Do you think the success of evolution is based on people's ignorance of the theories supporting it?

Question

By the theories supporting it, I'm referring to speciation (also known as natural selection). I'm also referring to basic scientific knowledge such as the conservation of matter and the fact that new genetic material cannot be created, only passed on.

If you want to read the evidence that goes against the theories I mentioned, keep reading- otherwise just post an answer.

Species: A class of plants or animals having common attributes and designated by a common name. (google definitions)

So therefore species is variation of a certain animal. i.e. variations of the wolf/dog kind: wolf, coyote, dingo, collie etc., right?

So does natural selection (or evolution) produce design?

If you do basic biology, (as Darwin obviously did), you know that one of the basic facts is that natural selection is a 'logical' process. However, one of the facts of natural selection is that it only operates on the information that is already contained in the genes, it can not produce new information. (Actually, this biological fact is consistent with the Bible's account of origins, in that God created distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind. It's true that we can observe, (as you obviously have) a great variation in a kind (species) and see the 'results' of natural selction. For instance, referring back to the example I gave earlier, we would think the variation of the wolf/dog kind is a result of natural selection operating on the information found in the genes of the wolf/dog kind.

But the point is (referring to before) NO NEW INFORMATION WAS PRODUCED: these dogs have resulted from a rearrangement, sorting out and separation of the information in the original dog kind. One kind has never been observed to change into a totally different kind with information that PREVIOUSLY DID NOT EXIST. Without intelligent input to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution.Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution.

However, some evolutionists believe that mutations somehow provide new info for natural selection to act upon.

However, this has now been disproved- scientists (look up Dr Lee Spetner's book); it has been found that in all mutations investigated, NOT ONE mutation has added information. All point mutations studied on a molecular level have been found to reduce the genetic information, and not to increase it.

The NDT (neo-Darwinian Theory) is supposedly an explanation to how information on life was built up by evolution- for example, the essential biological difference between a human and bacteria is the information contained in each, hence all other biological differences stem from that. The human genome has much more information than the bacterial genome. INFORMATION CANNOT BE BUILT UP BY MUTATIONS THAT LOSE IT. So, as you can see, mutations also do not work as a mechanism to support evolution. I repeat- not even one mutation has been observed to add even a little info to the genome. Therefore failure to observe even one mutation is even more than failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence AGAINST the theory.

Therefore both natural selection and mutations producing new information are BOTH eliminated as mechanisms to produce the information and design of living systems.

Most evolutionists don't realise this, it seems...

So much for BLIND FAITH.

Answer 1

ROMANS 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Answer 2

I'm sorry you've been duped by the whole "Evolution can not produce new genetic information" nonsense. This issue has been thoroughly addressed.



There are several mechanisms by which new information could be added to the genome. One of these is gene duplication. A large sequence of DNA could be duplicated, so that it is now redundant. Then, it is free to mutate in any way without harmful effects the organism. Sometimes they mutate in such a way that the code for a new protein and thus are then subject to selective pressures. Gene duplication is well documented and well studied.



Another mechanism would be retroviral insertions. A retrovirus inserts it's genetic material into a host's genome. Errors in copying or insertion would lead to the virus's genetic material not working. Now the host has new genetic information that is free to mutate and undergo selective pressures. Endogenous retroviruses are well documented as well. In fact, there are several functioning genes in humans that originated from retroviral insertions.



You seem to have a very hostile attitude towards evolution and science in general. Perhaps you feel that evolution is threatening to your religious views? There are millions and millions of Christians who accept evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life. I wonder, are you open to the possibility that perhaps evolution is true and that it is you with the ignorance on the topic? If so, I'd be happy to help you understand evolution and answer any questions you might have. But if you are just choosing to remain close minded on the subject, and declare a-priori that you are right, then I wish you good luck.

Answer 3

I'm just going to correct some of your factual errors;



1. New genetic material is created all the time through recombination of genes by the process of sexual reproduction and through the process of mutation.



2. A dog is a domesticated wolf, not a sub-species of the genre.



3." one of the facts of natural selection is that it only operates on the information that is already contained in the genes, it can not produce new information."



But that's not the purpose of natural selection - it weeds out the combinations that cannot effectively compete with the other combinations. It was never intended to operate on the genetic information.



4. "But the point is (referring to before) NO NEW INFORMATION WAS PRODUCED:"



That's not the point at which new information is produced, in any case - it's through mutation that a new variant arises. And THAT is new genetic information. Natural selection simply subjects the new variant to the "survive or die" test.



5. "Without intelligent input to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution."



So now, you're postulating that God did not create the world in 7 days, but has been re-creating new species all along? The scientists will laugh at this and the Christian's aren't going to thank you for it.



6. Dr. Spetner's methodology is suspect. See;



http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho36.htm#Par4



And mutations DO add information, otherwise the flu bug would have been dead decades ago. But new strains keep cropping up every year.



Obviously, you have set out to try and disprove evolution and grabbed at anything that supports your pre-conceived ideas.



That's incredibly bad science.



Having "facts" that have already been exposed as sloppy further weakens your case.



And the alternative that you offer (creationism) has no support at all.



Intelligent design is so full of holes that it looks like Swiss cheese.



So that leaves you nowhere at all.

Answer 4

First problem that I see is how you are using the term "new information." It is ill-defined in your rather lengthy question. Do you mean new genetic material? Let's take that stance first. Mutations do not create new genetic material. I don't know that it does or does not because I'm not a biologist, but there are very clear examples of where new genetic material is added: such as endogenous retroviruses and alu sequences.



This leads us to the next point: how much information do you really think is on, say, the human genome? Well over 90% of the human genome doesn't code for anything at all. Would you say then that over 90% of the human genome carries no information?



The third point that I would bring up in new information is this: a simple mutation can convey a completely different meaning, thus, generating completely new information. Consider the following:

"Call me Ishmael."

"Call me, Ishmael."

"Ball me, Ishmael."

"Call me, Ishmael!"



Each one of those four contain either one or two changes from Melville's original text, which are mutations. Each one of those four conveys a completely different meaning. Some may be neutral to the effect on the over all text, some may be deleterious. However, the central point is this: a copying error or mutation does not mean that information is lost. It means that information is changed, yielding completely NEW information relative to the parent copy. In the end, this understanding of "new information" is soundly refuted.



Law of conservation of matter. Well, this is simply a misappropriation of thermodynamics. I'd like to refer you to a concept called "polyploidy," wherein two different sets and amounts of chromosomes combine into a new organism. Thus, new genetic information IS added to the genome of the offspring. So your point is refuted in this way.



Back to thermodynamics. It is blind to "information." Information implies an information reader/gatherer to whom/which the information has meaning. If there is no reader/gatherer, there is no information. If the text, be it script, sound, or nucleic acids, has no meaning to the reader, then there is no information. If you want to see this in practice, try memorizing a Tibetan text some time to transcribe.



All in all, your claim against evolution fails scientifically and philosophically.



EDIT--By the way, the essentialist definition of species that you are using was discredited 150 years ago.



EDIT--I call the sources you cite into question. They have the stated agendas of 1) convincing others that there is a god, and 2) convincing people that evolution is not true. Those agendas are not up for discussion or review by the authors. As far as the scientists and positions that you cite, the only one competent to evaluate evolutionary theory is the one who works for the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History (if memory serves). The rest are physical scientists, and their work is unrelated to biology, zoology, paleontology, anthropology, virology, biochemistry, microbiology, botany, biogeography, or anatomy.

Answer 5

You need to learn basic scientific principles.

Observation of something not happening does not prove it can't happen, which is what you are implying. Just because no one has witnessed a beneficial mutation, doesn't mean there is no such thing. If you study mathematics at all, you will know that a point mutation will generate a benefit in some cases, although the likelihood is extremely remote.



Also, because scientists have not found the mechanism for evolution adding information does not mean it does not happen. I have read of theories which propose methods where information is added (forget the source). Basically, genes are duplicated to add length to the genome.

Answer 6

You have been duped by fallacious material. I am going out on a limb here and guessing that you got it from creationists.



In response:-



"Species: A class of plants or animals having common attributes and designated by a common name. (google definitions)



So therefore species is variation of a certain animal. i.e. variations of the wolf/dog kind: wolf, coyote, dingo, collie etc., right?"



Wrong. Dogs and Wolves have very different Genomes. Technically, speciation was detected by physical attributes before the existence of DNA technologies. Now that we have such technologies we can more accurately guage the differences between species. Furthermore, variation of a species is limited to where the DNA of the species remains consistent in structure but different in combination. Wolves and Dogs have different DNA structures which affects their phenotypes - Bulldogs and Chiahuahua's on the other hand have the same DNA structure but a different variation of same.





"However, this has now been disproved- scientists (look up Dr Lee Spetner's book); it has been found that in all mutations investigated, NOT ONE mutation has added information. All point mutations studied on a molecular level have been found to reduce the genetic information, and not to increase it."



This whole point about no new information from mutations is completely wrong. Richard Lenski's experiment proves the potential for increase in genetic code in mutation. Furthermore, we have observed several genetic copying errors as well as variations leading to additional genetic information is a later mutation. The problem is that these mutations take place about 1 in 30,000 generations, that is a long time between drinks. Accordingly, in the last 200 years we have not been presented with many opportunities to study such "positive" mutations. Nonetheless, they have been observed - look up XXY human for instance.

Answer 7

No. Scientists who work in evolutionary biology understand it better than anyone else - because they're the ones doing it.



Your fundamental objection, that new genetic material isn't ever produced, is incorrect. Genetic material is often duplicated. This is an extremely common kind of "copy error" - two copies of a given bit of DNA are produced from one source bit. Here is an easy-to-understand summary:



http://mechanismsevo.blogspot.com/2007/11/duplication.html



He has links to OTHER ways in which new material can be produced too.



I would also caution you on the use of the word "information." DNA is not best understood as an information system any more than a manual transmission is.



You should also be careful to use technical definitions for words like "species." Ordinary dictionaries don't give scientific definitions for terms, they give lay definitions. If you want to know what a species is in terms of biology, you need a biology textbook.



You can see the result of your misunderstanding right below your definition - "wolf" is not a species. There are in fact many species of wolves, coyotes, etc.

Answer 8

Sorry little girl, but that is a simple, blatant lie. It's been shown multiple times that mutations CAN build up a genome. So it's quite pathetic to see lies like this. Do I hear pathetic desperation happening here? Hmm...



And if you don't think so, then please explain nylon-eating bacteria to me. Nylon is an artificial material that did not exist on Earth AT ALL until the 1930s, and was indigestible to every microbe on Earth due to that fact. Now, 70/80 years later, there are bacteria that have the capacity to digest it. So if new genetic information cannot be created, only passed on, how did they EVOLVE the capacity to digest it?



You are a liar, plain and simple. Buh-bye now.



EDIT: Nope, you haven't answered my question yet. And since the idea that all bacterial/viral mutation involves nothing but loss of genetic information is utter nonsense with no factual backing, you're still talking shite.



EDIT2: What you fail to mention is that numerous OTHER scientists from those same institutions far outweigh the creationist minority and have debunked those little arguments you put forward. But I suppose as a theist, a claim to false authority is the best you can hope for. And you still haven't answered my question, which is rather funny. Just shows you really can't back up your blind assertions.

Answer 9

No, I think it's because it's true.



"one of the facts of natural selection is that it only operates on the information that is already contained in the genes, it can not produce new information." - You're right. Mutations and errors of copying are what produce the new 'information' upon which natural selection can then act. That's how evolution works - variation, inheritance, selection. It's absolutely inevitable.



"not even one mutation has been observed to add even a little info to the genome" - untrue, there are myriads of examples of exactly this. Mutations can be deletions, changes or additions to the genome.

Answer 10

It goes by more than just a species. Plants and animals are the kingdoms and then broken down in this order kingdom , phylum ,class , order , family , Genus , species. and the evolution of a particular animal or plant varies on its climate and needs to survive especially with man stuffing the earth up which is why extinction is occurring. A bird in the tropics camouflages itself to cope with its climate and predators as does the same bird in a colder climate and while they might be in the same family, their Genus and species changes minimally.

Answer 11

Complete and utter bullshit. Where did you copy and paste this from?



Define information. All that is in DNA is a nucleotide sequence. Mutations can add, remove, or change nucleotides. Larger structural mutations can result in doubling segments, inverting them, stuttering, ect.



Since we have observed a brand new gene being created from nothing on more than one occasion, your argument falls to pieces.



Evolution involving new "information:"

the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon

adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment

the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose

evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga

modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol

evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars



Edit: I have listed several examples that all involve the creation of new genetic material, either from an intergenic sequence or a gene duplication event.



Your claim was disproven in the 1970's with the discovery of nylon digesting bacteria. Since nylon was not invented until the 1930's, the enzyme for this activity had to be new.



The genetics was finally done in the mid nineties. Another, unrelated gene, was duplicated and underwent a frame shift (complete reshuffling of the amino acids sequence). A new enzyme was created from random junk.



This is the overriding problem of creationists. They do not keep up with real science.



Additionally, your incorrect claim does not in anyway diminish the vast amount of evidence in support of common descent.



And again you are incorrect. Antibiotic resistance is usually a modification of a gene. In the case of resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics, a new gene is involved that degrades the antibiotic.



Throwing names with degrees around won't help your case. The literature has already successfully refuted your claim a dozen times over.



Admit it. You are wrong on this point.



Edit: Dr. Purdom is simply incorrect then. I can give you several dozen papers listing the actual mutations and mechanisms of antibiotic resistance.



I cannot think of a single one that results from the complete inactivation of the gene, for good reason. If the antibiotic target was dispensable, the antibiotic wouldn't work.

Answer 12

Yes, it was found among leading evolutionists, including the modern day Einsten - Stephen Hawkins, that there was no real evidence to support evolution. It is an updated Medieval theory of pathogenesis or spontaneous generation. Simply stated - something coming out of nothing!



Check what Dr. Carl Baugh dah to say about it.

Answer 13

"f you do basic biology, (as Darwin obviously did), you know that one of the basic facts is that natural selection is a 'logical' process. However, one of the facts of natural selection is that it only operates on the information that is already contained in the genes, it can not produce new information."



Your premise is incorrect. It is logical in that if adheres to laws of physics, not what we would consider to be the laws of logic. It does not operate on information from outside the gene but because the process of reproduction is not perfect, random errors occur. On rare occasions those errors are beneficial to the survivability of the gene which gives it a better chance of passing that trait on. That's where the new information comes from.



You might do well to look at this with an open mind rather a Christian intellect.

Answer 14

I've read all these things multiple times. There are many noted scientists who say basically the same things (both secular and religious). It's funny how people will call the Bible a fairy tale, even though there are countless evidences of it's truth, but they will believe these evolution fairy tales without question because some scientist says, "look how our DNA looks like a chimps". I've read other "scientific" journals that say the DNA among humans can vary up to 12%, yet we're 98% similar to chimps. Does this mean I'm more closely related to a chimp than to other humans? Yikes, maybe I am! I'm also 50% genetically similar to a banana. Maybe I'm bananas too (no need to reply). I bet if you bury me next to someone like Patrick Ewing and let someone dig us up in a few hundred years, they'd think we were different species because I'd be so much shorter and my jaw doesn't stick out as far. I've got a bad back too, so they'd probably think I didn't walk fully upright yet. I wonder which of us they would date to an earlier era and make the ancestor of the other. What a bunch of hooey!

Answer 15

what we have here is religious zealot angry because evolution is right here we see her lying because the mutation CAN create genome making evolution happen she does a good job at sounding smart though but unless you actually research you probably would believe her look were sorry we are getting smarter and proving your god does not exist a little bit at a time soon there will be no religion

Answer 16

nope youre quite wring about no information being available.



too bad you wrote such a long post based on such a bad premise.



The Case of the Midwife Toad, fully researched and footneoted by Arthur Koestler, shoudl be a good start.

Along with Edward Wilson's "sociobiology"



Honestly I don't know where you creationists spend so much time and have read so little.

Answer 17

It's not built up on, it's multiplied, and then mutated. There are so many different combinations, that trying to prove that evolution can't happen is just foolhardy. Odds are for it, love.

Plus, you tell me ONE thing that doesn't change. Just one little thing with biological evidence that stays entirely static its entire existence. Evolution is CHANGE, and CHANGE is the only constant.

So much for SIMPLE UNDERSTANDING.

Answer 18

Off Topic: I hate the people who think they can justify an answer as their own by simply quoting passages from the bible. I don't want to hear what the bible states, I was to know what YOU actually think



On Topic: Your reasoning may be headed in a good direction, however, you have over simplified things, and have not fully done your research either. However, kudos to you for giving it a try.

Answer 19

Nice. Did you learn copy-paste form Kent Hovind too?



Wolf and Coyote are different species. They probably share their genus, you know, the next step of the 7 step animal classification tree.



'Kind' is not a biological term.





Please explain away why we can DIRECTLY observe certain fast-reproducing bacteria evolve every year. Like say, the influenza virus? Have you got the updated shot yet? Why do you think we need to update those vaccinations?!

Answer 20

Couldn't you include a few more creationist misunderstandings and deliberate misrepresentations in that? You only hit a few of them.



Creationist "science" depends on an audience that doesn't understand science. Those of us who have had college level science know that most of those claims are completely bogus and the rest have no more than a speck of truth to them.

Answer 21

Evolution's success is solely because it is fact proven time and again by science. The crap you wrote it not science. No matter how many times you guys write it, it will still be untrue. If you want to see blind faith, look in the mirror.

Answer 22

You obviously stumbled upon some Creationist website and are espousing their nonesense, that is ignorance! Hint: try to find any peer review to this "work".

Answer 23

Mutations introduce new traits and natural selection selects those with are advantageous.



This is not controversial in the scientific community.

Answer 24

University peer pressure=success in rejecting the Creator until the time of judgment.

Answer 25

Ironic question of the day :P Accusing Scientists of being ignorant of scientific principles, while showing a complete ignorance yourself. Awesome :)



Anyway, this should clear it up for you.



http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Answer 26

Evolution is no longer a theory..

It is a fact..

A fact whose denial is more and more being

relegated to such groups as the "flat earth society".

Answer 27

i dont think its ignorance .. i just think its the most likely theory based on available evidence and the most logical ... i dont think there is enough evidence to blindly believe the theories no .. but i understand that its the really only available answer to our roots other than believing in spiritual things ..

Answer 28

Seems 'someone' is seeking confirmation of their faith-based beliefs by pontificating to excess against evolution.

Feeling shaky about your dogma?



BTW keep it out of the street, it is liable to get run over.

Answer 29

It is because of their rebelliousness to what is from God, and because they refuse to draw close to God because doing so would render their immoral lifestyles unfavorably. When the non-believers continue in their paths of destruction & immorality, they think they are excusing themselves from God's laws, but really they only fool themselves because Jehovah God will not be mocked. It's only a matter of time before all the wicked ones are destroyed for good & make way for a paradise earth free from sin & death.



THE teaching of evolution is not designed to build faith in God. It does not encourage one to view the Bible with deep respect. So it comes as a surprise to some persons when they realize that large numbers of the clergy of Christendom freely endorse evolution and that it is advocated in the textbooks used in their church-supported schools.



BEWARE!



THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an established fact. They believe that evolution is an “actual occurrence,” a “reality,” a “truth,” as one dictionary defines the word “fact.” But is it?



To illustrate: It was once believed that the earth was flat. Now it has been established for a certainty that it is spherical in shape. That is a fact. It was once believed that the earth was the center of the universe & the heavens revolved around the earth. Now we know for sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a fact. Many things that were once only debated theories have been established by the evidence as solid fact, reality, truth.



Would an investigation of the evidence for evolution leave one on the same solid ground? Interestingly, ever since Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of Species was published in 1859, various aspects of the theory have been a matter of considerable disagreement even among top evolutionary scientists. Today, that dispute is more intense than ever. And it is enlightening to consider what advocates of evolution themselves are saying about the matter.



Evolution Under Assault



The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.” Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated: “For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century & a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.



A London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said this about it: “It was a beautifully simple & attractive theory. The only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it was full of colossal holes.” Regarding Darwin’s Origin of Species, he observed: “We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the kind.”

-------------------------------



Even more important than analyzing the weaknesses in the case for evolution, however, is our examining what the Bible itself says & its consistency with observable evidence. With marvelous simplicity the opening verse of Genesis says: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen. 1:1) Thus it comes to grips with a question that baffles evolutionists. Instead of leaving us in the dark as to that fundamental point concerning the origin of all things, it tells us the answer, simply & understandably. It confirms our own observation of the fact that nothing comes into existence by itself. Grass huts, wooden homes & brick apartment buildings all were designed & built by someone. Even though we personally were not on hand when a particular structure was erected, we know that it had a builder. In harmony with that, the Bible reasons: “Every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.”—Hebrews 3:4.



Further enlarging on this, Jeremiah 10:10-12 records: “Jehovah is in truth God. He is the living God . . . He is the Maker of the earth by his power, the One firmly establishing the productive land by his wisdom & the One who by his understanding stretched out the heavens.” Does this description coincide with what we can observe? Did the making of the earth require great power? You have no doubt seen pictures showing what happens when man splits the atoms in even a very small portion of the material making up the earth. By this means tremendous power is released for either constructive or destructive use. This has been demonstrated repeatedly by the explosion of nuclear devices. If all the atoms in a pound of matter were changed into energy, it is said that they would release power equivalent to that from the explosion of ten million tons of TNT. How great, then, must be the power that was employed in making up this matter—not just a pound of it, but the 6.6 sextillion tons that comprise the earth!

Answer 30

your post is an epic fail every last source of your has been refuted.

Answer 31

Despite Darwin's revolutionary theory on evolution and the origin of humankind, there are still holes in the theory that many people have overlooked. See here:

Answer 32

Then how do you explain this, all dogs EVOLVED from Wolves. I rest my case.

Answer 33

You didn't even get the definition of speciation right.

Answer 34

yeh, they are people who blindly agree with evolution, but then they talk to the scientists that continue to prove it.

Answer 35

alright, how did you end up with chihuahuas when the wolf genes cannot change?

Answer 36

and you - do you understand what the word THEORY actually means?

Answer 37

I'm going to read that?

Answer 38

i could ask the same thing about christianaty

Answer 39

Not only true ,but logical put, good job.

t