RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (167) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis 2< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Mike PSS

Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2006,13:05   

Quote (afdave @ Dec. 05 2006,12:10)
Mike ...    
Disagree?  Try me on one of these subjects then....
I AM trying you ... We are on Points C & D of my Hypothesis and I feel we had a fruitful discussion on HLA-B alleles.  We didn't wind up agreeing, but I think we both learned a thing or two, don't you?  So jump back in with the Ames Test or something else related to Points C & D.

Your whole argument is about biologic information.  And it's all semantics at this point.  The Ames Test is only one more example of you butcherring the evidence with your world view.  I can parse your latest post with some comments but I think I can predict the answers already.

So... Here we go....
I think we are zeroing in on the real issues with the Ames Test.  It sounds like what is going on is that an "A" or other nucleotide gets deleted or inserted causing a frame shift mutation.  Then another mutagen may cause a reversion (goes back just like it was before) in about 1/3 of the cases.  Russell says that this invalidates my contention that mutations do not add information.

Fairly good summary of the position as you understand it.  Let's look how you (re)define information though.  Next....
I think the reason that we creationists (or at least this one) say that it does not add information is because of what we see going on in the whole organism (in this case a single celled organism-a bacterium).  

Good statement of your objection to the summary position.  You equate information as how it affects the 'whole organism' in the singular sense.  Next....
While it is true that an "A" that gets deleted, then reverts back to an "A" is "beneficial" or is a mutation in the "right" direction, the fact remains that this only happens in 1/3 of the cases.
STOP RIGHT THERE!  You have now (re)defined that 'beneficial' means "mutation in the "right" direction".  This is certainly a nonsense phrase meant to mislead.  Also, your restatement of the 'fact' has no counter-point; why bring it up in your rebuttal to sound like a problem?  Next...
Simultaneously, what else is going on?  Other genes are mutating in the "wrong" direction so that I think the net effect is a decrease in information.
Where in he!! did you find out that other genes are mutating in the "wrong" direction and how in he!! did you measure this and where in the Ames Test information did you reference this?  This is the semantic mumbo-jumbo you keep spouting at every piece of evidence presented.  Next....
Yes, those bacteria that got that "good  mutation" might get selected for, but what "bad" mutations (VSLDMS) do they bring with them in the whole organism--the whole bacterium?  Surely you are not telling me that good mutations can be selected for while the bad ones are discarded?  Because this is not how it works. The whole bacterium reproduces, not just the individual gene that mutated favorably.

You just contradicted yourself here.  See it?  It's the bolded parts.  Let me quickly explain how you confused yourself in this matter.
You started off discussing only ONE bacteria and how the Ames Test mutation reversion is a "good" thing.  But in the above statement you are comparing this ONE bacteria to the WHOLE POPULATION by bringing up selection.  My simple question to you is.....
How many bacteria that had the "good" mutation present died?
The Ames Test doesn't answer that question because they don't test the dead bacteria.  And there are probably a lot of bacteria that had the correct histidine mutation BUT had another mutation present that killed them off.  Selection happens all the time and LIMITS the bad mutations in a population.
If you want to attach your flag to a single bacterium and follow its path through each and every generation and comment on each and every mutation after each duplication then go right ahead.  But the fact that ONE bacteria with the "good mutation" survives through ITS OWN LIFETIME while carrying what you consider "bad mutations", even though those baddies don't kill or limit that ONE bacteria from surviving or reproducing kills your statement above.  I thought you were arguing about the information contained in a single bacterium here.
Your semantics are duly noted in this phrase.  Next....
Sanford talks about this by saying something like "mutations occur at the level of the genome, but selection occurs at the level of the phenome."
So while you are technically correct that an individual mutation can be favorable, the net direction of all mutations in any individual is always DOWN.
This only reinforces my point that your using semantic games to bolster your case by conflating your singular definition of information to argue against a totally seperate subject (population of organisms).  Also you never supplied a link to Sanford's quote.

Play semantic games all you want.  Unfortunately you can't teach it to the kids because your doing it all the time without even knowing it.

Mike PSS

  4989 replies since Sep. 22 2006,12:37 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (167) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]