Why people reject evolution

evolution isnt real its made up by ppl to make u think so when we can be program to be good citizens.

latvianlover wrote:

ijgeoffrey wrote:

Might I ask, what parts of evolution can be demonstrated? Are you speaking of speciation/natural selection? Because that I do not reject. It would be foolhardy to reject things which can be observed and tested. I am not unwilling to look at the world around me. This is why I keep asking for observable examples of evolution. (I doubt anyone can give me any.)

It is said that evolution occurs most rapidly in situations of predator vs prey, and also in short lived species which reproduce rapidly. So the place that you should look to find what you say you are looking for is in the area of antibiotics vs bacteria.

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

I have already studied bacteria vs. antibiotics. NO NEW INFORMATION IS EVER DEVELOPED. The bacteria can suddenly "resist" the antibiotics because they have a mutation which makes them no longer able to absorb the poison. NO LONGER ABLE--in other words, they have LOST information, not GAINED it.

Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:

ijgeoffrey wrote:

The Law of Biogenesis says that life can only come from life. But evolution claims that once in history life came from random chemicals in some primordial pool.

This is no law. So its not a problem to violate it.

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

Since you don't believe cosmology is related, I will lay off on that. And we could argue over whether or not the Law of Biogenesis is really a law (which it is), but I will make it simpler than that: Can you give me ONE, OBSERVABLE EXAMPLE of life coming from nonlife?

Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:

ijgeoffrey wrote:

The Law of Information says that information can only come from an intelligence--a mind. But according to evolution all the mind-bogglingly vast amounts of information stored in all the DNA of all living organisms arose by random chance, with no mind behind it at all.

This is no law, it is just a false statement. Its probably useful as a guideline in computer theory or wherever it is used, but it just isnt a law of the universe.

Every time a mutant sea slug is born with some brand new genes, we get information with no minds involved. You can even do that in a petri dish with bacteria if you wait long enough. The statement "all information comes from a mind" is just empirically false.

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

Please don't make blanket statements with no proof. Mutant sea slugs are not born with brand new genes. Bacteria in Petri dishes do not form brand new genes. Either they LOSE genes (sometimes in a beneficial way, like blind cave fish that have lost the genes for eyes), or else occasionally a genetic "switch" is flipped on or off.

You can say it's not a law, but can you give me one, REAL, OBSERVABLE example of brand new information being generated in an organism's genetic code?

How life came to exist is not part of evolution theory. This field is called abiogenesis.

I already wrote that once aready in the thread.

For the sea slugs a mutation is a new gene, so yes they born with "brand new genes". Othwerise they wouldnt be mutants. Being a mutant means you are born with a new gene.

Mutations can happen for instance when a piece of the DNA gets inversed. Or when it gets repeated or deleted.

Then the gene makes another protein. And this protein then can have new effects.

The code for the new protein is information.

IF the code for instance is

GATC

An it gets reversed to

CTAG

then "CTAG" is new information that resulted from an inversion mistake.

This is above all an American discussion, where there's a war against science. So check out this page from Berkeley: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

I did actually run into some creationists in the woods in Canada. It's just sad when people try to explain the world with religious belief.

ijgeoffrey - I guess our planet was created with dinosaur bones in the earth, yes?

Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:

ijgeoffrey wrote:

klimski wrote:

Who is to say that what we have now is more ordered? Thats a subjective opinion, so there goes your 'refutation' of thermodynamics. As for your other two 'laws' they have nothing to do with physics and are in fact made up by creationists. So, all your posts in summation prove one thing only: the OP is correct.

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

Anyone with eyes and a brain is to say that what we have now is more ordered. It is not subjective except in the sense that someone can choose to ignore logic and reject it outright (which is a religious thing to do, BTW). The other two laws are NOT made up and have everything to do with physics, which is the "science of everything." If you truly believe these laws are made up, the burden of proof is on you to prove them wrong (which should be easy if they aren't real laws): Can you give me one, OBSERVABLE example of life coming from non-life, or information coming from non-information?

No they dont come from physics. I googled the "life comes from life thing", it is from Louis Pasteur, a bioologist from 19th century.

Noone succeeded yet in creating life from non-life, although biological molecules have been made from non-living ones many times. That an experiment has not succeeded yet obviously doesnt mean it never will. We havent been to Mars yet either, it doesnt mean we will never go there.

Information coming from non-information is totally routine. It is what happens in every mutation. This has been observed in labs for instance with fruit flies since the 1930ies.

Found one from 1910 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_(mutation) You can find more than you have time to read about in a whole lifetime on google, just with fruit flies. 

Then when you get reincarnated you can start readint about therats and mice and E. coli, that also has been observed in labs for more than 100 years. You could spend 4-5 lifetimes reading about observations of information coming outta nothing.

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

Mutations do happen. White fruit flies have a negative mutation--a LOSS of the normal pigmentation genes. No new information was created.

You can make fun of me (I don't believe in reincarnation), but science is not based off of what "will be observed in the future, but hasn't yet." Have you accepted ON FAITH that these things will be observed? Science is based on the observable. Can you show me one, observable example of NEW information being created in an organism's genetic code?

jonthepieces wrote:

ijgeoffrey doesn't understand entropy and has misapplied the law of biogenesis. I have not studied information theory so cannot comment on that. ijgeoffrey says that the site rules prevent discussion of religion (really? Where's the link?) As the only people I've ever met who don't accept evolution as a valid explanation of the development of life are fundamentalists, that makes an adult discussion of evolution difficult, no?

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

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/forum-posting-rules---be-nice--no-religious-or-political-debate

klimski wrote:

Thank god (!?) that there are other voices of reason here. I mean seriously, that 'law of information' stems from creation.com. broken down it says: all information comes from a mind ( assumption based loosely on superficial observation), therefore all information must come from a mind (circular argument concluding in a hollow statement of 'fact'). Nuff said

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

What makes the last 2000 years of observation "superficial"? We make laws based on observation, and observation has shown that information ALWAYS comes from an intelligence. Can you give me one observable example of information randomly arising?

hahaha

If there is a change in the "code" for the bacteria.

Then this change is new information.

Your own genetic code is also "new". No organism ever had the same DNA you do. And the DNA is the information that built you.

If your code weren't new, you would be a clone of your father or mother, your DNA wouldnt be new. Im assuming you are not.

Yes - your own genetic code. And the genetic code of every person on the planet.

Estren wrote:

ijgeoffrey - I guess our planet was created with dinosaur bones in the earth, yes?

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

No. Dinosaurs were created on day 6 of creation, along with all other land animals. Many dinosaurs (along with many other creatures) were buried in sedimentary layers in the one-time, catastrophic event of the flood of Noah's day.

Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:

ijgeoffrey wrote:

Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:

ijgeoffrey wrote:

The Law of Information says that information can only come from an intelligence--a mind. But according to evolution all the mind-bogglingly vast amounts of information stored in all the DNA of all living organisms arose by random chance, with no mind behind it at all.

This is no law, it is just a false statement. Its probably useful as a guideline in computer theory or wherever it is used, but it just isnt a law of the universe.

Every time a mutant sea slug is born with some brand new genes, we get information with no minds involved. You can even do that in a petri dish with bacteria if you wait long enough. The statement "all information comes from a mind" is just empirically false.

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

Please don't make blanket statements with no proof. Mutant sea slugs are not born with brand new genes. Bacteria in Petri dishes do not form brand new genes. Either they LOSE genes (sometimes in a beneficial way, like blind cave fish that have lost the genes for eyes), or else occasionally a genetic "switch" is flipped on or off.

You can say it's not a law, but can you give me one, REAL, OBSERVABLE example of brand new information being generated in an organism's genetic code?

For the sea slugs a mutation is a new gene, so yes they born with "brand new genes". Othwerise they wouldnt be mutants. Being a mutant means you are born with a new gene.

Mutations can happen for instance when a piece of the DNA gets inversed. Or when it gets repeated or deleted.

Then the gene makes another protein. And this protein then can have new effects.

The code for the new protein is information.

IF the code for instance is

GATC

An it gets reversed to

CTAG

then "CTAG" is new information that resulted from an inversion mistake.

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

Ok then. Yes, as I said, mutations do happen. Mistakes do happen. But can you give me one observable example of a beneficial mutation (which is not a loss but a gain of information)?

i dont know what you mean with that.

It is normal in science that you try to plan experiments, and these experiments will then take place in the future lol.

ALso sometimes, you want to test some theories, but you cannot yet. So you go "well, we will know that, when we are able to build a machine that does than" and then do other things.

Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:

ijgeoffrey wrote:

latvianlover wrote:

ijgeoffrey wrote:

Might I ask, what parts of evolution can be demonstrated? Are you speaking of speciation/natural selection? Because that I do not reject. It would be foolhardy to reject things which can be observed and tested. I am not unwilling to look at the world around me. This is why I keep asking for observable examples of evolution. (I doubt anyone can give me any.)

It is said that evolution occurs most rapidly in situations of predator vs prey, and also in short lived species which reproduce rapidly. So the place that you should look to find what you say you are looking for is in the area of antibiotics vs bacteria.

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

I have already studied bacteria vs. antibiotics. NO NEW INFORMATION IS EVER DEVELOPED. The bacteria can suddenly "resist" the antibiotics because they have a mutation which makes them no longer able to absorb the poison. NO LONGER ABLE--in other words, they have LOST information, not GAINED it.

hahaha

If there is a change in the "code" for the bacteria.

Then this change is new information.

Your own genetic code is also "new". No organism ever had the same DNA you do. And the DNA is the information that built you.

If your code weren't new, you would be a clone of your father or mother, your DNA wouldnt be new. Im assuming you are not.

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

You changed what "new" means. All information, in bacteria or humans, is passed down. Parts may be passed from multiple organisms, or lost altogether, creating a "new" genome. But none of the information itself is "new." I certainly hope your genome doesn't have new information which gave you a third leg!

Not new. The genetic code of every person on the planet is passed down from their parents. Not one shred of their DNA (barring the small percentage of NEGATIVE mistakes) is brand new.

Ok, so the dinosaurs were buried in sedimentary layers ... that make sense. But when?

Antibiotics resistance.

Mutations, rare spontaneous changes of the bacteria's genetic material, are thought to occur in about one in one million to one in ten million cells. Different genetic mutations yield different types of resistance. Some mutations enable the bacteria to produce potent chemicals (enzymes) that inactivate antibiotics, while other mutations eliminate the cell target that the antibiotic attacks. Still others close up the entry ports that allow antibiotics into the cell, and others manufacture pumping mechanisms that export the antibiotic back outside so it never reaches its target.

http://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/about_issue/about_antibioticres.shtml

Sorry ijgeoffrey, I'm just fooling around with you. I can see that you're soaked in religious doctrines. I rest my case. I don't see any reason to pursue the issue any further. Good night.