked you to bring
            up a REAL example of an organism that gained new genetic info, in a
            similar way as I presented a real example of an organism that LOST
            genetic info and it turned out positive for it. I note that you are
            completely unable to do so. I didn't ask you to make more smoke
            screens by giving me a bad analogy with a piece of text.

            > 2. There are many instances in which germs become
            > resistant by
            > simple selection of resistance which already existed
            > (including
            > that `imported' from other bacteria).

            Irrelevant, all we need is a single case of beneficial
            mutation to show how evolution works. Just because
            you refuse to give a concrete definition of
            "information" doesn't give you the right to deny new
            abilities to organisms.

            A: It's very relevant. New abilities is NOT support for new genetic
            info or for evolution. You need to support macro evolution. Why do
            you then think that support for micro evolution (which creationists
            also accept) is support for your case? I though you said you could
            prove evolution? Can you?

            > 3. Where a mutational defect causes resistance, the
            > survival
            > advantage is almost always caused by a loss of
            > information. In no
            > case is there any evidence of an information-adding,
            > `uphill' change.

            Almost always? What exceptions are you not telling us
            about?

            A: Rearrangements of genes. Never due to NEW genetic info.

            http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i1/enzymes.asp

            From now on, when you cite AiG
            articles to "refute" me, I will probably just follow
            your example, and cite talkorigins articles to
            "refute" you, deal?

            A: You are welcome to do that IF I start the argument. And I won't
            accept such procedure unless you combine it with your own words.
            That's the rule I try to use.
            Anyway, did you read the above weblink? Why not? Are you not the
            least interested in to see why creationists refute the nylon bug?
            You prefer to live in ignorance?

            How about if I had said "you
            hereby prove that you have not read about the
            nylon-bug at talkorigins"? ---

            A: That would be very good if you did, if I've claimed to know a
            certain argument on talkorigins and yet show that I do not. Have you
            ever noticed that this has been the case with me? What did I claim
            in that case?

            I had hoped that you had at least one year of college
            biology. But this hope of mine is lost. Your
            constant appeal to what somebody else wrote, testifies
            that YOU don't undestand evolution on your own enough
            to make your own arguments against it, otherwise you
            would.

            A: Text, text and more text. Why don't you save your time and
            instead list what I requested from you? The nylon bug is all you
            have, is that it?

            On the contrary, I know AiG very well---

            A: Here you claim to know AIG well. Knowing that I share their view,
            why do you for example ask me the following question:
            "Dave:
            So obviously you believe that inability to reproduce
            between different kinds of animals is a strong
            indicator of distinction between species? You know,
            like a bear cannot produce offspring by mating with a
            lion, agreed?"

            >http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

            Oh, well if you can hide behind other people's
            studies, then you surely support me for following your
            lead (unless you think of yourself as a hypocrite for
            expecting more from others than you expect of
            yourself?)

            You can make further studies at:
            http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html


            A: Thanks, but I cannot see how the above refutes AiG or trueorigins
            in any way. http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1c.asp
            Besides, unlike me you have not used your own words very much in
            trying to refute me, but only telling me that I'm wrong, repeating
            already refuted arguments, telling me that my refutations are
            irrelevant and referring to a link that can't explain away my
            refutation in the first place.
            Again, did you read the above link about bacteria?

            Now then....do you support my hiding behind other
            people's writings and pawning off my responsibilities
            to answer directly?

            A: No not only. You must also use your own words, just like I do,
            and since you are the one with the claims, you should show interest
            in what I present as refutation. Either that or admit that you don't
            really know if the nylon bug is support for your case. How would you
            know if you don't dare to read the critics?

            > A: In that case you are wrong, because I can list
            > lots of scientists
            > who DO ask similar questions like I do, for instance
            > Ph D Jonathan
            > Sarfati that I mentioned previously, or Dr Carl
            > Wieland, etc. You
            > are wrong again with other words, and that's
            > probably because you
            > refuse to study YEC sites.

            Please cite the source for Dr. Jonathan or Wieland,
            asking the same questions you already asked me. Such
            as your asking me for proof of beneficial mutations by
            saying "Can you list 5 examples of positive mutations
            where new genetic information is involved?", wherein
            the Dr.'s adhere to the same understanding of "new
            genetic code" as you do. Ha ha, not likely.

            A: Sure, since you asked for it. A fast check on their website:
            http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i3/weeds.asp
            http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0802IROBOT.asp
            http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0719superbaby.asp
            http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0128feathered.asp
            http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i4/baby_universes.asp

            Of course this is based on your irrational denial that
            a loss or rearrangement of the DNA code doesn't count
            as "new" information, when no evolutionist ever once
            told you that he used anything OTHER than code loss or
            code rearrangement to argue for beneficial mutations.

            A: Yes, evolutionists are keen on believing that loss of information
            is proof for evolution, and my point is that it isn't. It's micro
            evolution.

            What i'd like to know is where you ever got the idea
            that evolutionists ever credited beneficial mutations
            to anything OTHER than loss in the code or
            rearrangments of code. Did you think we just believe
            that brand new code suddenly appeared mysteriously
            inexplicably as if by magic in an organism?

            A: That's what you are forced to believe. I know it sounds crazy but
            that's the only other alternative you have.

            > A: Of course they avoid questions and analogies that
            > make their
            > philosophy look silly.

            That just means you haven't studied talkorigins and
            other evolutionist websites, where they DO take on the
            questions you think aren't answered, or make them look
            silly.

            A: It's because I've studied talkorigins that I say what I do. They
            try to avoid or ignore the silly consequences just like you do.

            > They can't avoid the reality
            > though; If they
            > are true evolutionists, they must believe that a
            > handful of bacteria
            > can turn into football players by themselves.

            With millions of years to mutate, yes, that can
            happen. ----

            A: Mutations can cause a handful of bacteria to turn into football
            players you say. And yet you fail to mention other examples than the
            nylon bug. I don't give that much for such fantasy-evidence.

            Second, I HAVE told you where you are wrong, several
            times, and you have less of a reason to have missed it

            A: If you refer to the bat-text I have refuted you. And it still
            doesn't change that you can only provide me imaginary theories. You
            don't have examples from the real world.

            No, your "cites" about frozen bacteria
            in dead polar explorers doesn't refute me, because you
            provide no specifics, telling me that you don't know
            anymore about the article than you think evolutionists
            do.

            A: So why don't you read the entire article and check the sources
            listed? Or do you request me to post them to you before you are
            willing to read? Why should I do the homework for you? Actually,
            it's enough for me to list some scientists who do not view the nylon
            bug as any kind of support for evolution. Because this means that
            you cannot use the nylon bug as proof for your case. Some scientists
            would like to use it as evidence for evolution (evolutionists) and
            some scientists do not view it as such (creationists). So how would
            the nylon bug be proof for evolution?
            Now, if you did check the entire article, you would find that the
            source for the resistance in bacteria from frozen intestines of
            explorers in polar expeditions comes from this source: R.
            McGuire, `Eerie: Human Arctic fossils yield resistant bacteria'
            Medical Tribune December 29, 1988, pp. 1, 23. If you don't believe
            this is true, then prove it wrong. I provided the source. It's up to
            you if you want to read it or continue to live in ignorance.

            > For
            > instance, where am I wrong in claiming that
            > Darwinian evolutionists
            > believe that a handful of bacteria can turn into
            > football players?

            You misunderstand new information to be something
            other than loss and recombination, when evolutionists
            never believed speciation occured apart from the same
            dna base.

            A: You didn't answer the question. The question was: "where am I
            wrong in claiming that
            Darwinian evolutionists believe that a handful of bacteria can turn
            into
            football players?"

            Indeed, have you said
            ANYTHING on your own, that wasn't %90% relegated to a
            citation from sombody else's stuff?

            A: I would say 95% of what I write is from my own wordings, Yet you
            think 90% from me are web links and quotes? Funny how we are able to
            interpret the same facts differently, isnt'it?

            And why doesn't Bowman do what you do? Why doesn't
            Bowman simply tell me that my argument against the
            bible has been answered by somebody else's article
            found at another pro-inerrancy site, and precious
            little more, as you do? Why does he make his own
            arguments? Would you recommend that he, or other
            Christians, do as you do?

            A: Yes, I recommend other to, as I do, use their own wordings, but
            also to combine them with Bible verses, quotes, copying etc if they
            feel it's necessary, or if the messages get to long.

            Do you
            seriously think that such a question as "How did a
            handful of bacteria turn into football players?" can
            be answered profitably for somebody who hides behind
            other people's anti-evolution articles all the time?

            A: Again, I do not hide under people's articles all the time but
            very rarely. I suspect it's one of your attempts to not having to
            answer me. It should be easy for you to tell me how a handful of
            bacteria could turn into football players all by themselves, only by
            help with the imaginary positive mutations - that you can't give me
            any real examples of.

            Again, your lack of familiarity with the basics is the
            roadblock preventing you from understanding that loss
            and rearrangement of genetic code DO count often as
            "new information".

            A: Nope, new information is new information. Not rearranged old
            information. I already accept micro evolution.


            I chose to use an expression that
            wasn't found on YEC sites, or found by searching any
            search engine, just as a test to see if you had even
            the faintest inkling of the basics of the basics.
            Nope, you failed miserably. "b-d" and "b-s" are what
            you learn in first-year biology in college. No, you
            will NOT find it on Google. Now what do these
            expressions mean?

            A: Then I don't know what you're after and since this is totally
            irrelevant to the issue whether you are able to provide any real
            example of new genetic info, I chose not to make a google reasearch
            or AiG search on it. I can't see how does this in any way change the
            fact that yuo are unable to provide evidence of macro evolution.

            What would you think if a loudmouth democract went
            around saying President Bush was a liar, but didn't
            know what "liar" meant? Oh yeah, that's real
            familiarity with the issues, eh?

            A: I know what new genetic info means. You apparently don't since
            you list OLD genetic info as evidence for new genetic info.

            > A: The problem of abiogenesis won't go away if you
            > ignore it.

            It will go away when I tell you to quit making our
            discussion unneccesarly complex by adding "where did
            the genes originally come from?", to your existing
            question "do you have beneficial mutations based on
            new genetic material?"

            A: Since I cannot accept the attempt of "the text was already there,
            and all you have to do is to rearrange the letters a little", then
            I'm forced to ask the questions where the letters (genes) come from.
            We both know that rearrangement of genes can cause variations within
            a kind. The question is if genes could be added to make more complex
            animals. If you don't have any examples or evidence of this, then
            say so.

            Like I said, where a car comes from, is quite a
            different matter from how it functions. Please take
            the questions one at a time. We are talking about the
            function of the car (the function of the dna), not
            where the car ultimately originates (not where the dna
            ultimately comes from)

            A: None of the scientific processes that we have studied has the
            ability to make a car. Cars don't come about by themselves, and not
            even if you have all the necessary components of a car, can you
            explain how they can assemble together in the right places all by
            themselves. A car needs a car maker.

            We don't believe "from nothing". At least not us
            evolutionists who advocate an infinite universe.

            A: Of course you must believe they come from nothing. Once upon a
            time when there was not even a handful of bacteria, and not even the
            first cell existed, there was no living life. Therefore, you believe
            football players arise from nothing. It only takes time....

            > A: So, legs, trunks, eyes, etc did swim around in
            > the primeval goo
            > after all since you say that they already existed?

            Have you ever read even ONE evolutionary article
            written by an evolutionist that said this?

            A: No, that's exactly what I haven't. It would only show what a
            silly philosophy evolution really is.

            > We are not able to make proper lists with which
            > animal belong to
            > which specie (because we don't know which the most
            > original animals
            > were)

            If you had an understanding of basic biology, you'd
            know the tax.

            A: No, because I was not there when the original animals existed.

            Water cannot think, so how do you explain that it
            "knows" to move downhill when on an incline? Physical
            properties? Well then, welcome to the world of the
            properties of dna in living systems.

            A: We can explain this scientifically by observational science. But
            the idea that a handful of bacteria can turn into football players
            don't have support in real science.

            Wrong, evolution consists mostly of errant changes in
            the genetic code, because the rise in complexity is
            rare.

            A: Tell me about it. So rare that you can't give me one single
            example.

            What makes you think the elephant's structures are all
            in the right place? The male seahorse carries the
            fertilized eggs in his body, is that the "right"
            place?

            A: All animals work perfectly. There is not one example of an
            animals that could have worked "better" if constructed in another
            way. No defects anywhere.

            Well, since you obviously think that "citing from
            websites" and "being personally educated in the
            subject" are equal:-----

            A: It would have looked better if you too chose to refute me a
            little more with your own words, but I did look through the list
            (again, since I've seen this page before), and searched for evidence
            of something new, or if the author could list where the new
            information came from originally. Musgrave agrees that the flagellum
            is irreducible complex, but then he believes that it has evolved
            indirectly from preexisting bacterial mechanisms. Then the
            information was already there so it's no answer. It's sad to see
            that he uses frame shift as an attempt to support his case, it's sad
            to see that he tries to equal new features with new genes, and that
            genes that "jump" would eliminate the need to explain the original
            genes, and that recombination of existing enzymes would be useful as
            an answer for his case, and that he pretends that gene duplicaton is
            not "identical" genes eventhough that's exactly what they are (which
            the name suggests). Also insertions must come from somewhere, and
            the question is where? If bacteria got their genes from each other,
            then where did the genes come from originally? He offers
            speculations that genes "evolved", but no examples. He says
            himself: "Gene duplication is a major source of new genes, but
            frame shifts, recombination and so on are all other sources of
            genes." So wrong he is about that. Selection? Where did the genes
            come from that are selected? It' also remarkable that he ignores the
            fact that resistance in bacteria has been found in bodies (frozen
            explorers) before the .....
            I'm not sure what Musgrave doctors in, but I understands he is a
            biomedical researcher. Don Batten has a Ph.D. at University of
            Sydney in Department of Agronomy and Horticultural Science. Dr
            Jonathan Sarfati earned his degree in spectroscopy (Physical
            Chemistry).

            This is a link for you, for further studies:
            http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv15n3_P
            rotein_Families.pdf

            Wouldn't it be more simple if you just listed the 5 examples of new
            genetic info, so that we won't have to give each other pasted info
            back and force?


            /Ann
          • Ralph Krumdieck
            ... [ralph] Gene sequence a bird and what will you find? You will find genes that consist of long strings of nucleotides that are identical in structure to
            Message 5 of 10 , Jan 27, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              > Hi,
              >
              > [ralph] What is this "information for fur"? What does it
              > consist
              > of? Where can this information be found?
              >
              > A: That is the question Ralph and the reason I do not believe
              > in
              > evolution. Information doesnt arise by itself. I believe the
              > animals
              > were originally created as the animals they are.

              [ralph] Gene sequence a bird and what will you find? You will
              find genes that consist of long strings of nucleotides that are
              identical in structure to our nucleotides. Same 4 bases. The
              bird genes will code for the same 20 amino acids that ours do.
              Where is the information for wings? Do birds have some "flight"
              gene, that consists of "new" nucleotides that we don't have? Do
              they have some "wing" amino acid that we don't have? Where's the
              information for wings that they have and we don't?
            • Dave Wave
              ... First, I already said you wouldn t find it with Google and you wouldn t find it on any creationist website, so you accomplish nothing but refusing to look
              Message 6 of 10 , Jan 27, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                > Dave:
                > I chose to use an expression that
                > wasn't found on YEC sites, or found by searching any
                > search engine, just as a test to see if you had even
                > the faintest inkling of the basics of the basics.
                > Nope, you failed miserably. "b-d" and "b-s" are what
                > you learn in first-year biology in college. No, you
                > will NOT find it on Google. Now what do these
                > expressions mean?
                >
                > A: Then I don't know what you're after and since
                > this is totally
                > irrelevant to the issue whether you are able to
                > provide any real
                > example of new genetic info, I chose not to make a
                > google reasearch
                > or AiG search on it.

                First, I already said you wouldn't find it with Google
                and you wouldn't find it on any creationist website,
                so you accomplish nothing but refusing to look for
                something in places I already told you it could not be
                found.

                So then let me tell you what I'm after and why it's
                relevant to the issue of me providing real examples of
                new genetic info.

                If you don't even know the first basics of the basics
                of DNA, then why should anybody think you have enough
                education in the matter to correctly analyse any
                proofs of new genetic information?

                If an auto mechanic tells you over the phone, in
                genuine sincerety, that she has never heard of a
                screwdriver, how much hope would you have that she
                could correctly analyse your engine? Would you even
                BOTHER taking your car to her? Your in a real tight
                spot, so you'll probably say "yes" just to try and
                throw me off.

                See the problem?

                One more thing, the expressions associated with the
                basics of DNA which I used, which you don't know the
                meaning of, also cannot be found on evolutionist
                websites, such as talkorigins.

                I deliberately chose an expression that couldn't be
                located on the internet, because I wished to prove my
                theory that your knowledge of evolution has nothing to
                do with standard introductions in college textbooks,
                but consists of little more than pure quote-mining
                from creationist websites.

                You are like a mechanic who thinks knowledge of
                screwdrivers is irrelevant to deconstructing engines.

                > I can't see how does this in
                > any way change the
                > fact that yuo are unable to provide evidence of
                > macro evolution.

                Since I have proven you don't even have the first
                inkling of the basics, of course you can't properly
                diagnose new genetic information. Quote-mining from
                creationist websites does not an education make.

                > What would you think if a loudmouth democract went
                > around saying President Bush was a liar, but didn't
                > know what "liar" meant? Oh yeah, that's real
                > familiarity with the issues, eh?
                >
                > A: I know what new genetic info means.

                Then how could you POSSIBLY not know what b-d and b-s
                mean? You put the last nail in the coffin of your
                lack of education in the basics when you attempted to
                guess that I was referring to ribonucleotides.

                Such a bad guess, on something that you'd learn in
                your first two weeks of DNA study in college, leaves
                no doubt in my mind that you DON'T know what
                constitutes new genetic information. You may as well
                insist you can read and write fluently in English, but
                you don't know the names of the letters of the
                alphabet.

                > You
                > apparently don't since
                > you list OLD genetic info as evidence for new
                > genetic info.

                No standard college textbook on first-year biology
                regards changed or shortened code as "old"
                information. You again disagree with the standard
                sources of information in DNA code. Therefore your
                misunderstanding cannot be credited to a proper
                knowledge of the standard source material, but to some
                freakish twisted version of DNA coding that no
                standard source for DNA code agrees with.

                Suppose you have the information "I have a
                ribonucleotide."

                Suppose that information suffers a LOSS. (say, of the
                letters "onucleotide".

                You are then left with "I have a rib".

                I'm very sorry that you equate a person's ribs with
                their ribonucleotides, in your determined quest to
                avoid the truth that LOSS of information does indeed
                sometimes produce new information with entirely
                different meaning than the previous code, and thus
                which wasn't there before.

                If you DO admit that a LOSS of information can change
                the old information into something new with new
                meaning which it didn't previously have, you will lose
                the last hope you have of denying that new genetic
                information can arise from old genetic information. I
                understand completely why you don't so much as dare
                speculate that your disagreement with the standard
                sources of DNA information theory might just mean your
                views in the matter are false.

                You previously asked for examples of new genetic
                information arising.

                After several exchanges since then, we have learned
                that your knowledge of evolution is not sufficient to
                even know what basic terminology for DNA coding is.

                And you still think you'd be able to "know" whether
                we've given you an example of new genetic information,
                when you clearly don't even have an inkling of the
                basics of the basics of DNA information in the first
                place? Not a chance.

                >>Dave:
                >What i'd like to know is where you ever got the idea
                that evolutionists ever credited beneficial mutations
                to anything OTHER than loss in the code or
                rearrangments of code. Did you think we just believe
                that brand new code suddenly appeared mysteriously
                inexplicably as if by magic in an organism?

                > Anna:
                > A: That's what you are forced to believe. I know it
                sounds crazy but that's the only other alternative you
                have.

                Why do you think that, when there is no college
                textbook on biology or DNA that says new genetic
                information arises inexplicably, but rather say new
                genetic information is either code loss or code
                rearrangement?

                Are you sure that Dawkins' 11 second pause on that
                video, after being asked for an example of new genetic
                information arising in a gene, really implies
                everything you think it does? I suggest you search
                the internet for Dawkin's answer to that specific
                issue, which I located. His pause certainly didn't
                mean that he suddenly forgot all of his proofs for new
                information arising in genes that are found throughout
                several of his books on the subject.

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail.yahoo.com
              • annika4se
                Hi, [ralph] Where did the nucleotides come from? The source of the very first ones is still a topic of research.---- Once they were established, however, more
                Message 7 of 10 , Jan 31, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi,


                  [ralph] Where did the nucleotides come from? The source of the very
                  first ones is
                  still a topic of research.----
                  Once they were established, however, more
                  nucleotide bases can be added by duplication, insertion, splice-site
                  mutations, in fact many of the types of mutations I mentioned
                  earlier.

                  A: You are basically saying that the first few genes (5 or how
                  many?) is still a puzzle but the rest can be solved. I can find
                  scientific support for neither. How to explain the first genes is a
                  HUGE problem. We have learned that things don't come about by
                  themselves, and life cannot come from dead materia. Yet we are
                  forced to believe this once happened, completely against scientific
                  evidence. We also have to believe that the first genes had the
                  ability to multiply and eventually cause two different genders, and
                  the built in goal to become various animals. What you list is just
                  an attempt to explain how the first genes could do this, but as I
                  have said, duplication, insertion, etc can only work on what is
                  already there, and it cannot produce anything new. This means that
                  we are only speculating by using these things as means for
                  something. It's only in our imagination. A fish doesn't have genetic
                  information for fur, ears, noses, legs, tails etc, and yet we must
                  believe that information for these things came about solely based on
                  the information of fish. How could this be?

                  The information that allows the genome
                  to produce fur ultimately resides in the arrangement of the genes
                  and the
                  bases in the genes. Mutations can alter this arrangement.

                  A: Mutations are usually destructive. They could also be neutral,
                  but there is only a handful of candidates for positive mutations,
                  and none of them due to something new.

                  There is no
                  physical barrier to any arrangement the nucleotides and genes can
                  take.

                  A: The barriers are overwhelming. See further info this message,
                  including links.

                  Why didn't natural selection prevent this from
                  happening? The change might have been beneficial.

                  A: What's positive about half grown out wings in dinosaurs? They are
                  useless. The dinosaur would be better of remaining as a dinosaur.

                  An observation: If, as you believe, God created all the animals as
                  we see
                  them, it is a fact that when he created the dog, he used the same
                  kind of
                  genetic material

                  A: That's why it makes more sense to be a creationist, because we
                  can simply accept the large gene variations and we can explain them.
                  Evolutionists on the other hand have great difficulties to explain
                  how a handful of genes could "think".


                  Dave:

                  > A: ---Use of already
                  > existing genes, as Mr Musgrave covers, does not mean
                  > anything else than
                  > playing with what is already there.

                  That's false, as I already showed you with my
                  text-example

                  A: Please end your text example since it's a bad analogy. If you
                  mess with a text in an ordinary book, the text becomes corrupted
                  instead of improving the text. Besides, I still ask for a real case
                  from the real world and not imaginary speculations.

                  >Well, I already
                  > know that fur, legs,
                  > arms, eyes, and wings are already there, because I
                  > can see them all around
                  > me. The question is how they got there,

                  That's your question, not ours, we already know, you
                  don't, apparantly.

                  A: No, you have not explained this successfully. Natural selection
                  would prevent this from happening.

                  Bacteria can gain DNA from outside themselves, didn't
                  you know that?

                  A: Did you miss my objection or did you not understand it? If
                  bacteria got outside information from other bacteria or other
                  oganisms, then how did the information get there? The problem won't
                  go away only because you move the unexplained genes from one
                  organism to another. It's just as bad as trying to explain how the
                  first life got to the earth by suggesting that it came from another
                  planet and then to the earth. OK, how did the life get to that
                  planet originally?

                  Evolution is more downhill than uphill most
                  of the time. ---

                  A: Not only is evolution "most of the time" downhill. It's *only*
                  downhill or on the same course (i e no change at all). Observational
                  science has NEVER shown a case where uphill evolution can be
                  detected. Loss of wings is downhill.

                  Another basic truth you missed is self-organizing
                  molecules. That would be the "engine" for evolution,
                  if you were searching for a reason why any of it
                  occurs in the first place.

                  A: Self-organizing? Molecules that can think with other words?

                  But that's a far cry from proving it. You haven't so
                  much as begun to refute the case of the nylon-eating
                  bacteria---

                  A: Of course I have. I provided the information from PhD scientists.
                  Why are they wrong? You only provided info from Musgrave, and he was
                  not able to provide anything else than the ordinary support for
                  micro evolution which everyone already agrees about.

                  > Finally,
                  > do you think that your skills are superior to PhD
                  > Don Batten and PhD
                  > Jonathan Sarfati? Yes or no?

                  If they deny macro-evolution, then yes.

                  A: So you prefer to side with those PhD's that share your belief,
                  namely that evolution is a fact. Pick and choose. That's quite
                  convenient, because then you don't have to investigate how they
                  reached their conclusions. You only have to check the last page to
                  see what their stand is, and if they favour creationism, then out
                  they go.

                  What do you think about Richard Dawkins and Steven J.
                  Gould? They have Ph.d's, and they support
                  macro-evolution, do you think that your skills are
                  superior to them?

                  A: I've never claimed that the view of a PhD proves something. I
                  simply asked why you think Batten and Sarfati are wrong.

                  > A: --You don't have to
                  > know every single detail in science to know that for
                  > instance Musgrave or
                  > Dawkins have failed to list one single positive
                  > mutation that could cause
                  > new genetic info.

                  The truth is, they HAVE cited examples, and your
                  denial merely stems from your paper thin knowledge of
                  the issues. ---

                  A: I've read what they wrote, and they either list support for micro
                  evolution or speculate in how new genes could occur. Neither is
                  evidence for macro evolution.

                  What is proven by saying "even little kids know"?

                  A: Nothing is "proven", but it means that you don't need a PhD to
                  understand that dogs will be dogs and that macro evolution is absurd.

                  I can provide you with examples of transitional
                  fossils all day long

                  A: You would at best be able to list "questionable candidates". I e,
                  they could just as well be viewed as perfect animals and not
                  transitionals at all. It's all in the eyes of the viewer.

                  , but I don't wish to give you the
                  opportunity to say that I failed with the nylon-bug
                  and so i moved to something else which also didn't
                  convince you.

                  A: You have failed with the nylon bug. I specifically asked you to
                  not try with the nylon bug, because it has been refuted, and instead
                  pick one of the other 350 billion examples that *should* be
                  available IF evolution was true. Yet you cling on to this bug since
                  it's the only candidate you have.

                  The Nobel prize is never offered to anybody for coming
                  up with proof of something that has already been
                  common knowledge for 75 years or better.

                  A: If it is common knowledge, then why don't you list some of the
                  real examples for new genetic info? Dawkins couldn't come up with an
                  example, but if you are able to discover the very first one,
                  shouldn't you be a good candidate for the Nobel prize?

                  Sorry, the term I asked you to define would be defined
                  by anybody who'd had the first two weeks of
                  college-level introductory studies on DNA.

                  A: OK, we will settle with that I'm not educated enough. Now, why
                  don't you shorten our messages down by listing some positive
                  mutations due to new genetic information? I'm still in the lead
                  since I was able to give a REAL example of a positive mutation due
                  to LOSS of genetic info. Are you going to continue having me in the
                  lead or will you take the chance to do something about it? Please
                  focus on what I have asked you from the start.

                  I disagree with you that they are bad analogies which
                  don't apply here. I proved with that analogy that you
                  can end up with a completely NEW piece of information
                  that didn't exist previously, via LOSS of some code.

                  A: No, you proved nothing of the kind. You only prove that with help
                  of ALREADY EXISTING genes, you could rearrange them so that they
                  offer new features. Another word for this is micro evolution, and
                  it's a fact and it's acknowledges by evolutionists as well as
                  creationists. Can you therefore see that you have accomplished
                  nothing?

                  --when there is not an
                  evolutionist textbook on the face of the planet that
                  ever gave you a reason to think that evolution took
                  place apart from lost code parts and/or rearranged
                  code parts?

                  A: Why would evolutionists necessary admit their shortcomings?

                  Where did I quote Musgrave?

                  A: Eh? You don't even know who you quote? You offered me a long text
                  that supposedly would be pro macro evolution, and Musgrave was your
                  choice. Can I ask you to check out your sources a bit better the
                  next time?

                  > How can simple organisms
                  > evolve into more complex
                  > ones?

                  Go actually get a proper education in college in
                  first-year biology, and you won't bog this discussion
                  down with such unlearned questions.

                  A: You can't answer with other words. The above mentioned tactics is
                  often used when someone cannot answer the question. The person in
                  question tries to raise a smoke screen by complaining about the
                  other person's lack of education, and it that way he hopes that this
                  eliminates the need to answer a straight question.

                  > Can you list the examples of positive
                  > mutations due to new info?

                  Irrelevant, I already did, you disagreed, we continue
                  to debate the merits of my examples. Why ask the same
                  question again when it is far from settled whether
                  I've fulfilled your request for beneficial mutations
                  based on new genetic information?

                  A: Irrelevant? This is what I've been asking you from the start. You
                  have so far tried with bad text analogies (which is not from the
                  real world which I asked), micro evolution such as combinations with
                  already existing genes (which I already agree with) and with
                  speculations. None can be used as support for your case. I was able
                  to list a real example of a loss, and you are unable to list an
                  example of a "gain". This is a fact.


                  > What would be your best reason for believing in
                  > evolution? What is your best
                  > support?
                  > /Ann

                  We have not resolved the debate about whether I gave
                  you a good example of beneficial mutations occuring
                  based on new genetic information.

                  A: I can imagine that my questions are bothering you. Do you think
                  that the nylon bug is the best support there is for macro evolution?
                  Or do you think there is a better example? Care to disclose the
                  better example for me?

                  First, Dawkins has covered the subject of
                  information-increase in 4 of his books.

                  A: I have not read all his four books, but some of it which is found
                  on the net. From what I have read he fails to give any real
                  examples. What he does is that he speculates, just like I've seen
                  both Ralph and you do. Speculation is not proof for macro evolution.

                  If I were
                  him, my four-page letter to film producers whom I feel
                  duped me, would also not replow ground I already
                  plowed in my writings, but would naturally be entirely
                  focused on my having felt deceived by them.

                  A: Why bothering writing a long letter to the producers unless the
                  person though himself that he succeeded in listing something useful
                  in the letter? Well, he didn't. We also know that he failed since he
                  hasn't listed any real examples in any of his books, and if I'm
                  wrong about this, please correct me and quote where he does.

                  the last half of which he
                  explains why you can't properly answer how information
                  increases in a genome, in a mere soundbite, which is
                  what the film crew expected to hear, given their
                  creationist misunderstandings.

                  A: Misunderstanding? They asked a simple question and got silence
                  back. What is it do misunderstand?

                  He then uses the rest
                  of the article to actually ANSWER the question which
                  you believe surely did stump him, proving that it
                  surely did NOT.

                  A: He did not answer a thing. See the other message that will follow
                  and also about the Shannon information in the end of this message.

                  Dawkins says:

                  It
                  is the kind of question only a creationist would ask
                  in that way---

                  A: So what? They asked a question he had problems answering. His
                  excuse afterwards didn't solve a thing for him but even made it
                  worse. And he said:

                  When I eventually saw the film a year later
                  1, I found that it had been edited to give the false
                  impression that I was incapable of answering the
                  question about information content

                  A: Noone forced him to be silent.

                  Also note: A review of Intelligent Design: The Bridge between
                  Science and Theology by William A. Dembski, InterVarsity Press,
                  Illinois, 1999
                  In Chapter 6, Dembski shows how Shannon's statistical information
                  theory can be translated into CSI numerical values, which are too
                  great to ever occur in the history of the universe through chance
                  processes. In The Design Inference anything requiring specified
                  probability value of 10–150 or less can be assigned unambiguously to
                  design. It is physically impossible to arrive at such a
                  configuration through any chance mechanism. This corresponds to 500
                  bits of information in the Shannon sense. Evolutionists try to
                  wiggle out by invoking some vague accelerated convergence through a
                  combination of chance and selection.

                  For further studies read this:

                  http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp

                  Refutations about Shannon's ideas. Text parts:

                  Information: a statistical study
                  With his (1948) paper entitled `A Mathematical Theory of
                  Communication', Claude E. Shannon was the first to devise a
                  mathematical definition of the concept of information. His measure
                  of information which is given in bits (binary digits), possessed the
                  advantage of allowing quantitative statements to be made about
                  relationships that had previously defied precise mathematical
                  description. This method has an evident drawback, however:
                  information according to Shannon does not relate to the qualitative
                  nature of the data, but confines itself to one particular aspect
                  that is of special significance for its technological transmission
                  and storage. Shannon completely ignores whether a text is
                  meaningful, comprehensible, correct, incorrect or meaningless.
                  Equally excluded are the important questions as to where the
                  information comes from (transmitter) and for whom it is intended
                  (receiver). As far as Shannon's concept of information is concerned,
                  it is entirely irrelevant whether a series of letters represents an
                  exceptionally significant and meaningful text or whether it has come
                  about by throwing dice. Yes, paradoxical though it may sound,
                  considered from the point of view of information theory, a random
                  sequence of letters possesses the maximum information content,
                  whereas a text of equal length, although linguistically meaningful,
                  is assigned a lower value.

                  The definition of information according to Shannon is limited to
                  just one aspect of information, namely its property of expressing
                  something new: information content is defined in terms of newness.
                  This does not mean a new idea, a new thought or a new item of
                  information—that would involve a semantic aspect—but relates merely
                  to the greater surprise effect that is caused by a less common
                  symbol. Information thus becomes a measure of the improbability of
                  an event. A very improbable symbol is therefore assigned
                  correspondingly high information content.

                  Before a source of symbols (not a source of information!) generates
                  a symbol, uncertainty exists as to which particular symbol will
                  emerge from the available supply of symbols (for example, an
                  alphabet). Only after the symbol has been generated is the
                  uncertainty eliminated. According to Shannon, therefore, the
                  following applies: information is the uncertainty that is eliminated
                  by the appearance of the symbol in question. Since Shannon is
                  interested only in the probability of occurrence of the symbols, he
                  addresses himself merely to the statistical dimension of
                  information. His concept of information is thus confined to a non-
                  semantic aspect. According to Shannon, information content is
                  defined such that three conditions must be fulfilled:

                  Summation condition: The information contents of mutually
                  independent symbols (or chains or symbols) should be capable of
                  addition. The summation condition views information as something
                  quantitative.

                  Probability condition: The information content to be ascribed to a
                  symbol (or to a chain of symbols) should rise as the level of
                  surprise increases. The surprise effect of the less common `z' (low
                  probability) is greater than that of the more frequent `e' (high
                  probability). It follows from this that the information content of a
                  symbol should increase as its probability decreases.

                  The bit as a unit of information: In the simplest case, when the
                  supply of symbols consists of just two symbols, which, moreover,
                  occur with equal frequency, the information content of one of these
                  symbols should be assigned a unit of precisely 1 bit. The following
                  empirical principle can be derived from this:

                  Theorem 1: The statistical information content of a chain of symbols
                  is a quantitative concept. It is given in bits (binary digits).

                  According to Shannon's definition, the information content of a
                  single item of information (an item of information in this context
                  merely means a symbol, character, syllable, or word) is a measure of
                  the uncertainty existing prior to its reception. Since the
                  probability of its occurrence may only assume values between 0 and
                  1, the numerical value of the information content is always
                  positive. The information content of a plurality of items of
                  information (for example, characters) results (according to the
                  summation condition) from the summation of the values of the
                  individual items of information. This yields an important
                  characteristic of information according to Shannon:

                  Theorem 2: According to Shannon's theory, a disturbed signal
                  generally contains more information than an undisturbed signal,
                  because, in comparison with the undisturbed transmission, it
                  originates from a larger quantity of possible alternatives.

                  Shannon's theory also states that information content increases
                  directly with the number of symbols. How inappropriately such a
                  relationship describes actual information content becomes apparent
                  from the following situation: If someone uses many words to say
                  virtually nothing, then, according to Shannon, in accordance with
                  the large number of letters, this utterance is assigned a very high
                  information content, whereas the utterance of another person, who is
                  skilled in expressing succinctly that which is essential, is
                  ascribed only a very low information content.

                  Furthermore, in its equation of information content, Shannon's
                  theory uses the factor of entropy to take account of the different
                  frequency distributions of the letters. Entropy thus represents a
                  generalised but specific feature of the language used. Given an
                  equal number of symbols (for example, languages that use the Latin
                  alphabet), one language will have a higher entropy value than
                  another language if its frequency distribution is closer to a
                  uniform distribution. Entropy assumes its maximum value in the
                  extreme case of uniform distribution.

                  DNA molecule: The carriers of genetic information, which perform
                  their biological functions throughout an entire life, are nucleic
                  acids. All cellular organisms and many viruses employ DNAs that are
                  twisted in an identical manner to form double helices; the remaining
                  viruses employ single-stranded ribonucleic acids (RNA). The figures
                  obtained from a comparison with man-made storage devices are nothing
                  short of astronomical if one includes the DNA molecule (see Figure
                  1). In this super storage device, the storage density is exploited
                  to the physico-chemical limit: its value for the DNA molecule is 45
                  x 1012 times that of the megachip. What is the explanation for this
                  immense difference of 45 trillion between VLSI technology and
                  natural systems? There are three decisive reasons:
                  The DNA molecule uses genuine volumetric storage technology, whereas
                  storage in computer devices is area-oriented. Even though the
                  structures of the chips comprise several layers, their storage
                  elements only have a two-dimensional orientation.

                  Theoretically, one single molecule is sufficient to represent an
                  information unit. This most economical of technologies has been
                  implemented in the design of the DNA molecule. In spite of all
                  research efforts on miniaturisation, industrial technology is still
                  within the macroscopic range.

                  Only two circuit states are possible in chips; this leads to
                  exclusively binary codes. In the DNA molecule, there are four
                  chemical symbols (see Figure 1); this permits a quaternary code in
                  which one state already represents 2 bits.

                  The knowledge currently stored in the libraries of the world is
                  estimated at 1018 bits. If it were possible for this information to
                  be stored in DNA molecules, 1 per cent of the volume of a pinhead
                  would be sufficient for this purpose. If, on the other hand, this
                  information were to be stored with the aid of megachips, we would
                  need a pile higher than the distance between the earth and the moon.

                  The five levels of information
                  Shannon's concept of information is adequate to deal with the
                  storage and transmission of data, but it fails when trying to
                  understand the qualitative nature of information.

                  Theorem 3: Since Shannon's definition of information relates
                  exclusively to the statistical relationship of chains of symbols and
                  completely ignores their semantic aspect, this concept of
                  information is wholly unsuitable for the evaluation of chains of
                  symbols conveying a meaning.

                  In order to be able adequately to evaluate information and its
                  processing in different systems, both animate and inanimate, we need
                  to widen the concept of information considerably beyond the bounds
                  of Shannon's theory. Figure 4 illustrates how information can be
                  represented as well as the five levels that are necessary for
                  understanding its qualitative nature.

                  Level 1: statistics
                  Shannon's information theory is well suited to an understanding of
                  the statistical aspect of information. This theory makes it possible
                  to give a quantitative description of those characteristics of
                  languages that are based intrinsically on frequencies. However,
                  whether a chain of symbols has a meaning is not taken into
                  consideration. Also, the question of grammatical correctness is
                  completely excluded at this level.

                  Information in living organisms
                  Life confronts us in an exceptional variety of forms; for all its
                  simplicity, even a monocellular organism is more complex and
                  purposeful in its design than any product of human invention.
                  Although matter and energy are necessary fundamental properties of
                  life, they do not in themselves imply any basic differentiation
                  between animate and inanimate systems. One of the prime
                  characteristics of all living organisms, however, is the information
                  they contain for all operational processes (performance of all life
                  functions, genetic information for reproduction). Braitenberg, a
                  German cybernetist, has submitted evidence `that information is an
                  intrinsic part of the essential nature of life.' The transmission of
                  information plays a fundamental role in everything that lives. When
                  insects transmit pollen from flower blossoms, (genetic) information
                  is essentially transmitted; the matter involved in this process is
                  insignificant. Although this in no way provides a complete
                  description of life as yet, it touches upon an extremely crucial
                  factor.

                  Without a doubt, the most complex information processing system in
                  existence is the human body. If we take all human information
                  processes together, that is, conscious ones (language, information-
                  controlled functions of the organs, hormone system), this involves
                  the processing of 1024 bits daily. This astronomically high figure
                  is higher by a factor of 1,000,000 than the total human knowledge of
                  1018 bits stored in all the world's libraries.

                  The concept of information
                  On the basis of Shannon's information theory, which can now be
                  regarded as being mathematically complete, we have extended the
                  concept of information as far as the fifth level. The most important
                  empirical principles relating to the concept of information have
                  been defined in the form of theorems. Here is a brief summary of
                  them:1

                  No information can exist without a code.

                  No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.

                  No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels:
                  statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics.

                  No information can exist in purely statistical processes.

                  No information can exist without a transmitter.

                  No information chain can exist without a mental origin.

                  No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is,
                  information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.

                  No information can exist without a will.

                  We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with
                  information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the
                  science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in
                  the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation.
                • Dave Wave
                  ... Because you aren t educated enough to know what new information in the genetic code is. I don t have the patience to teach you a proper foundation in
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jan 31, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dave:
                    > Sorry, the term I asked you to define would be
                    > defined
                    > by anybody who'd had the first two weeks of
                    > college-level introductory studies on DNA.
                    >
                    > A: OK, we will settle with that I'm not educated
                    > enough. Now, why
                    > don't you shorten our messages down by listing some
                    > positive
                    > mutations due to new genetic information?

                    Because you aren't educated enough to know what new
                    information in the genetic code is.

                    I don't have the patience to teach you a proper
                    foundation in first-year biology so that you don't end
                    up wasting everybody's time with your unlearned
                    questions. You may think evolutionists are scared of
                    your questions, but perhaps you may want to consider
                    that they don't like answering them because you don't
                    know enough to discern when the questions have been
                    answered correctly. Everything I told you is straight
                    out my first-year biology textbook from college.

                    Your position forces you to conclude that college
                    textbooks on biology are written by mad scientists
                    hell-bent on conspiring to decieve those who go to
                    college, making your creationist stance a case of
                    paranoia.

                    Thank you for admitting you are not educated enough.
                    I will not likely respond to your future taunts about
                    evolution being false, or requests for new genetic
                    material. If you had anything other than creationist
                    websites for education in biology, you wouldn't be so
                    ignorant that you fail to understand when your
                    question has been answered.

                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    http://mail.yahoo.com
                  • Ralph Krumdieck
                    ... [ralph] I have tried to explain my points. You keep coming back with the same questions that I thought I was answering. If you don t understand my
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jan 31, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > [ralph] Where did the nucleotides come from? The source of the very
                      > first ones is
                      > still a topic of research.----
                      > Once they were established, however, more
                      > nucleotide bases can be added by duplication, insertion, splice-site
                      > mutations, in fact many of the types of mutations I mentioned
                      > earlier.
                      >
                      > A: You are basically saying that the first few genes (5 or how
                      > many?) is still a puzzle but the rest can be solved. I can find
                      > scientific support for neither. How to explain the first genes is a
                      > HUGE problem. We have learned that things don't come about by
                      > themselves, and life cannot come from dead materia. Yet we are
                      > forced to believe this once happened, completely against scientific
                      > evidence. We also have to believe that the first genes had the
                      > ability to multiply and eventually cause two different genders, and
                      > the built in goal to become various animals. What you list is just
                      > an attempt to explain how the first genes could do this, but as I
                      > have said, duplication, insertion, etc can only work on what is
                      > already there, and it cannot produce anything new. This means that
                      > we are only speculating by using these things as means for
                      > something. It's only in our imagination. A fish doesn't have genetic
                      > information for fur, ears, noses, legs, tails etc, and yet we must
                      > believe that information for these things came about solely based on
                      > the information of fish. How could this be?

                      [ralph] I have tried to explain my points. You keep coming back with the
                      same questions that I thought I was answering. If you don't understand my
                      explanations, I'm willing to take the blame for that, but the truth is I
                      don't know how to make it any clearer. If you understand but don't accept
                      my explanations, then I think we will have to agree to disagree. I see no
                      profit in going around and around, covering and recovering the same points.
                    • annika4se
                      Hi,
                      Message 10 of 10 , Feb 2, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi,


                        <Now, why
                        > don't you shorten our messages down by listing some
                        > positive
                        > mutations due to new genetic information?

                        Because you aren't educated enough to know what new
                        information in the genetic code is.

                        A: I had hoped that my statement would help you to overcome your
                        fear of giving me the examples I requested. You can't complain that
                        I don't understand something you have not even listed.

                        This is the story so far:

                        I asked you to list 5 positive mutations due to new genetic
                        information.

                        You listed the nylon bug.

                        Yet I told you specifically to not to use the nylon bug because
                        there are many scientists who have refuted it as a valid example of
                        new genetic information. The nylon bug example is at best doubtful,
                        and it would therefore be better for you to use other more clear
                        examples out of the billion new mutations that should be out there.
                        I'm also tired of getting to hear about this nylon bug whenever I
                        ask for real examples. This tells me that the (refuted) nylon bug is
                        all there is in the "group of examples"! Looks like the entire
                        theory of evolution rests on this nylon bug.

                        When you couldn't find any more examples of positive mutations, you
                        tried with text bits and rearrangements of already existing letters,
                        just like this would be some kind of support for your case, or just
                        like rearrangement of letters is what I asked you to list.

                        When you fail to list any more examples, you start to complain that
                        I lack enough science education (I doubt you have a degree in
                        biology so that would even it out) to understand your answers. Yet I
                        have specifically told you why you are in error when it comes to the
                        nylon bug. My sources are Dr Sarfati, Dr Batten, Dr Wieland, and
                        many others who are well qualified in the subject. You have not been
                        able to give me a valid reason to why you think they are in error.

                        You have only given me a text from Musgrave, which you apparently
                        hadn't read yourself since you asked me who Musgrave was, but he
                        wasn't able to bring new light in the subject. You have also tried
                        with Dawkins, but when checking his material, he has not been able
                        to list any real examples either, but spends a lot of time
                        speculating about debunked Shannon information and other things that
                        are pure fantasy. Speculations are no support for macro evolution.

                        You have also direct or indirect listed examples of micro evolution,
                        since you focus so much on rearrangement of already existing genes.
                        Noone disputes micro evolution, but my point is that variations
                        within a kind doesn't lead to macro evolution and that fish can
                        evolve into football players.

                        You have through your questions proved to me that you are not
                        informed about what creationists really believe. You wouldn't have
                        asked the questions you do if you had read the basic FAQ questions,
                        and answers, on the major YEC sites. You would instead try to refute
                        the answers instead of repeating already answered questions.

                        Finally, look at this sentence that I give you:

                        "An example of a positive mutation is the loss of wings on beetles
                        on an island, which meant that they didn't get caught by the wind
                        and drowned in the sea. Instead they remained on land and multiplied
                        more than beetles with wings, so this mutation ended up as positive
                        for them."

                        It took me two sentences to give you a real example of a positive
                        mutation due to loss of genetic information. Why are you (and
                        Dawkins) unable to spend two sentences about a real example where a
                        positive mutation is due to NEW genetic information? I suspect
                        because such examples don't exist. That's the end of the story.

                        <<You may think evolutionists are scared of
                        your questions, but perhaps you may want to consider
                        that they don't like answering them because you don't
                        know enough to discern when the questions have been
                        answered correctly.

                        A: If people cannot answer such questions, it's common that they use
                        lots of irrelevant text efforts and smoke screens to escape from the
                        trap. Counter-attacks are also common.

                        > A: You are basically saying that the first few genes (5 or how
                        > many?) is still a puzzle but the rest can be solved. I can find
                        > scientific support for neither. How to explain the first genes is a
                        > HUGE problem. We have learned that things don't come about by
                        > themselves, and life cannot come from dead materia. Yet we are
                        > forced to believe this once happened, completely against scientific
                        > evidence. We also have to believe that the first genes had the
                        > ability to multiply and eventually cause two different genders, and
                        > the built in goal to become various animals. What you list is just
                        > an attempt to explain how the first genes could do this, but as I
                        > have said, duplication, insertion, etc can only work on what is
                        > already there, and it cannot produce anything new. This means that
                        > we are only speculating by using these things as means for
                        > something. It's only in our imagination. A fish doesn't have
                        genetic
                        > information for fur, ears, noses, legs, tails etc, and yet we must
                        > believe that information for these things came about solely based
                        on
                        > the information of fish. How could this be?

                        [ralph] I have tried to explain my points. You keep coming back
                        with the
                        same questions that I thought I was answering. If you don't
                        understand my
                        explanations, I'm willing to take the blame for that, but the truth
                        is I
                        don't know how to make it any clearer. If you understand but don't
                        accept
                        my explanations, then I think we will have to agree to disagree. I
                        see no
                        profit in going around and around, covering and recovering the same
                        points.

                        A: Hi Ralph. No, I cannot see that you did answer my questions, but
                        thanks for the attempt. I can only see that you try to prove that
                        variations within a kind (rearrangement of already existing genes)
                        could cause new features, but I already agree with this. But my view
                        is that fish cannot evolve into football players by themselves. A
                        fish doesn't have legs, arms, ears, hair etc, and yet you are trying
                        to tell me that these new features for some reason arose by
                        themselves with the fish as starting point, and eventually turned
                        into football players via the Zoo. There are many hurdles to
                        overcome, and natural selection would prevent such slow evolution
                        from happening. Eventhough it's perfectly ok to speculate how this
                        evolution could be done, it's in no way proof for macro evolution.
                        There are no real examples out there.

                        /Ann
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.