Evolution is a valid scientific theory

Here's proof that random mutations can add information to DNA.
http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/proof-that-mutations-can-create-information/

 

But you don't?

You have to assert an effort to understand the evidence presented.
Unless you lack the conceptual ability as I suspect.
It's all those psych meds, you know.

 

Monkeyboy, for each "proof" you presented there is an equal number of dis-proof that appears as a random article on some blogosphere by some random poster like the tinyfrog.
Here is the google search result for random mutations can add information to DNA http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ation+to+DNA&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
just click on any link there and see for yourself.
In fact that 'proof' you refer to is no more a proof of anything than any post you have made here so far.

But we do need to get a more detailed account and precise references if there is an evidence of random mutations adding useful information to DNA

We would also need to hear the counter-argument or criticism of such account by someone with at least the same level of knowledge in the field, who was able to make an argument on equal grounds and premises (not some false dichotomy of Darwinist vs Creationist).

Now, in this particular case, since I simply lack belief in Positive Assertion made, I have no need to prove or disprove anything.
I merely doubt your assertion that the theory you refer to is scientifically valid.

Unlike me, if you make a positive assertion, you are also one who is obliged to validate it.

Unfortunately, for the reason sited above, the link you posted does not serve as proof or validation of your assertion.

 

Gone lol I haven't really had time to catch up.

 

I have a question for the firm believers of creation, is there any physical evidence (not scripture this means anything to do with the bible) that can prove your theory but not disprove evolution? For example dna has been examined and it proves everyone shares the same gene that proves adam and eve started the world. I know it's weak but... I'm sure you can do better.

 

Of course there is no scientific evidence or proof to support Creationism, since by definition it has nothing to do with Science and has everything to do with Religion.

But you don't get to ask about Creationists here, because it's irrelevant and off topic.

What you do need to show is that Darwinism itself is anything but a Religion and has anything to do with the Science.

If you have any relevant evidence and plausible argument to show that Evolutionary Theory is Scientifically Valid then go ahead and present it.

Otherwise, you have no claim to begin with.

Simple as that.

 

I'm the OP, so I think I should have some say in what's relevant or not, and I think your question is relevant. Because in evaluating a scientific theory like the New Synthesis, I think it's relevant to see if there is any other theory that's more plausible. Creation Science and ID are the only rival theories to the New Synthesis I know of, and neither of them begins to measure up, in my opinion.

I agree (although it pains me to do so) with Jumbuli that Creationism is not a scientific theory. The most ambitious effort it's made toward a scientific explanation is Morris' flood geology, which explains the fossil record in terms of creatures left behind in the scramble for Noah's Ark. Putting it charitably, in my opinion it just doesn't adequately account for the available evidence. ID is far more sophisticated, but it has put forward little in the way of positive evidence and concentrates instead on trying to discredit "Neo-Darwinism". Spetner's sketchy Non-random Evolutionary Hypothesis, tucked into a three page epilogue to his attack on "Neo-Darwinism", is, as it says, a hypothesis. Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, and exposition of his argument of "irreducible complexity" is also mainly an attack on Darwin, and some of his examples have been challenged effectively by other scientists. The controversial book by Davis and Kenyon, The Design of Life, a high school textbook, is, once again, a critique of "Neo-Darwinism". It attributes the development of life to a "blueprint", but offers no scientific model as an alternative to the New Synthesis. None of these works, in my opinion, qualifies as a genuine scientific alternative because they offer no theory that adequately accounts for the available evidence, that can generate refutable hypotheses, or that has met the test of acceptance in peer reviewed journals of any scientific discipline. The New Synthesis (contrary to Jumbuli) does these things.

As a Christian, I base my belief that evolution wasn't a completely random process on faith, supported by evidence concerning the appearance of "fine-tuning" in the universe, the difficulty of accounting for life itself as a random development, the emergence of rational, intelligent life forms which evolutionary theory would explain as flukes, and the intuitive sense that existence is far too cool to be explained as the product of blind forces. But I would never put this forward as "proof". There is no proof.

 

Just because there is no scientific alternative to Darwinism (or New Synthesis, whatever you please to call it) doesn't mean it's Scientifically Valid theory.
What a convoluted logic is that!

I could say just as well that UFO flies on horsepoop if there is no other scientific alternative to explain the phenomena


As to New Syntheis doing all those nice things, such as "theory that adequately accounts for the available evidence, that can generate refutable hypotheses" why don't you go ahead and show how it really does what you say it does instead of simply asserting it without backing it up with anything but repetitive assertion?


As to "acceptance in peer reviewed journals" I couldn't care less about that. Inverse Ad Hominem arguments don't serve to prove a point.

 

Missedit,
There are no other scientific theories as to the origin and diversity of life. The theory of Bio-Evolution do to environmental pressure remains the only one. Jumbulli is a nut job fanatic with a horse shit fetish.

However, it's not really a fair question concerning Genesis. Even if god came from wherever and actually dictated the Bible, ask yourself whom it was dictated to?

Not a scientist; indeed, she was lucky to find a human who could write at all. And of course, math was out of the question-- the guy lack the concept of "zero" as a number. So if you were god, how would you explain it?
Big Bang Theory and Quantum Mechanics, or "let there be light"?

The point is, Biblical creation is irrelevant even if it were true (which it ain't).

If there is a god, she used Evolution to create life, just like jumbulli's Mother used Evolution to create him.

 

So that's how this works? Someone posts evidence like; http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html and your rebuttle, your earth shattering poof that science is debunked is to point out that for every scientist there are thousands of ignorant creationist fools posting online!? Wow, that's fucking amazing work! We all know how much more credible ignorant closed minded creationists are than those opened minded scientists, doctors and professors with their empirical data and logic.

 

Your foul language is better suited for a hoodlum having a dispute on the street corner than someone posting to argue in favor of scientific validity of the theory in question.

I won't return favor as name calling is irrelevant to subject of this discussion.

For starters, you should cool down some of your zealotry for darwinism and start reading facts and statements as they are and not as they appear in inflamed by fanaticism perception of yours.

If you read what I actually wrote to monkey boy you will see how clearly I stated the reason why the link he presented can not be counted as a n evidence or proof of validity of the theory.

As to the link you posted, nobody ever disputed here the fact of microevolution.

Read the thread first, figure out what the subject matter of discussion is, then drink some cold water or take some medicine (w/e is necessary in your condition), and then try to rationally present (if you are capable of such feat) the case in favor of evolutionary theory. Either that or you have no argument to begin with.

 

Who decides what constitutes, "same level of knowledge"? Do we compare academic transcripts or do we simply wait for you to descend from on high and render verdict?

.

Where is your collaborating evidence to support your claim that your positive assertions are not subject to the same standards of poof as any? I have not seen one shred of evidence to substantiate that claim at all.

 

Before we look at an example of observed increases in information to DNA let's define increase of information. Let me know if you dissagree with this. Increase in information includes

1 increased genetic variety in a population
2 increased genetic material
3 novel genetic material
4 novel genetically-regulated abilities

If you agree with this we can move on to how it happens.

The main mechanism that increases information is gene duplication.
There are thousands of examples where this has been observed, but here's one example of a duplication of the Rnase1 gene in monkeys that increased the efficiency of their digestive system. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/msp216

What do you think?

 

But note that I wasn't one who made a Positive Assertion on this subject.

Now, if I am not willing to back up my own assertion why should I make it in the first place?
And if someone is not willing to back up their own assertion am I to accept it as valid merely because they have no time or will to validate it [and in most cases, evidently, they lack the knowledge of the subject itself as well].

I think you are misplacing the emphasis when you say I should find another forum to debate this subject. Why should I go to another forum and start a debate about people who made a positive assertion on hipforums
That doesn't make sense to me.

May be those who make silly positive assertions without any will to back it up should go to other forums where more gullible readers will accept those assetions more readily and without any doubt.

:cheers2:

 

What a troll
Go get some soccer ball and play in your backyard or do something useful in your life. Why spam this board with nonsensical posts distracting everyone's attention from the subject matter of discussion ?
These trolls...

 

Takes on to know one. This discussion would be much more interesting if a serious disbeliever in the New Synthesis were participating. As it is, its us against you. And you know that you don't need to know anything to keep up the razzamataz that you do, with the horse poop, Muchausen, feigned offense at the "f word", false accusations of trolling and all. A child could do it. But what do you gain? Ego gratification in knowing how easy it is to manipulate people and jerk them around? Attention getting? How pathetic! Why don't you take on something more challenging, like the Flat Earth Society, and leave Hip Forums to folks who are at least semi-serious? Or go back to the Mindfuck forum where you came from?

 

I have to read on it. Unlike some trolls out there I don't make an argument without firm knowledge of it's basis.
Now you want me to be clear on what the definition of information increase in DNA is.

Before going too far , let me just briefly state that the mere shuffling of genetic code which causes observable variation of manifestation within the margins of microevolutinary adoptability does not appear to me an equivalent of increase of information in it.
Perhaps, the potential to rearrange was already there and DNA does rearrange in certain way within the known limits when the outer stimuli or other factors force it to do so.

But, don't catch my word on it. It's only fair that I do read and study this in more detail before sharing my in debth opinion. Otherwise how am I better than the likes of trolls such as geckopelli , the dope , baron Okiefreak Munchausen and scores of other hoax perpetrating darwinists on this site.

So, I am not sure if I agree. But, don't take it as discouragement to proceed further. Actually, if you know the subject very well you could explain as you go.

Again, I am not sure if the microevolutionary adaptation you talk of is not product of what has already been pre-existing as a potential and only utilized when needed.

For example, you have your window vipers but you don't activate them until it starts raining. It would unnecessarily obstruct the view if you did.
But rain starts and you turn the switch and there you have your windows "adapted" for changed driving conditions.
Did those vipers "evolve" out of nowhere or did they pre-exist there , ready to be activated when needed?
Could the same vipers grow out like a tree out of the car not having those in the first place and do so by random chance?

Again, it's very premature to take my words for final verdict or opinion on it because I myself lack the in debth knowledge and analysis of the particular phenomena in question.

So, we will continue. If you have really good argument in favor of evolutionary theory i'll be glad to hear. My mind hasn't settled on this subject yet.
I highly doubt Darwin's theory, to be sure, and the likes of geckopellis and munchausen okiefreaks are in large part responsible for my utter skepticism.

But I am open to discuss this subject rationally, it is good that you try to do the same.
This way we may both learn more and understand the theory and it's criticism better and help ourselves to form a better educated opinion in future.

I'll take some time to read about it. Feel free to post about it in the meantime, i'll read it too when get a chance.

:cheers2:

 

It's not gene shuffling, but an entirely new gene that wasn't there before.

In this case the Rnase1 monkey gene that provides information for creating an enzyme was duplicated and then it changed into Rnase1b. So at first only Rnase1 existed and now Rnase1 and Rnase1b exist side by side working together.

Rnase1b encodes an enzyme that works 6 times better than the orignal gene at digesting leaves (the main diet of the monkeys).

Here's a good article that explains it in more detail. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020304081153.htm

 

I'll take a look at it. I am highly skeptical of those munchausens, but it would be inverse ad hominem argument if i dismissed any argument in favor of darwinism merely because those scientists are bunch of munchausens.

I'll reply later, after i take a critical look at it.

 

If not downright Jumbulistic!