genetic information gained or lost or both?

[cab21]

in biology, is information lost, gained, or other options, from generation to generation?

Looking up one creation article, and one rebuttal to it, people can share any resources thought relevant or updates.
http://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin
looking at this article, claims of the author include ( but not limited to)
"It is not just that the train has not gone far enough, but that it is headed in the wrong direction."

"... the real issue in biological change is all about what happens at the DNA level, which concerns information."

"The information carried on the DNA, the molecule of heredity, is like a recipe, a set of instructions for the manufacture of certain items."

"A one-celled organism does not have the instructions for how to manufacture eyes, ears, blood, skin, hooves, brains, etc. which ponies need."

"selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite"

"... whenever we study mutations, they invariably turn out to have lost or degraded the information."

"As creatures diversify, gene pools become increasingly thinned out."

"the more specialized they become, the smaller the fraction they carry of the original storehouse of created information for their kind"

"Less flexible, less adaptable populations are obviously heading closer to extinction, not evolving."

"We see that, just like with the train pulling out from Miami and headed south, if the sorts of changes we see today are extrapolated over time, they lead to extinction, not onwards evolution."

"Later, there were lungs, but no feathers anywhere in the world, thus no genetic information for feathers. Real-world observation has overwhelmingly shown mutation to be totally unable to feed the required new information into the system."

"given a fixed amount of information, the more adaptation we see, the less the potential for future adaptation."

"...of all the examples lauded by Dr Coyne as ‘evolution’, whether antibiotic resistance12 or changes in fish growth rates, not one single one supports his ‘train’ analogy, but rather the reverse. Not one involves a gain of information; all show the opposite, a net loss."

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

here is a rebuttal from talk origins, with claims including( but not limited to)

“anything mutations can do, mutations can undo”
“Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it.”
“
increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.”

“A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
• Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
• RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
• Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references”

“According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).”

“The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).”

[Wuzzums]

"selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite"

"As creatures diversify, gene pools become increasingly thinned out."
"the more specialized they become, the smaller the fraction they carry of the original storehouse of created information for their kind"

 

This is not the case. We carry a bunch of junk DNA courtesy of the inability of natural selection to cut out information. Evolution creates patchwork creatures, it adds and adds and selects the one that's better fitted for survival. Gene pools become more and more diverse because diversity gives an evolutionary advantage. Carrying the genes for unneeded traits is an advantage given an ever-changing external environment. Like for instance, if you raise a baby in a completely different environment than that from Earth but fit for human survival you'll end up with something very alien looking yet 100% human. So if the environment were to change more dramatically (like shifts in gravity, etc) the lifeforms that can survive in such a place would have specialized to not be so specialized, thus the more specialized they would be at carrying more genes of different types of animals. The last quote just makes no logical sense in an evolutionary context.

 

I have often found the case to be that dogmatic thinking leads to an inability to understand concepts like "feedback loops".

[cynicist]

This is not the case. We carry a bunch of junk DNA courtesy of the inability of natural selection to cut out information. 

 

Actually it seems that it does occur. (link below for the example) It is odd how in some cases genes are dumped and in other cases (like the capacity of chicken to form teeth) we can activate "junk" dna with careful manipulation. I'm curious what the circumstances for this stuff but I doubt we will know anytime soon.

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/05/15/a-genetic-gastric-bypass/

http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/5/r81

[James E Mahler]

I am new here but please allow me to jump in this conversation. Not to argue cab21 post but to correct some assumptions put on by Wuzzums. And yes, they are only assumptions, i.e.:
"We carry a bunch of junk DNA courtesy of the inability of natural selection to cut out information"  - How exactly that inability occur and why? Is it simply a matter of dice throw? and if there is such inability, that would mean that every living being carries ALL information of every other living being in their systems, meaning a swordfish has the same genetics as a cow and vice versus. However, that is not the case, is it? One of them is a mammal with fundamental differences from the other. 

[Wuzzums]

I am new here but please allow me to jump in this conversation. Not to argue cab21 post but to correct some assumptions put on by Wuzzums. And yes, they are only assumptions, i.e.:

"We carry a bunch of junk DNA courtesy of the inability of natural selection to cut out information"  - How exactly that inability occur and why? Is it simply a matter of dice throw? and if there is such inability, that would mean that every living being carries ALL information of every other living being in their systems, meaning a swordfish has the same genetics as a cow and vice versus. However, that is not the case, is it? One of them is a mammal with fundamental differences from the other. 

 

Judging creatures based on their appearance is fundamentally different than studying their genome. For instance, Stephen Jay Gould showed that "fish" as a class different to that of "mammal" does not exist. Like a fish can have more in common with a cat DNA-wise than with another fish. This is why the environment dictates what genes are turned off or on, or weened out, or selected, or however you want to put it. DNA turns the whole science of taxonomy on its head, and to my opinion utterly useless. Another example is that of dogs. Imagine you're an alien and see a pug and a greyhound sitting next to each other. There's no way you would even consider at first glance that the two are actually the same species.

 

Evolution isn't random. It's specific selection of traits that appear randomly. Given one lineage and a changing environment, traits will be added on top of each other based on what makes the organism survive. If a trait is in detriment to the species then the whole species will die out. If a trait doesn't aid nor hinder survival it will be passed on.

 

Another interesting fact is the development of the embryo. You might have heard that in the uterus, the fetus develops a tail which disappears, full body hair like a monkey's which falls off, and a bunch of other atavistic traits. This is because the genes are still there and get switched on much like they do in a monkey fetus, yet we added on top of them other genes that counter-act those genes and "switch them off". If there were such a mechanism by which useless information can be subtracted then those genes wouldn't be there.

 

But it goes even more deeper, almost all creatures on the planet, mammals, fish, insects, spiders, etc have the same mechanism of embryo development. First it's a sandwich-like 3 types of cells, then it creates a digestive tract, then nervous system, blood supply, head, and so on. All creatures follow this narrative because long ago when this mechanism came into being it was effective enough not to be ever changed in billions of years of evolution. Every other trait that gives rise to the vastness of creatures was added on top of that.

[JamesP]

I think the most general answer is that some information is preserved, some is gained, and some is lost.  Information that is essential to the survival of the species is most likely to be preserved or gained, whereas information that is benign or detrimental is likely to be lost.

 

I'm not sure I understand the argument put forward by creation.com.  It is certainly wrong to state that evolution has a direction.  It makes sense that a religious organization would have this belief, and it is a difficult belief to abandon when evaluating other ideas.

 

Being 100% wrong in a premise means that the whole argument falls down.  It's their train that is heading into the deep blue ocean of history, not science.

[James E Mahler]

Judging creatures based on their appearance is fundamentally different than studying their genome. For instance, Stephen Jay Gould showed that "fish" as a class different to that of "mammal" does not exist. Like a fish can have more in common with a cat DNA-wise than with another fish. This is why the environment dictates what genes are turned off or on, or weened out, or selected, or however you want to put it. DNA turns the whole science of taxonomy on its head, and to my opinion utterly useless. Another example is that of dogs. Imagine you're an alien and see a pug and a greyhound sitting next to each other. There's no way you would even consider at first glance that the two are actually the same species.

 

Evolution isn't random. It's specific selection of traits that appear randomly. Given one lineage and a changing environment, traits will be added on top of each other based on what makes the organism survive. If a trait is in detriment to the species then the whole species will die out. If a trait doesn't aid nor hinder survival it will be passed on.

 

Another interesting fact is the development of the embryo. You might have heard that in the uterus, the fetus develops a tail which disappears, full body hair like a monkey's which falls off, and a bunch of other atavistic traits. This is because the genes are still there and get switched on much like they do in a monkey fetus, yet we added on top of them other genes that counter-act those genes and "switch them off". If there were such a mechanism by which useless information can be subtracted then those genes wouldn't be there.

 

But it goes even more deeper, almost all creatures on the planet, mammals, fish, insects, spiders, etc have the same mechanism of embryo development. First it's a sandwich-like 3 types of cells, then it creates a digestive tract, then nervous system, blood supply, head, and so on. All creatures follow this narrative because long ago when this mechanism came into being it was effective enough not to be ever changed in billions of years of evolution. Every other trait that gives rise to the vastness of creatures was added on top of that.

 

I know Gould thesis very well. Its based on the idea that evolution uses cladogenesis - interesting combination of words by the way. And the proof he presented was that most of the species found around the islands of Hawaii are found nowhere else in the globe. I can give a million examples of species that are ONLY found in certain parts of the globe and not in others so that doesn't prove anything.The problem with evolution is that is just an assumption just like the one from Gould where there is absolutely no empirical evidence that all living creatures derived from a single living organism. There is no physical proof, no fossils, no traces of either constant or large spurs of transformation in any species that could ever be observed. On the contrary, whales have always been whales, horses have always being horses. There is, yes, diversion between kinds within types, i.e. felines go from lion to tiger to house cat but they all belong to the same kind. And if one tries to inject DNA from another species in order to change fundamental characteristics, everyone knows what happens to the organism, right? The mathematical chance that something like an organic molecule which requires to have all three major components working in absolutely perfect synchronicity - DNA, chromosome and protein -  all three symbiotic function to happen by chance, with all the millions of pieces of information that are required for this function to exist is 10 to 3997. Anyone cares to postulate the number of digits behind the coma and see if it is viable?

I think the most general answer is that some information is preserved, some is gained, and some is lost.  Information that is essential to the survival of the species is most likely to be preserved or gained, whereas information that is benign or detrimental is likely to be lost.

 

Hello James, I wonder where that information comes from. From the environment where the organism lives, perhaps? You know scientists have done studies on this. Cutting the tails of mice was one of them. They went thru 40 generations of these lil creatures and they still grew tails. And this wasn't even a transformation of species, but rather a simple attempt of creating change thru adaptation. If cladogenesis were to work - having long terms of complete stability, dowsed with large spurs of sudden change, we would have seen water buffaloes or hypos with at least a hint of a flipper. The truth is, you go back on the historical and paleontology records and there are no such creatures.

 

By the way, just so you folks know, I am not a Christian or even religious. I seek the truth where ever it may lead me.  

[Wuzzums]

The mathematical chance that something like an organic molecule which requires to have all three major components working in absolutely perfect synchronicity - DNA, chromosome and protein -  all three symbiotic function to happen by chance, with all the millions of pieces of information that are required for this function to exist is 10 to 3997.

 

No. I repeat myself, chance has nothing to do with evolution. It's active selection of random mutations, active selection of chance. You're assuming that DNA one day sprung into being and simply poof, evolution started happening. Evolution has nothing to do with DNA, it's a process whereas DNA is something tangible. There's a huge amount of space between when you could can say evolution began and DNA came into being.

 

 

The problem with evolution is that is just an assumption just like the one from Gould where there is absolutely no empirical evidence that all living creatures derived from a single living organism.

 

DNA. To put it bluntly, it's more empirical evidence for that statement than we could ever wish for. I mean it's just a molecule present in every organism on Earth, I don't see how it could even suggest a common lineage (sarcasm intended).

 

 

Hello James, I wonder where that information comes from. From the environment where the organism lives, perhaps? You know scientists have done studies on this. Cutting the tails of mice was one of them. They went thru 40 generations of these lil creatures and they still grew tails. And this wasn't even a transformation of species, but rather a simple attempt of creating change thru adaptation.

 

No, that experiment was either done by people that have no clue how evolution works, or you got it all wrong. I repeat myself again, it's about SURVIVAL. If you don't kill off the mice with long tails but just cut their tails off and let them reproduce, the long-tail genes will be passed on.

 

 

If cladogenesis were to work - having long terms of complete stability, dowsed with large spurs of sudden change, we would have seen water buffaloes or hypos with at least a hint of a flipper. The truth is, you go back on the historical and paleontology records and there are no such creatures.

"dowsed with large spurs of sudden change"

 

And do you want to know why you don't see buffaloes and hippos with fins? Because they don't need them. Neither of the two live next to large bodies of water like seas and oceans. Neither of them get their food from large bodies of water like seas and oceans. Hippos don't even need to swim, they walk on the bottom of the lakes. Hippos with fins would be like an adult with a life-vest in the kids' shallow end of the pool. They don't need fins.

[James E Mahler]

No. I repeat myself, chance has nothing to do with evolution. It's active selection of random mutations, active selection of chance. You're assuming that DNA one day sprung into being and simply poof, evolution started happening. Evolution has nothing to do with DNA, it's a process whereas DNA is something tangible. There's a huge amount of space between when you could can say evolution began and DNA came into being.

 

So you're saying evolution began and "DNA came into being" - to re quote your statement just to make sure I got it right. So basically you saying evolution can occur without the presence of the DNA structure - which in itself does not contain information but more like the parts department for the factory. So please explain to me exactly how this evolution works without the building blocs of life. Also, is just the DNA that appeared after evolution started or also the proteins and  chromosomes etc etc. What came first and in which order?

 

You see, I can create a model of a car factory. Design in one side and execution on the other side. The people who design the car are not the same people who built the car. The people who built the car can build a car without a pre designed model given the have all the parts necessary. But than when it comes to the engine a few basic and indispensable parts need to exist and not only simply exist but also be precise in its design and function, just like a living cell needs all those fantastic mechanisms to function at the same time.Unless you put all the necessary parts together at once, You will have something that looks like a car but it will not run.

 

Therefore I strongly reject the idea that evolution was under way when DNA showed up. You cannot have a cell without it. With all due respect, my biologist friends will have a field day with this one.

 

Your first picture is that of a seal. What does that mean? Is this a so called transition TO the water or FROM the water? You don't know, nobody knows. 

The platypus is a semi-aquatic creature and the only mammal who lays eggs. Bats are mammals who have wings and fly.

 

Your last picture is about different types of dogs, and the differences you see are nothing but man made genetic manipulation, nothing else. Which is allow to an extend within different species. However you won't find Pomeranian running on the wild. You see their grand daddy thou, the wolf. Interesting how evolutionists put this premise up by saying "house dogs EVOLVED from the wolf, lol. No, they did not.

[Wuzzums]

So you're saying evolution began and "DNA came into being" - to re quote your statement just to make sure I got it right. So basically you saying evolution can occur without the presence of the DNA structure - which in itself does not contain information but more like the parts department for the factory. So please explain to me exactly how this evolution works without the building blocs of life. Also, is just the DNA that appeared after evolution started or also the proteins and  chromosomes etc etc. What came first and in which order?

 

DNA just gave its first bearer an evolutionary advantage over the competition. It allowed the "thing" to either survive in the environment or reproduce faster than the others. Or it may have been the first molecule to even have the penchant for reproducing in the first place (in this instance both evolution and DNA coming into being at once, you cannot have evolution without reproduction). Point is DNA does not give rise to evolution, evolution gives rise to DNA. There are viruses out there that are RNA based, so by your standards evolution shouldn't work on them. Nobody can really say how DNA formed, or what lifeforms were before it, or if it's the best molecule for storing information. The science of abiogenesis deals with this.

 

I never said DNA does not contain information. You're mistaking the information for the chemistry. Information is stored through the molecule of DNA, but the molecule of DNA does not need to store information to exist. 

 

 

Your first picture is that of a seal. What does that mean? Is this a so called transition TO the water or FROM the water? You don't know, nobody knows.

 

The platypus is a semi-aquatic creature and the only mammal who lays eggs. Bats are mammals who have wings and fly.

 

I graciously posted those pics for you because you required as proof for cladogenesis mammals that developed fins, yet you somehow fail to spot the obvious and retort by saying "nobody knows"... but you know, don't you? I mean you yourself said:

 

Therefore I strongly reject the idea that evolution was under way when DNA showed up. You cannot have a cell without it. With all due respect, my biologist friends will have a field day with this one.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_blood_cell (Is it a cell? Yes. Does it have DNA? No.)

 

And why are we talking about cells all of a sudden? Of course you cannot have a cell without DNA if you define a cell as having DNA. We're arguing semantics at this point.

 

 

Interesting how evolutionists put this premise up by saying "house dogs EVOLVED from the wolf, lol. No, they did not.

 

For somebody that claims how nobody has any knowledge about evolution, you sure do have a lot of knowledge about what did and did not evolve from whatever.

[James E Mahler]

If the basic premise of this conversation, which I am very much enjoying, and thank you for your patience, is about the evolution of life and how the process works regardless of their diversification, than in order to continue I have to be absolutely clear to the fact that nothing can happen until there is a reproductive cell into the picture - with all its little bits and pieces in functioning order so as to division and multiplication of that organism to occur. And there is where I am stuck. Its like the "who came first, the chicken or the egg" paradigm. I know that some cells do not contain DNA, that is high school stuff. I also understand that for cells divide themselves and multiply in order to form a particular organism it requires information and a whole lot of it. DNA doesn't have it, neither does the proteins or the chromosomes. America doesn't have enough hard drives necessary for all that data. No information means nothing happens period and the system dies out. So my question is, how did this cell become such a fantastic organism with even its own edit/correction system? Again, as I also mentioned before, the odds of something like this to happen, derived from chemical soup, even if completely amorphic in its first stages, are simply astronomical and well beyond the realm of real possibilities. Millions and millions of dollars have been spend in this one objective point and there is nothing to show for even when the magic of outside manipulation occurs. Nothing, nada, dead goo.

[JamesP]

Hello James, I wonder where that information comes from. From the environment where the organism lives, perhaps? You know scientists have done studies on this. Cutting the tails of mice was one of them. They went thru 40 generations of these lil creatures and they still grew tails. And this wasn't even a transformation of species, but rather a simple attempt of creating change thru adaptation. If cladogenesis were to work - having long terms of complete stability, dowsed with large spurs of sudden change, we would have seen water buffaloes or hypos with at least a hint of a flipper. The truth is, you go back on the historical and paleontology records and there are no such creatures.

 

By the way, just so you folks know, I am not a Christian or even religious. I seek the truth where ever it may lead me.  

 

I'm not sure what this example is meant to illustrate.  Could you provide sources for the studies you cite?This experiment sounds dubious (not to mention cruel), but assuming this was done, it sounds like a very early experiment done before the present day understanding of genes.  That said, a man who lost his legs in an accident does not produce legless children.  I'm pretty sure that this would be understood without having to resort to slicing off mouse tails.You can see evolution in action with domesticated animals and crops that are grown for food.  It's been happening for tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of years. 

[James E Mahler]

I'm not sure what this example is meant to illustrate.  Could you provide sources for the studies you cite?This experiment sounds dubious (not to mention cruel), but assuming this was done, it sounds like a very early experiment done before the present day understanding of genes.  That said, a man who lost his legs in an accident does not produce legless children.  I'm pretty sure that this would be understood without having to resort to slicing off mouse tails.You can see evolution in action with domesticated animals and crops that are grown for food.  It's been happening for tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of years. 

 

Look up August Weismann, german biologist trying to disprove Jean-Batiste Lamark's theory - who was skeptical of Darwin's theory and himself theorized "the inheritance of acquired characteristics". Weismann, in trying to disprove Lamark came up with this brilliant idea of an experiment: cut off several generations of mice tails.

 

Perhaps you can give me an example of evolution in domesticated animals.

[JamesP]

That makes sense to me, and is what one would expect with the current understanding of evolutionary theory.

 

Do some research on canines, chickens, cows, wheat, carrots, bananas… not to mention bacteria!

 

Pretty much every species we have come in contact with has been affected by and has affected our species.

 

Consider the presence of alcohol and lactose tolerance in humans. These things are not universal and are evidence of natural selection at work.

[cab21]

a example in domestic animals, is to breed ones with desired characteristics

if someone wants dairy cows that produce more milk, selecting the cows that produce more milk to breed, while selecting against cows that produce less milk.

http://www.animalliberationqld.org.au/Dairy_Cattle.htm

http://www.dairyfuturescrc.com.au/improving-cattle/improving-cattle-more-reliable-ABVs.htm

i thought this was interesting.

shows selecting of cows and bulls to increase milk, and lower disease of the problems that happen when more milk is desired

[cab21]

this was a interesting ted talk from frances arnold

[James E Mahler]

I just watched the video and there you have it. There is synthetic DNA and synthetic geno and she also and she calls a DNA strand "the code of life". I have only one thing to say: I'll give you evolutionists all the codes you need in all the DNA strands, plus chromosome strips with all its information, throw in the amino acids and give her the protein factory as a bonus and all the electricity and gases and chemicals she needs and mix them up whichever way she wants and and I'll bet the whole farm plus my wife and children this will be just like Miller-Urey 1953. And why is that? Because the information for the modus operandi isn't there. Where is it? In the same place the information that tells certain particles in the quantum field to behave if you're watching. It is in the same place that it tells you that your brain knows before you do, up to six seconds...

Scientists call it "the field".

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmT-aFvRHKY

[JamesP]

James, you say you have only one thing to say but I think you forgot to say it.

[cab21]

is the quantum field suggesting supernatural design

 or what?

 

looking at this article, i guess this stuff confuses me a bit.

http://www.academia.edu/1610087/Evolution_of_consciousness

[James E Mahler]

 I said it, James. Its on the paragraph above. Now I'll add more to it since I started this evolution argument inside cab's discussion after reading a paragraph from Wuzzums that I disagree with. Sorry cab. But here it goes:First of all a few things to say that would also answer cab's question about the quantum field. From the time the sciences of physics and astronomy began to become liberated from the grips of religion all the way to the present day a vast number of very important people from all different fields have always agreed in one thing; the universe could not possibly have being construct as it is without help from a higher entity. And it is not just the father of contemporary physics, Mr. Einstein who said so. Newton, Carl Jung, Pasteur, and too many names to mention but the list goes back to the beginning of recorded history, The interesting part about this is that one can break down the universe and specially our planetary system, but even more specially our Earth and that is all included, humans and all, into mathematical equations. and than there are things like constants in physics which are results from highly advanced equations that gives us precise numbers in relation to the behavior of mass, energy, light, gravity, all kinds of electromagnetic forces etc. The list is huge and new things are added to it and the help of powerful computers these days a lot of the already defined constants have dozens and even hundreds of digits behind the comma in a display of fantastic precision and complexity. We don't know them all yet but the more scientists discover these things the more they are convinced the universe is built in such a construct manner that if you move or replace one digit anywhere the whole thing will fall apart and you have nothing. It just won't work.The other thing that is very interesting about the universe is that it is nothing like they teach you in school and specially college. When the British Academy of Science forcefully pushed the Darwinian theory... well, let me just say, the whole thing was a dirty filthy business that involved coercion, blackmail and people getting fired and all sorts of things, this well after Darwin passed away. By the way, his cousin who financed him was a well known eugenicist. Read about it, I can't go in all details of these things. But the fact is that this mentality persisted till today and academia which gets its funds from the government and very powerful people with influence does not want any disruption in the flow of today's status quo. Many many scientists are either muzzled or sold their souls and beliefs and cannot speak the truth or bring any kind of religious tone as an alternative to the completely failed evolutionary idea or they will sack your ass. You may lose your job as many have, get disciplined and they also find ways to public discredit you. And anyone who tries to tell me this doesn't happen I'll take it as an insult. 

But there is more about the universe that they don't tell you in school and I think they should. Something interesting about the Sun for example. Its is not a nuclear furnace as you think, with a melted core in constant fusion. The thing is hollow and that's why you see black spots in it. Sometimes huge, sometimes small depending on the intensity of several factors including tremendous magnetic fields. The Sun is a receptor of heat, not a producer. The surface of it where you see the towering flare bursts is only around 5 to 7 thousand degrees but if you move away from it say 200K miles the temperature is thousands of times higher. If it was nuclear fusion the core would be hotter, not the outside. But there is more. The Sun sits exactly on the center of our planetary system inside an immense invisible bubble called the heliosphere which is a magnetic field that extends well beyond Pluto, and is sort of a barrier that prevents our solar system from drifting away as it would follow the path of or better yet accompany the motion of the galactic arm as the Milky Way corkscrews itself. By the way this hemisphere is not circular. It has an oval shape and it changes position almost like the trajectory of an invisible planet. Why is anybody's guess but my guess is to better accommodate the blowback force against its outside surroundings as the galactic arm drifts. The interesting thing about this is we stay put and don't move anywhere, our planetary system that is. There is also a column called z-pinch which runs vertically across the Sun. No one knows where it starts and where it ends and it is big around enough to fit inside the hemisphere of the heliosphere precisely and it is suggested that is made of a double layer of cosmic ray electrons. Also another magnetic field that runs horizontal to the Sun like an Saturn disk but this one extends well beyond our planetary system and its made our of the Sun's own charged particles. Now create a complete image in your head and you'll see that the Sun sits right smack in the center of and huge invisible gyroscope, But there is one thing that makes the Sun move and that is Mr. Jupiter. Wherever this guy goes the Sun gets pulled towards it about 4 degrees, following the big guy around in its orbit. The universe is electric and plasma and has all kinds of invisible forces including an immense number of magnetic forces. Gravity is minute compared with the energy the universe can produce. Stars are created in a instant and there are forces that travel thousands of times faster than the speed of light. I can show you examples up request. And it is absolutely no wonder to me when I see some of the pictures Hubble takes and I have no problem explaining it. What worries me is when I hear things such as "Experts are mesmerized" or "Scientists are baffled" or one of my favorite "Comets are dirty snowballs...lol. When they insist on gravity and implosions and explosions of mass etc its when I feel like pulling my children out of public school.

I think I drifted off the main point quiet a bit so please forgive me but I just wanted to say these things as I feel they are important to the argument in question. I need some sleep right now, its 5am and I am a zombie.

Later guys!

[Wuzzums]

Look up August Weismann, german biologist trying to disprove Jean-Batiste Lamark's theory - who was skeptical of Darwin's theory and himself theorized "the inheritance of acquired characteristics". Weismann, in trying to disprove Lamark came up with this brilliant idea of an experiment: cut off several generations of mice tails.

 

Perhaps you can give me an example of evolution in domesticated animals.

 

So you were trying to disprove evolution by showing us an example that disproves Lamark's theory of evolution? That's like me disproving the whole science of astronomy because in the past they believed the Sun orbited around the Earth.

[James E Mahler]

Geez, what happened to my post with my answer to Wuzzams? Did someone deleted? I didn't think there was anything inappropriate in it. Well, I guess I have to re write it.

[ReptilianBrain]

 

 

Like a fish can have more in common with a cat DNA-wise than with another fish.

Do you have a reference for that? I really doubt it is true. 

By comparing DNA sequence data, one can determine which species are more closely related, evolutionarily. 

If one species of fish was more closely related to a cat than another species of fish, we would not be able to use DNA sequence alignment to determine the relatedness of species. 

[cab21]

the universe could not possibly have being construct as it is without help from a higher entity.

 

what is your view on this higher entity and the higher entities relationship with human progression or retrogression? i'm wondering about these creation statements about humans devolving, yet humans are discovering and creating more now than in any other time in history, unless you also have counter evidence.

 

The interesting part about this is that one can break down the universe and specially our planetary system, but even more specially our Earth and that is all included, humans and all, into mathematical equations. and than there are things like constants in physics which are results from highly advanced equations that gives us precise numbers in relation to the behavior of mass, energy, light, gravity, all kinds of electromagnetic forces etc. The list is huge and new things are added to it and the help of powerful computers these days a lot of the already defined constants have dozens and even hundreds of digits behind the comma in a display of fantastic precision and complexity. We don't know them all yet but the more scientists discover these things the more they are convinced the universe is built in such a construct manner that if you move or replace one digit anywhere the whole thing will fall apart and you have nothing. It just won't work.

 

so is this saying that if humans were given the math, humans could make a scale universe, as well as other universes that create more life than our current universe.

the math of creating humans had to come from a higher entity here? what kind of connections do humans have with the entity that could give such information?

when was this math created?

 

The universe is electric and plasma and has all kinds of invisible forces including an immense number of magnetic forces. Gravity is minute compared with the energy the universe can produce. Stars are created in a instant and there are forces that travel thousands of times faster than the speed of light. I can show you examples up request

 

what are some examples and where is this information coming from?

[James E Mahler]

what is your view on this higher entity and the higher entities relationship with human progression or retrogression? i'm wondering about these creation statements about humans devolving, yet humans are discovering and creating more now than in any other time in history, unless you also have counter evidence.

 

so is this saying that if humans were given the math, humans could make a scale universe, as well as other universes that create more life than our current universe.

the math of creating humans had to come from a higher entity here? what kind of connections do humans have with the entity that could give such information?

when was this math created?

 

what are some examples and where is this information coming from?

 

cab, take a look at this set of pictures here:

 

This was taken by the Hubble. It's called star v383 monocerotis. You can see the dates there. I could not find snapshots from before May 20, 2002 but I remember the first time I had a chance to examine it around March 2002 it was much smaller, and just a dot like the others in January. This star was first spotted in 86 I think and all of a sudden became intensely bright and than dimmed down again. I'm not sure if there are photos of that. And than it picked up again and the result is that. That could never possibly happen if you use the current model of cosmology and astrophysics.

Scientists were baffled of course and didn't' know how to explain this. And its because they base their science in gravity, nuclear fusion, matter condensing and exploding apart and all that crazy stuff when the whole thing is just so simple and beautiful. Just look at it. It never changed its size too much and yet it was able to disperse a tremendous amount of energy and radiation. There is no explosion here in the sense that scientists claim. Stars can take sometimes thousands of years to form and sometimes just a few years. Think of it as an onion with two layers, supercharged and super condensed energy created by the magnetic field around them. Basically the same explanation I gave about the Sun which is a much different type of star if you wanna call it at that. The charge gets so intense that it needs to be dispersed. And it bursts. Most of the time in a form of intense gamma ray flares but sometimes in almost pure radiation form such as the the one here with the red around it. It is a dispersion of electricity and not an explosion. As this happens pushes the magnetic field around it away from its core sending all kinds of charges particles in all directions forming the plume around it. Now the thing about faster the the speed of light I mentioned; how far do you thing it is from the center of the star to the outer edge of the plume of particles? Millions of light years? It traveled all that in only around 2 years and so? And there is no solid matter dispersion either as the current model says. Its not going go go form another planet somewhere. There is not enough matter for something even the size of the moon. The plume is immense of course but it is already dispersing in this instance, becoming invisible again and disappearing in all directions. If it happens around a highly magnetized area of the cosmos it can continue visible for millions of years even.

 

A lot of times the outer layer of the star peels off just like the onion and the peel given enough electromagnetic force around, it shapes itself into another star next to it called twins or binaries.

 

There is another dandy one here:

 

This is SN1987A from the ESO telescopes, another one scientists had plenty of trouble explaining how an explosion of a "dying star" can produce such a fantastically symmetric shape in the heavens. Well, this one is so easy. Its an immense plasma discharge and if you notice the almost stick man shape that a plasma discharge on a lab can produce. It is not quiet at that shape yet:

 

 

This is the so called stick man. A plasma discharge create in a laboratory. Its in profile view wheres the SN1987A was photographed from a different angle, almost 45 degrees from the top. But you can clearly see the bell shapes top and bottom and including the torus around the center. It also displays a fantastic amount of energy around the edges of the chalice and the torus. Also if you notice on the center where the star is the shape is oval. Its hard to tell from the picture but could very well be that we are seeing the birth of a twin, thus the plasma burst. Again, nothing blew up.

Only an electric model of the universe can explain this phenomenons we see in the skies.

By the way, Mars died because it was zapped by Venus, and not too long ago

Cheers and I'll answer the rest tomorrow, please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cynicist]

Scientists were baffled of course and didn't' know how to explain this. And its because they base their science in gravity, nuclear fusion, matter condensing and exploding apart and all that crazy stuff when the whole thing is just so simple and beautiful. Just look at it. It never changed its size too much and yet it was able to disperse a tremendous amount of energy and radiation. There is no explosion here in the sense that scientists claim. Stars can take sometimes thousands of years to form and sometimes just a few years. Think of it as an onion with two layers, supercharged and super condensed energy created by the magnetic field around them. Basically the same explanation I gave about the Sun which is a much different type of star if you wanna call it at that. The charge gets so intense that it needs to be dispersed. And it bursts. Most of the time in a form of intense gamma ray flares but sometimes in almost pure radiation form such as the the one here with the red around it. It is a dispersion of electricity and not an explosion. As this happens pushes the magnetic field around it away from its core sending all kinds of charges particles in all

 

Beautiful pictures, it looks almost like it is unfolding. Reminds me of a blooming flower.

[cab21]

ok, so i see you are getting to next parts in future posts. im working on forming the questions im curius about.

so the math of electronic universe theory and the creation of homo sapiens is?

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/electric_universe/esp_electricuniverse16.htm

i found this site, not sure what it is saying about human life, but it does involve EU

 

12. So What’

The consequences and possibilities in an Electric Universe are far-reaching. First we must acknowledge our profound ignorance!

• We know nothing of the origin of the universe.

• There was no Big Bang.

• The visible universe is static and much smaller than we thought.

• We have no idea of the age or extent of the universe.

• We don’t know the ultimate source of the electrical energy or matter that forms the universe.

• Galaxies are shaped by electrical forces and form plasma focuses at their centers, which periodically eject quasars and jets of electrons.

• Quasars evolve into companion galaxies.

• Galaxies form families with identifiable "parents" and "children".

• Stars are electrical ’transformers’ not thermonuclear devices.

• There are no neutron stars or Black Holes.

• We don’t know the age of stars because the thermonuclear evolution theory does not apply to them.

• Supernovae are totally inadequate as a source of heavy elements.

• We do not know the age of the Earth because radioactive clocks can be upset by powerful electric discharges. The powerful electric discharges that form a stellar photosphere create the heavy elements that appear in their spectra.

• Stars "give birth" electrically to companion stars and gas giant planets.

• Life is most likely to form inside the radiant plasma envelope of a brown dwarf star!

• Our Sun has gained new planets, including the Earth. That accounts for the ’fruit-salad’ of their characteristics. It is not the most hospitable place for life since small changes in the distant Sun could freeze or sterilize the Earth.

• Planetary surfaces and atmospheres are deposited during their birth from a larger body and during electrical encounters with other planets.

• Planetary surfaces bear the electrical scars of such cosmic events.

• The speed of light is not a barrier.

• Real-time communication over galactic distances may be possible. Therefore time is universal and time travel is impossible.

• Anti-gravity is possible.

• Space has no extra dimensions in which to warp or where parallel universes may exist.

• There is no "zero-point" vacuum energy.

• The invisible energy source in space is electrical.

• Clean nuclear power is available from resonant catalytic nuclear systems.

• Higher energy is available from resonant catalytic chemical systems than in the usual chemical reactions.

• Biological enzymes are capable of utilizing resonant nuclear catalysis to transmute elements.

• Biological systems show evidence of communicating via resonant chemical systems, which may lend a physical explanation to the work of Rupert Sheldrake.

• DNA does not hold the key to life but is more like a blueprint for a set of components and tools in a factory.

• We may never be able to read the human genome and tell whether it represents a creature with two legs or six because the information that controls the assembly line is external to the DNA.

• There is more to life than chemistry.

We are not hopelessly isolated in time and space on a tiny rock, orbiting an insignificant star in an insignificant galaxy. We are hopefully connected with the power and intelligence of the universe.

 

[James E Mahler]

ok, so i see you are getting to next parts in future posts. im working on forming the questions im curius about.

so the math of electronic universe theory and the creation of homo sapiens is?

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/electric_universe/esp_electricuniverse16.htm

i found this site, not sure what it is saying about human life, but it does involve EU

 

Hello again cab, forgive my absence and lack on continuity over the debate, however I was confronted with issues of the most importance and could not find appropriate time to sit down and write. It does not have anything to do with new years celebrations by the way.

I see some of the links you found about EU seem to have caught your attention. Please let me know if you wish to continue this debate.

[cab21]

hi james,

whenever it works for you to continue is welcome