Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

True Morphological Novelty

GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 5:34:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Evolutionary biology has not identified a specifically causal explanation for the origin of true morphological novelty during the history of life.*

Thoughts?

*copied & pasted
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 5:56:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 5:34:32 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Evolutionary biology has not identified a specifically causal explanation for the origin of true morphological novelty during the history of life.*

Thoughts?

*copied & pasted

A Google search indicattes this is from "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories"

No need to rely on my opinions:

"In a review of Meyer's article The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories, Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry claimed it contained poor scholarship, that it failed to cite and specifically rebut the actual data supporting evolution, and "constructed a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down straw men, and tendentious interpretations."[22] Further examination of the article revealed that it was substantially similar to previously published articles co-authored by Meyer"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

or here:

http://pandasthumb.org...

"A central claim of Meyer"s is that novel genes have too much "CSI" to be produced by evolution. The first problem with this is that Meyer does not demonstrate that genes have CSI under Dembski"s definition (see above). The second problem is that Meyer cites absolutely none of the literature documenting the origin of new genes. For example, Meyer missed the recent paper in Current Opinion in Genetics and Development with the unambiguous title, "Evolution of novel genes." The paper and 183 related papers can be found here. Many other references can be found linked from here."

"As far as we can tell, Meyer uses the word "duplication" or something similar only twice in the entire 26-page article. One of these usages is in the references, in the title of an article referring to centriole duplication. The other is on p. 217, where Meyer introduces the genes-from-unnecessary DNA scenario. However, he subsequently ignores duplicated functional genes in this section and focuses on the origin of genes from noncoding DNA. Duplication really belongs with Meyer"s section on the second evolutionary scenario, the origin of genes from coding DNA. There, Meyer argued that the origin of new genes from old genes was impossible because such a process would mess up the function of the old genes. If he had put it there, he would have revealed the existence of the extremely simple, and already well-known, solution to the problem that he posed, namely, gene duplication (Lynch and Conery, 2000, 2003)."

With a little bit more here:
http://evolutionwiki.org...

This is a typically dishonest, inherently biased and factually inaccurate example that comes almost exclusively from a group that have already lost the battle of the science and truth.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 6:40:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No need to rely on your opinions? But that's what I wanted. Else, I wouldn't have refrained from citing the source :)
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...