Joined: Oct. 2007
|Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 13 2011,05:28)|
|Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 12 2011,16:20)|
|Show me a person who doesn't know what a kinkajou looks like, and I'll show you a person who wouldn't recognize a kinkajou if one was chewing on their face.|
Your IDiot buddies say it's not possible for evolution to produce "novel genetic material"? Fine. What are the distinguishing characteristics of "novel genetic material" that would allow your IDiot buddies to recognize the stuff when they see it? You might want to offer up a challenge for your IDiot buddies...
Here's a nucleotide sequence:
gat tgg aag caa tag gag agg tag gga ttg gac atg gcc ggc cac tat tcg cga gga tcc gat gat cct agt ggt atc att tac caa tga
Is that sequence, or any part(s) of that sequence, composed of "novel genetic material"? Show your work.
Remeber these people hold behe's work and the bible next to each other.
Doesn't matter. If these IDiots are going to make noise about "novel genetic material", they need to have some way to tell whether or not a given chunk of genetic material genuinely is "novel", because if they don't have some way to tell the difference between "novel" and non-"novel" genetic material, they're talking bullshit.
|So in the example of the lizard, they say yes it may have mutated but no new novel functions or genetic material is involved. It's just epigenics.|
They can claim whatever they like, but you need to be doggedly persistent. Don't let them just handwave a question away; demand that they bloody well answer the question, and make it bloody well obvious that they don't have any answers! So your reply should be, "Oh, really? No 'novel genetic material', you say? That's a meaningless claim unless you have some method to tell whether or not a chunk of genetic material is 'novel'. So please, would you use that method to tell me how much (if any) of the nucleotide sequence gat tgg aag caa tag gag agg tag gga ttg gac atg gcc ggc cac tat tcg cga gga tcc gat gat cct agt ggt atc att tac caa tga is 'novel'?"
|What they say is show us that the DNA of the original lizard and the "new" lizard has been totaly sequenced and show us where there is added information. Until you do so you are assuming that there is without a drop of proof.|
If the lizards' DNA hasn't been sequenced, on what grounds can they claim that the 'new' lizard doesn't have any 'novel genetic material'? That "sorry, no data yet" gambit is a two-edged sword; if IDiots want to use it on evolution, you have every justification for using it on ID.
|This is a comfortable place from them to be as DNA sequencing is expencive and they know it won't be done on a lizard. Actually Ioseb launched a challenge and said prove to me with a study that this is an example in which novel genetic matrial is added in the "new" lizard and I'll bow down to you all.|
Your reply should be, "Hold it. Since the lizard's DNA hasn't been sequenced, how the heck can you be so sure that it doesn't have any 'novel genetic material' in it? You haven't even been able to show that you can tell which bits of a known nucleotide sequence do or don't qualify as 'novel genetic material', so why should anybody believe you can tell which bits of an unknown nucleotide sequence do or don't qualify as 'novel genetic material'?"