|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/01/2007 : 20:37:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You have not answered, but I will. According to the bible different amount of different types (as I was not there I do not know, it also could be a retelling of a story in contemporary context). |
According to the Bible, Moses wasn't even born when Noah took animals on the Ark during a Flood. Your failure to see the mistaken premise within the question is a symptom of the overall problem you're having here in these forums, Jerome.| Dave, how many mutations does it take to increase data in DNA? |
Had you read the links provided to you, you would know that the answer is one.
|
I get it you are trying to admit that DNA data does not increase with a mutation without having to say it.
Do you propose that the mutations that caused changes in genetic data from the origin came from a complex set of data and was devolved into our current forms of species?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 20:42:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I get it you are trying to admit that DNA data does not increase with a mutation without having to say it. |
I get it: you're ignoring what I write in favor of some fabricated nonsense. I said "one." The links I provided say "one." How many more different ways to you need to be told that a single mutation can result in an increase in genetic information as you've defined it before you'll acknowledge that an answer has been provided?| Do you propose that the mutations that caused changes in genetic data from the origin came from a complex set of data and was devolved into our current forms of species? |
Why would I propose such unevidenced speculation? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 21:10:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I get it you are trying to admit that DNA data does not increase with a mutation without having to say it. |
I get it: you're ignoring what I write in favor of some fabricated nonsense. I said "one." The links I provided say "one." How many more different ways to you need to be told that a single mutation can result in an increase in genetic information as you've defined it before you'll acknowledge that an answer has been provided?| Do you propose that the mutations that caused changes in genetic data from the origin came from a complex set of data and was devolved into our current forms of species? |
Why would I propose such unevidenced speculation?
|
I saw nowhere was the DNA data increased by mutation. If this is so please point it out.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 21:23:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I saw nowhere was the DNA data increased by mutation. If this is so please point it out. |
You defined "DNA data" as the number of bases in the DNA, did you not? If a mutation inserts another base into a DNA sequence, increasing the count of bases by one - as happened with the Nylon Bug - then the information has increased per your definition. A gene or chromosome duplication event will increase the information in an entire genome by a rather large amount, per your definition, meaning that Down's Syndrome (a whole duplicated chromosome) is due to an increase in DNA information per your definition. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 21:31:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
When I present information it is commonly discounted because the presenter is not acceptable.(not that the data is invaild) |
I didn't ask if you could present information. I asked if you could produce it. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 23:42:25 [Permalink]
|
Jerome said:
Has a genetic mutation ever caused an increase in the number of amino acids in a particular DNA strand?
The nylon bug has been a common answer without explanation. Does the nylon bug have more information in its DNA that the previous species?
|
1. No. Apparently you are once again defeated by terminology. There is not, and never has been, an amino acid in DNA.
2. Yes. The nylon bug has more "information" in its DNA. It evolved an entirely new, and novel, metabolic pathway to obtain energy from a substance that never existed on earth prior to early last century.
Just admit that you are an ignorant fool Jerome, you lack the knowledge needed to discuss this topic in even the most basic of layman's terms. Yet here you are, trying to argue.... fool.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 03:28:57 [Permalink]
|
This nylon bug you are all in love with thinking it some proof is nothing more than a 98% less efficient creature. This is a defect not an advantage. The frame shift mutation caused this creature to have a deformity that would not allow it to survive in nature. This is the best you have to show an increase in DNA data changing a creature into something "better"?
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 05:40:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This nylon bug you are all in love with thinking it some proof is nothing more than a 98% less efficient creature. This is a defect not an advantage. The frame shift mutation caused this creature to have a deformity that would not allow it to survive in nature. This is the best you have to show an increase in DNA data changing a creature into something "better"? |
Once again with the goalpost shifting. Once Jerome is shown an increase in information in a DNA sequence per his own definition (which didn't mention anything about improvements), he refuses to acknowledge it and instead dismisses it because it doesn't make the organism "better." Classic creationist tactics, especially the implied claim that evolution is supposed to improve things.
Note also the truly bizarre rationalization, that the "frame shift mutation caused this creature to have a deformity that would not allow it to survive in nature," even though the Nylon Bug was found out in the wild, naturally, and surviving just fine. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 08:19:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
[When I present information it is commonly discounted because the presenter is not acceptable.(not that the data is invaild)
|
That is because the presenter is a know liar, and therefore the "facts" he is presenting is suspect, and cannot be trusted without further verification. Or, the "fact" is presented out of its originally intended context, which means that the "fact" is misrepresented to support a falsehood.
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 12:12:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
That's the thing I've never understood about this tactic. If one mutation can increase genetic information while allows the organism to survive, why can't a future mutation be used to improve its ability to survive? So that the overall effect a series of mutations that not only increases the genetic information, but improve the organism's ability to survive as well. Do they really not consider this, or do they just hope they won't get called on it? |
Well, that's not actually the tactic I was refering to. Creationists abuse the "common knowledge" version of evolution, in which mutation and selection are supposed to make organisms inexorably go from simple and less able to survive towards more complex and "better." Anything that goes against that implied directionality is jumped upon as being "contrary" to evolutionary theory, thus disproving it.
Of course, in reality, evolutionary theory predicts no directionality whatsoever, because whether a trait is "better" for an organism or not is dependent upon the environment, which changes constantly. Plus, many mutations are initially neutral (some are even "silent"), but can become beneficial over time. All these facts are ignored in favor of trying to tear down the strawman. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 12:55:23 [Permalink]
|
Ignorant troll said:
This nylon bug you are all in love with thinking it some proof is nothing more than a 98% less efficient creature. This is a defect not an advantage. The frame shift mutation caused this creature to have a deformity that would not allow it to survive in nature. This is the best you have to show an increase in DNA data changing a creature into something "better"?
|
Drop the nylon bug into a vat of nylon. Drop the bug it evolved from into a vat of nylon. Come back a week later.
When you look at your two vats and see that the old bug has become extinct, and the newer nylon bug is thriving... which one is "better" then?
Again, I seem to have underestimated Jerome's capacity for stupidity. Calling him an idiot with any adjective in front of it seems now inappropriate. Imbecile seems like a better word, but even then I fear he will prove me wrong, and I'd have to change up to an even stronger word to describe his stupidity.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 13:13:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
But it is still yet another straw man that the genetic mutation which increases information must also be the same one which "improves" (better chance for survival) the organism. |
Yeah, which is why I stuck in some mention of neutral and silent mutations.
It's pretty clear that Jerome's personal definition of "evolution" involves the idea that mutations must be beneficial and be due to codon insertions simultaneously. But he's just showing off how much he doesn't know. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 14:27:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This nylon bug you are all in love with thinking it some proof is nothing more than a 98% less efficient creature. This is a defect not an advantage. |
On the contrary. It is a distinct advantage. You name it a defect because you don't realise the significance of the mutation, or the bacteria's place in it's ecological niche.
If you had graduated High School, maybe you would have been educated enough to able to see how it fits together.
| The frame shift mutation caused this creature to have a deformity that would not allow it to survive in nature. |
Define "deformity" and "nature".
| This is the best you have to show an increase in DNA data changing a creature into something "better"? |
Define "better".
I bring up the case of the Nylon Bug because it is a text-book example of a ground-breaking moment in the evolution of a certain strain of flavobacteria. For several reasons. It is also such a well documented example. I could explain why, but I don't feel like wasting effort on someone like you, who has time and time again proved that you don't let anything as pesky as reality interfere with the delusion in which you live.
(and yes, in the case of the Nylon Bug, the mutation actually produced a better bacteria, from the bacteria's point of view.)
edited for clarity |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 07/02/2007 14:31:06 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Man Can Almost Create Life
