Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

onceforgivennowfree

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 49
 [ 977 posts ] 
onceforgivennowfree
Author Message
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

dandan wrote:Dragan Glas

Oh So I am playing word games?

Lets change the wording of the premise.
Mutations that deteriorate what I call Information are more frequent than mutations that increase what I call information.
Do you agree with the premise?

Firstly, as I already stated, your definition/understanding of "information" is wrong.

Secondly, even if we ignore that, your premise is still wrong.

There is a direct, one-to-one correlation between the two.

Kindest regards,

James



Ok, so If I provide peer reviewed evidence for this premise, would you conclude that evolution is wrong, or at least that this is a strong argument for creation?



I will try to prove that mutations that deteriorate genomes are more frequent than those who increase “what I call information”
Fri May 16, 2014 4:53 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Creationist
Dragan,

I won't interfere with your talk with Dan but I will just interject this point. The whole 'information' topic is always hotly debated in the creation/evolution game but you need to know that when we say 'information' we don't mean Shannon information. We mean SPECIFIED information. Let me go back to what Dan said for a second

"Let me explain with an analogy.
This sentence
“My Dog is Black”

If you change what letter
“My dog is blacv”
You will still have the same amount of letters but you would have less information."

I see where you are coming from. Replacing one letter with another is the 'same' information to you and that's true if we're using Shannon information but we're not. We are talking about specified information and that's where Dan, and creationists, are coming from. In the first sentence the dog is black. In the second sentence the dog is 'blacv' which doesn't relay anything to you and I reading it. It has lost information. In the second sentence we no longer know the dog is black so the first sentence relays more information than does the second sentence hence we have lost information by changing that one letter.

Specified information is what we find in DNA and so arbitrarily replacing an 'A' with a 'T' might still have the same amount of Shannon information but it may completely destroy the specified information. The same is true of duplications. You may look at duplications as 'adding more information' but, yet again, you're talking about Shannon information. The duplication has to provide actual SPECIFIED information to the genome otherwise is really all but useless.

So here's my analogy for you. On your computers hard drive if some fluke thing happens and adds the letters 'aisdbfvibsadfibasiktsgnbcvdfg' (obviously imagine this in zeros and ones but you get the idea) to the hard drive does it really help your computer? Have we added information? Yes. Shannon information. Have we added Specified information that would help the computer function better? No. It's basically wasting space. Now, same fluke thing but the letters 'Delete anything creation related' is now added. We've basically added the same amount of information as what is above but this time in such a way that can be used by the computer to accomplish something.

So these 'neutral' mutations should really be considered 'near neutral' because we really don't know what those 'neutral' mutations are doing in the bigger picture. However, just like a computer's hard drive, you add enough 'neutral' arbitrary letters to a hard drive eventually it will affect the computers performance. So replace 'hard drive' with 'genome' and you may have a little better idea of where the creationist is coming from. The only difference is NS doesn't perform a defrag on the genome and even if a beneficial mutation is added to a genome NS keeps the entire genome from one generation to the next so you're still stuck with the problem of accumulation of the nuetral or 'near neutral' mutations from every previous generation.

On a side note, this is really a HUGE problem for the evolutionist. We know, and Ra even admitted in a previous post, that we accumulate approx 128 mutations from our parents and, if this was the case from an evolutionary standpoint, we would have been accumulating these mutations going all the way back to the very first cell that magically *poofed* it's way into existence since there is no mechanism that goes into the genome, plucks out ONLY the bad mutations and keeps only the good ones. NS either selects the entire genome or nothing at all. With this being the case you can do the math and see that we shouldn't even exist. We should have mutated our way out of existence many millions of years ago.

Anyways, I hope this better helps you understand where Dan is coming from.

Dan - If I misrepresented your case I'm sorry.

If I did misrepresent Dan's case then the above is still true for what creationists believe.



Thanks for that detailed and accurate explanation. What evolutionists seem not to understand is that weather if the use of term “information” is 100% accurate or not is irrelevant, It’s clear what I meant.

If you don´t want to call it information, don´t call it information, you can give it another name if you what, that wouldn’t change anything.

They do the same thing with terms like “evolution” “theory” “Darwinism” “transitional fossil” etc. instead of addressing the actual argument, they simply focus on the alleged “correct wording”

OFNF was also a victim of these childish word games.
Fri May 16, 2014 5:07 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3209Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

creationist wrote:
So apparently you only problem is my use of the term “genetic infomration” and deteriorations.
I defined information as a portion of DNA that codes for something, ether directly or indirectly. So more DNA doesn´t imply necessary imply more information.
Let me explain with an analogy.
This sentence
“My Dog is Black”

If you change what letter
“My do gis blacv”
You will still have the same amount of letetrs but you woudl have less information.

Wrong.

You will still have the same amount of information:

1) Number of letters = information;
2) Same number of letters = same amount of information;
3) Different letters = different meaning.


Dragan,

I won't interfere with your talk with Dan but I will just interject this point. The whole 'information' topic is always hotly debated in the creation/evolution game but you need to know that when we say 'information' we don't mean Shannon information. We mean SPECIFIED information. Let me go back to what Dan said for a second

"Let me explain with an analogy.
This sentence
“My Dog is Black”

If you change what letter
“My dog is blacv”
You will still have the same amount of letters but you would have less information."

I see where you are coming from. Replacing one letter with another is the 'same' information to you and that's true if we're using Shannon information but we're not. We are talking about specified information and that's where Dan, and creationists, are coming from. In the first sentence the dog is black. In the second sentence the dog is 'blacv' which doesn't relay anything to you and I reading it. It has lost information. In the second sentence we no longer know the dog is black so the first sentence relays more information than does the second sentence hence we have lost information by changing that one letter.

Specified information is what we find in DNA and so arbitrarily replacing an 'A' with a 'T' might still have the same amount of Shannon information but it may completely destroy the specified information. The same is true of duplications. You may look at duplications as 'adding more information' but, yet again, you're talking about Shannon information. The duplication has to provide actual SPECIFIED information to the genome otherwise is really all but useless.

So here's my analogy for you. On your computers hard drive if some fluke thing happens and adds the letters 'aisdbfvibsadfibasiktsgnbcvdfg' (obviously imagine this in zeros and ones but you get the idea) to the hard drive does it really help your computer? Have we added information? Yes. Shannon information. Have we added Specified information that would help the computer function better? No. It's basically wasting space. Now, same fluke thing but the letters 'Delete anything creation related' is now added. We've basically added the same amount of information as what is above but this time in such a way that can be used by the computer to accomplish something.

So these 'neutral' mutations should really be considered 'near neutral' because we really don't know what those 'neutral' mutations are doing in the bigger picture. However, just like a computer's hard drive, you add enough 'neutral' arbitrary letters to a hard drive eventually it will affect the computers performance. So replace 'hard drive' with 'genome' and you may have a little better idea of where the creationist is coming from. The only difference is NS doesn't perform a defrag on the genome and even if a beneficial mutation is added to a genome NS keeps the entire genome from one generation to the next so you're still stuck with the problem of accumulation of the nuetral or 'near neutral' mutations from every previous generation.

On a side note, this is really a HUGE problem for the evolutionist. We know, and Ra even admitted in a previous post, that we accumulate approx 128 mutations from our parents and, if this was the case from an evolutionary standpoint, we would have been accumulating these mutations going all the way back to the very first cell that magically *poofed* it's way into existence since there is no mechanism that goes into the genome, plucks out ONLY the bad mutations and keeps only the good ones. NS either selects the entire genome or nothing at all. With this being the case you can do the math and see that we shouldn't even exist. We should have mutated our way out of existence many millions of years ago.

Anyways, I hope this better helps you understand where Dan is coming from.

Dan - If I misrepresented your case I'm sorry.

If I did misrepresent Dan's case then the above is still true for what creationists believe.

I know what dandan means by information.

My reason for rejecting it is because it's a made-up definition that doesn't hold water:

The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, the theory of complex systems, or biology.[1][2][3]

[...]

A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states that "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results."[5] Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation."[6] Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design as an argument from ignorance.

1 Rich Baldwin (2005). "Information Theory and Creationism: William Dembski". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2010-05-10.
2 Mark Perakh, (2005). Dembski "displaces Darwinism" mathematically -- or does he?
3 Jason Rosenhouse, (2001). How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol. 23, No. 4, Fall 2001, pp. 3-8.
5 Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit, (2003). Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski’s “Complex Specified Information”
6 a b Martin Nowak (2005). Time Magazine, 15 August 2005, page 32

This is similar to the made-up distinction between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution.

Neither of these are valid - they are simply sophistry to bolster up a religious belief that has nothing to do with science.

It's not a "huge problem for the evolutionist" because the definition is a straw-man definition of "information".

And, in case you're thinking that it's just my opinion - my background is the computer industry.

ID was debunked as creationism under another name at the Dover trial.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Fri May 16, 2014 5:14 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3209Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Greetings,

dandan wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Firstly, as I already stated, your definition/understanding of "information" is wrong.

Secondly, even if we ignore that, your premise is still wrong.

There is a direct, one-to-one correlation between the two.

Kindest regards,

James

Ok, so If I provide peer reviewed evidence for this premise, would you conclude that evolution is wrong, or at least that this is a strong argument for creation?

I will try to prove that mutations that deteriorate genomes are more frequent than those who increase “what I call information”

If you're thinking of offering papers by Dembski, I should point out that peer-review in science is not the same as in the humanities.

As I've already noted above, your definition of information is not recognised by the scientific community - but if you want to offer peer-reviewed papers, be my guest.

Kindestr regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Fri May 16, 2014 5:20 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3209Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Greetings,

dandan wrote:Thanks for that detailed and accurate explanation. What evolutionists seem not to understand is that weather if the use of term “information” is 100% accurate or not is irrelevant, It’s clear what I meant.

If you don´t want to call it information, don´t call it information, you can give it another name if you what, that wouldn’t change anything.

They do the same thing with terms like “evolution” “theory” “Darwinism” “transitional fossil” etc. instead of addressing the actual argument, they simply focus on the alleged “correct wording”

OFNF was also a victim of these childish word games.

These are not "childish word games" - if you were to try and argue with a theologian or biblical scholar, you'd run into the same problem: they'd correct you on definitions, and as long as you tried to argue from false definitions, assumptions, etc, you'd be pulled up on it.

This is exactly what happened when Sye Ten Bruggencate's opinions ran into Dr. Jones' theologically academic exactness on The Place:



If you're going to argue academic subjects, you need to get the definitions, etc, right - otherwise you're arguing your case based on falsehoods.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Fri May 16, 2014 5:37 pm
creationistPosts: 45Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:55 am

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Thanks for that detailed and accurate explanation. What evolutionists seem not to understand is that weather if the use of term “information” is 100% accurate or not is irrelevant, It’s clear what I meant.

If you don´t want to call it information, don´t call it information, you can give it another name if you what, that wouldn’t change anything.

They do the same thing with terms like “evolution” “theory” “Darwinism” “transitional fossil” etc. instead of addressing the actual argument, they simply focus on the alleged “correct wording”

OFNF was also a victim of these childish word games.


You're welcome and I agree. I hate the whole 'information' discussion because they don't really understand that we mean 'specified' information and not 'shannon' information. And then , in most cases anyways, when you explain it to them their only retort is to claim 'you're wrong about what information means' and so you go round and round about definitions and never get anywhere. So tedious. This is what Dragan tried to use but hopefully he better understands what is meant when we say 'information'.

All they need to understand is that DNA requires specified information in order to 'evolve' anything. Whether that be a fin into a leg or air sacs into lungs or a cell into a human. 'Information' isn't enough. It requires very specific information in order for genes to code for something. You can't just add a bunch of garbled shannon information to the genome and expect a heart to 'evolve' over any amount of time with any amount of steps along the way. It just doesn't work that way. Actual modern science is showing us this. The stone agers of science just don't want to catch up.

On a side note - What was up with Ra and the dog video? I don't think he realizes that the video actually supports YOUR side of the argument instead of refuting it! It PROVES that genomes deteriorate over time! Weird that he doesn't get that. Excuse me for a second

HEY RA - I KNOW YOU WON'T REPLY TO THIS BUT I NEED YOU TO AT LEAST READ IT. In the video you brought up the Lycaon pictus and claimed that we creationists would say 'it's of the same kind' and that's wrong. NO IT'S NOT. A 'kind' to a creationist is more in line with a Family or organisms and NOT a species. It's a fallacy concocted by evolutionists that a 'kind' is a 'species; but YOU are wrong. So it'd be great if you'd fix your video. The Lycaon pictus is the same KIND as all other dogs.....including wolves. If you're going to talk about creationism in your videos it would be awesome if you actually understood what you were talking about. You're the reason so much bad information is spread all over YouTube concerning what is and isn't 'creationism'. Nothing like lying to the public to push an agenda.

So what Ra showed in that video is that when dogs are bred their genomes deteriorate. Once a dog 'loses' the information for making it the size of a wolf (such as we see in a Pomeranian) they NEVER 'evolve' a way to get back to being as large a a wolf. Never. Once a dog 'loses' its hair due to a mutation such as we see in a chihuahua, they never 'evolve' a way to get that hair back. The information for making 'hair' is just gone. The genome has deteriorated and no longer can make 'hair' in a chihuahua or make a Pomeranian 'large' again. The only way to get the hair back on a chihuahua is to breed it with others dogs that have hair. The only way to get a Pomeranian a little bigger is to breed it with a larger dog. So it's a little comical that Ra would post a video that he thinks refutes your position and instead it completely supports your position! Comical to say the least.

Anyways, all of the information above is actual empirical science. Tested, observed, and repeated. I know because I live in an area thick with breeders of cattle, horses, and dogs. I see it all the time on my uncle's farm. So since the above information is actually empirical, and we know it to be fact, it can be completely ignored by the evolutionist. Why? Because, as we've been told, there's absolutely no evidence that the creation model is correct so who cares what the actual modern day empirical science says? Opinion, assertion ,and assumptions rule over all.
Fri May 16, 2014 6:01 pm
creationistPosts: 45Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:55 am

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

And so it appears Dragan opted for the 'I'm right and you're wrong' approach. Now the round and round commences.

I'll thrown in some reading for you.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 3689a.html

Jack Szostak said in this article that it requires actual functional information to get a protein to perform a particular function. Classical information theory isn't enough.

The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection

In this book is states that Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Not just any information will create a functional gene.

And one more source

http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47


Dragan - The onus will now be on you to prove that just any information that is added to the genome is sufficient enough to create new and fully functioning genes.
Fri May 16, 2014 6:40 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

[e]
f you're thinking of offering papers by Dembski, I should point out that peer-review in science is not the same as in the humanities.

As I've already noted above, your definition of information is not recognised by the scientific community - but if you want to offer peer-reviewed papers, be my guest.

Kindestr regards


So if I provide a Perer Revied article that shows that mutations that deteriorate genomes are more frequent that those that increase information, would you reject evolution? would you at last agree that there are good intellectual reasons for being skeptic about evolution?

Please answer unambiguously yes or no
Fri May 16, 2014 7:02 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatar
Online
Posts: 880Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

creationist wrote:We creationists don't believe that mutations and nat sel are capable of the super powers that the evolutionists give them. We recognize that they might be able to change a beak into a slightly different beak but when have we ever observed those types of changes add up to a point where one population of organisms in a particular Family of organisms receive so many changes that they are no longer considered in the same Family of organisms? It's these types of things that are highly disputed by the creationists.


If I understand your position correctly, is that creationists highly dispute that cumulative micro-evolutionary changes can lead to a macro-evolutionary change such as a limb accumulating successive changes that the limb is eventually a wing.

And as such, you describe the current evidence for micro/macro evolution as a "nature of the gap" argument, something that is insufficient to convince you that evolution happened and as such, you reject the theory of evolution.

creationist wrote:we DO understand evolution and that's why we can see the weaknesses and 'faith' that goes into believing it's somehow responsible for the diversity of life around us.


So, by this we can conclude that you have a very high standard of evidence for the theory of evolution. You will reject as insufficient anything that contains, as you call it, assertions, assumptions and fairy tale stories.

My question then is this: Why have you not rejected creationism?
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Fri May 16, 2014 7:53 pm
BaggiPosts: 36Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 6:20 am Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

"Why have you not rejected creationism?"

It doesn't matter. This thread is about proving evolution. This question would mean pages and pages defending ones belief in creationism. Surely you can find that in another thread. Or move your challenge to another thread.

I repeat. This thread is about proving evolution. Which, 8 pages in, is starting to look like it won't ever happen.

I'd be happy if they, meaning AronRa and OFNF would simplify the challenge. Proving evolution is quite the task. How about just proving one less complicated aspect of evolution, OFNF? For example, prove common descent. Just an example, mind you. Could be anything.

But why not shoot for something smaller? This large challenge of proving evolution will go no where. Heck, how about, prove the world is more than 10,000 years old? What do you think of that question, OFNF?

Any way to dial this down more specifically would make this back and forth clearer and the objective, or lack thereof, more attainable.
Fri May 16, 2014 8:52 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3491Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

I have not reach the end of this thread yet, but I thought I should address this statement since it was directed at me and no one else had covered it (that I have seen so far).

dandan wrote:Or you can also prove that organisms are getting more complex, according to Aron this is a fact (fact number 1 of his 7 facts) so it shouldn´t be hard to provide a scientific source that proves that organisms are getting more complex.

Just to be clear
-I won´t accept a simulation as evidence onless you prove that this simulation represents reality

...

Please prove that mutations + natural selection = more complexity.


The boxcar evolution game is a simple simulation that shows that with selection and random mutations, complexity can arise. As you state, you accept mutations and natural selection, thus the simulation does represent the reality that we both already accept.

dandan wrote:-Providing 1 or 2 examples of increased complexity is not enough, you have to prove that an increase in complexity is the prevailing trend.


Seeing as you have already dismissed the boxcar evolution game, even though it satisfied what you asked for, please tell me what exactly you would accept? I do not want to waste my time-sharing evidence that you will dismiss outright.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri May 16, 2014 9:45 pm
YIM WWW
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 565Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:Ok so out of the 3 facts that I presented, which one of these do you consider, controversial, wrong or stupid?

-Mutations that deteriorate genomes are more frequent than mutations that create new information.
Mutations do not 'deteriorate' the genome, neither initially nor cumulatively. For example, bear in mind that our base template (morphologically and genetically) is that of a generalized ape. That wouldn't be the case if creationism were true. That fact is only consistent with evolution, and creationism cannot account for it. Moving on.

Among the few genetic differences of any significance are two concordant mutations contributing to our 'humanization'. One results in minimizing our muscle mass. In particular, a reduction of the massive jaw muscles which (on some other great apes) attach to a sagittal crest along the top of the skull. This muscle mass normally constricts the skull and restricts the size of the brain inside. Minimizing the muscle mass with a broken gene frees it up for expansion.

The second mutation involved is a tumor inhibitor because it normally restricts brain growth. A dysfunction of that gene leaves us more susceptible to brain cancer, but it also blesses us with bigger brains, at least in the effected area.

I included the peer-reviewed citations with explanation in my video, Correcting Ken Ham and his Facebook Following.

Notice that both of these mutations are dysfunctions of conserved primate genes. In other words, these are monkey genes that are still embedded in the human genome even though they don't work anymore; they can no longer do what they were seemingly 'designed' to do. This is precisely what that idiot, Ian Juby described as a 'loss' of genetic 'information', so I'm sure you would refer to this as 'deterioration'.

However, if your 'model' were correct, and our genome was originally perfect, then that means we were intended to have big muscles and small brains. It would also mean that it requires less 'information' to make a man than a monkey, and all humans would be 'deteriorated' apes.

However the reality is that even dysfunctional mutations can enhance the genome to produce something better, (as I'm sure you would agree in this case) proving the genome did not, and does not 'deteriorate'.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Fri May 16, 2014 11:05 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2750Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

I have to point out that this thread has already divulged into pointless beakering back forward on things that creationists know nothing about. While the original challenge had a farcical request to just be educated and that "if there only was a simple explanation you would believe it" turns out to have completely missed the mark.
To put this back on track you should first go back to the definitions, much fuss was done about it and they have managed to slip away without understanding what the things you are discussing mean. There are allot of big words and tricky definitions, yes it is not easy to take it all in, but it is there for a reason, science don't have complicated terminology for no good reason, it is not there to appear fancy or sciency, they are there because the world is complicated, its extremely nuanced and you have to be extremely precise in what you say, because if you are to broad in your terminology then it becomes open to interpretation, you don't know what was meant, and it could has easily have meant something which is wrong or something which is right. And you do need to use the actual scientific definitions, if you make a challenge that there are 3 little piggies in the corral, then you have to use the right definition of what 3 is or what a piggy is, and not (as many of you creationists suggested) redefine what it the number 3 means or what is a piggy.

And when it was mentioned that you don't actually know enough to even understand what you need to know in order to understand what evolution is, we do mean. And say to you, you don't know what evolution is nor do you know what science is in order to understand it. And you should take the offers that were given to you to explain those things and understand it in order for you to be able to understand evolution. And let me state this bluntly and clearly, You are not scientists and you have no real education in science what so ever, and make no mistakes about it, be a bit more humble and take the offers that have been given to you in order to understand basic concepts. What you think you know about science means tricky dick, and the offers given are not given as an insult, its because this things are not obvious and you, as well as the vast majority of people on earth, think they know (think that it is obvious) when they are in fact completely wrong.
If we taught that doing this wouldn't make a difference, we wouldn't have brought it up. And I tell you if you did understand the basic concepts you wouldn't be creationists.

Not to mention that you contradict yourselves every other sentence. We have gems like "we accept that variation within species occur" and "is don't see that mutation and natural selection can lead to complexity".
Do you agree that DNA is a molecule?
Do you agree that molecules are can change given certain physical and chemical pressures (certain conditions)?
Do you agree that DNA plays a role in the synthesis of proteins, and that depending on the composition of the DNA that the resulting proteins can be different?
Do you agree that different proteins that regulate different aspects of the development of an organism?

If you answered yes to all of those questions, as I am sure you did, then you already have a mechanism by which mutation can increase complexity. The question now is, was that what actually happened in the organisms that we do see? Which is a question of a completely different nature which has different answers, and you are not even capable of demonstrating that you can make such a distinction.

And another example, somebody raised the objection that mutation are more often detrimental than they are beneficial and that this would invalidate evolution. Firstly it is not a supported assertion, secondly even if it was, it overlooks the important factor that natural selection plays, namely if the mutation was detrimental, then that organism will more likely die and thus that mutation will not get to the next generation, while the opposite happens on a mutation that is beneficial. Which demonstrates that you do not understand natural selection.

So can we not get ahead of ourselves, go back to the beginning and set out some basic ground work before trying to approach any of the cases that you are trying to approach right now?
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Fri May 16, 2014 11:33 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3491Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

creationist wrote:We all know why Ra avoids me. When you're caught you tend to invent ad hoc rationalizations as to why you don't want to reply to certain people. He and I both know he can't back up what he says with actual science and that's why he avoids me. Truth isn't something he's fond of accepting. OK. Enough of that.


:lol:

You are hilarious Equestions. Your projection is classic.

dandan wrote:My model predicts that all creatures where created perfect, with perfect DNA, and that they started to decay since then (as a consecuence of mutatons)


Here is Darwin explaining what Adam (and Eve) would have looked like according to dandan.



I just thought this was too good to pass up.

creationist wrote:A 'kind' to a creationist is more in line with a Family or organisms and NOT a species.


Thus, creationist accepts we share a common ancestor with apes. Not sure what creationist meant by organisms, but if he meant order, than he accepts humans share a common ancestor with primates.

creationist wrote:Dragan - The onus will now be on you to prove that just any information that is added to the genome is sufficient enough to create new and fully functioning genes.


Seeing as how a mutation can add information (based on the actual definition and the bastardized definition the creationists are using), would not any observed positive mutation satisfy this challenge? I will wait for the goals to shift.

Baggi wrote:But why not shoot for something smaller? This large challenge of proving evolution will go no where. Heck, how about, prove the world is more than 10,000 years old? What do you think of that question, OFNF?


Wikipedia wrote:Dendrochronology

...

Currently, the maximum for fully anchored chronologies is a little over 11,000 years from present.[1]


That was easy.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Last edited by he_who_is_nobody on Sat May 17, 2014 12:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sat May 17, 2014 12:06 am
YIM WWW
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3209Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Greetings,

creationist wrote:And so it appears Dragan opted for the 'I'm right and you're wrong' approach. Now the round and round commences.

Only because you won't accept the proper scientific definitions. If you're going to argue science, use the correct terms and definitions - not your own or those borrowed from people who put religious beliefs before scientific objectivity.

creationist wrote:I'll thrown in some reading for you.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 3689a.html

Jack Szostak said in this article that it requires actual functional information to get a protein to perform a particular function. Classical information theory isn't enough.

Firstly, it is customary to provide a open source version of a cited article, rather than a pay-to-access one.

For those who don't have access to Nature, here's a open access link.

Did you infer, or are you attempting to imply, that Szostak's "functional information" is equivalent to Dembski's "(complex) specified information"?

If so, you're incorrect on both counts.

Szostak notes that functionality is independent of structure or mechanism - which is exactly what would be expected if such functions came about through evolution (liquorice all-sorts), in contrast to it being designed by a designer (one size fits all).

His term refers to a proposed method of classification through function:

But different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent. A new measure of information - functional information - is required to account for all possible sequences that could potentially carry out an equivalent biochemical function, independent of the structure or mechanism used.

You've either completely misunderstood what he said, or you're being disingenuous when you claim that he said "it requires actual functional information to get a protein to perform a particular function".

creationist wrote:The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection

In this book is states that Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Not just any information will create a functional gene.

Could you give the exact quote and page number, please?

As a chemist, Orgel's work centred on the chemical origins of life - abiogenesis: strange that you should choose him to bolster your championing of Dembski's sophistry.

creationist wrote:And one more source

http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47

Again the authors mention of, what they refer to as, "three aspects of sequence complexity, Random Sequence Complexity (RSC), Ordered Sequence Complexity (OSC) and Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC) observed in biosequences such as proteins.", has absolutely nothing do with Dembski's made-up nonsense.

As the self-same "Background" paragraph finishes:

In this paper, we provide a method to measure functional sequence complexity.

Which is similar to what Szostak was referring in his article - nothing to do with Dembski's nonsense.

In case you're in any doubt - peruse the References at the end: no mention of Dembski or any other ID proponent.

creationist wrote:Dragan - The onus will now be on you to prove that just any information that is added to the genome is sufficient enough to create new and fully functioning genes.

Neither I nor any other science-oriented poster in this thread has claimed that - on the contrary, it is those who are pushing Dembski's specified information that have to prove it.

Evolution allows non-lethal - neutral and beneficial - mutations to occur and propagate over time. A single mutation does not have to do anything to be preserved. Thus, it doesn't have to create fully functioning genes.

Consider the simplest form of eye, which requires three components:

a) a photo-receptor - a cell that's sensitive to light;
b) a nerve - which joins the photo-receptor to a brain cell;
c) a brain cell to process the light stimuli.

ABC
===
001
010
100

Any one of the above represents the occurrence of a mutation for a), b) or c) - the zeroes represent existing information - on their own, they neither help nor harm the organism with one of those mutations. The mutations are neutral and are thus preserved in the gene pool

You could have any combination of them - either occurring simultaneously or accumulating over time:

ABC
===
011
101
110

Or even all three.

ABC
===
111

*POOF!*

And so you have a organism with a functional, light-detection system through evolution - no "irreducible complexity" and/or "complex specified information".

So, how did Dembski come up with his notion?

Schneider wrote a article debunking Dembski's "complex specified information".

Please read it.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat May 17, 2014 12:10 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3209Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Greetings,

dandan wrote:[e]
f you're thinking of offering papers by Dembski, I should point out that peer-review in science is not the same as in the humanities.

As I've already noted above, your definition of information is not recognised by the scientific community - but if you want to offer peer-reviewed papers, be my guest.

Kindestr regards


So if I provide a Perer Revied article that shows that mutations that deteriorate genomes are more frequent that those that increase information, would you reject evolution? would you at last agree that there are good intellectual reasons for being skeptic about evolution?

Please answer unambiguously yes or no

As I said earlier, dandan, provide the cited articles and let's look at what they say.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat May 17, 2014 12:12 am
creationistPosts: 45Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:55 am

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Consider the simplest form of eye, which requires three components:

a) a photo-receptor - a cell that's sensitive to light;
b) a nerve - which joins the photo-receptor to a brain cell;
c) a brain cell to process the light stimuli.

ABC
===
001
010
100

Any one of the above represents the occurrence of a mutation for a), b) or c) - the zeroes represent existing information - on their own, they neither help nor harm the organism with one of those mutations. The mutations are neutral and are thus preserved in the gene pool

You could have any combination of them - either occurring simultaneously or accumulating over time:

ABC
===
011
101
110

Or even all three.

ABC
===
111

*POOF!*

And so you have a organism with a functional, light-detection system through evolution - no "irreducible complexity" and/or "complex specified information".


This is extremely dishonest on your part or shows your lack of knowledge about the genome. The genome doesn't work the way you expressed above. Not at all. Not even close. The analogy you used is completely bogus from every single angle because none of it provides nor accounts for specified complexity. You're still talking shannon information. Anyways, the genome and the above analogy don't have anything in common so I don't even know where to go with that.


As for the eye. you would first have to account for the 'evolution' of the photo-receptor, a nerve - which joins the photo-receptor to a brain cell, a brain cell to process the light stimuli. You can't just ASSUME they existed prior to your analogy and then build from there. It's obvious you've learned well from Ra. Assumptions and assertions.

If you want more on the eye see my earlier post to Gnug. There's no evidence at all for the evolution of the eye outside of fairy tale stories. This stuff we call 'empirical evidence' doesn't show the eye 'evolving'.
Sat May 17, 2014 12:44 am
creationistPosts: 45Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:55 am

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Dan - It doesn't matter how much or what evidence we put in front of Ra he refuses to accept any of the well established empirical data you give him. We proved to him, using his own video non the less, that genomes deteriorate and he still keeps chanting the mantra "genomes don't deteriorate".

Losing the ability for organisms to be a much larger size apparently isn't a deterioration of the genome.

Losing the ability for organisms to produce hair apparently isn't a deterioration of the genome.

Fish losing the ability to see apparently isn't a deterioration of the genome.

Deletions apparently don't deteriorate the genome (really?!?! How can Ra possibly argue THAT?!?!)

Mutations to the genome that cause cancer apparently don't deteriorate the genome

Mutations to the genome that cause cystic fibrosis don't deteriorate the genome

Apparently all of the following peer reviewed papers are crap

http://link.springer.com/article/10.102 ... 533#page-1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10486973
http://link.springer.com/article/10.102 ... 486#page-1
Dysgenics: Genetic deterioration in modern populations


Does Ra know anything about biology? I mean ANYTHING?! What does Ra consider deletions to the genome to be? Increased complexity apparently? Does he even know they exist?

This whole thread would be face palming laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for Ra quite honestly. We keep providing empirical data and peer reviewed papers to back up our side of the argument and Ra provides us with YouTube videos. I can't believe the support Ra gets when he supplies only YouTube videos, that don't even back up his side of the argument, and somehow we're the morons when we're the ones providing the peer review and empirical data. It is, by far, the most ridiculous thing I've ever been a part of. There simply seems to be no honest, objective, logical evolutionist anywhere. Amazing.

Anyways, this is all getting very tedious. We've done nothing but provide evidence and every bit of it is simply ignored or dismissed. Not with actual logical reasons. Just simply dismissed because they don't like what it says.
Sat May 17, 2014 1:27 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3491Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

creationist wrote:Dan - It doesn't matter how much or what evidence we put in front of Ra he refuses to accept any of the well established empirical data you give him. We proved to him, using his own video non the less, that genomes deteriorate and he still keeps chanting the mantra "genomes don't deteriorate".

Losing the ability for organisms to be a much larger size apparently isn't a deterioration of the genome.

Losing the ability for organisms to produce hair apparently isn't a deterioration of the genome.

Fish losing the ability to see apparently isn't a deterioration of the genome.

Deletions apparently don't deteriorate the genome (really?!?! How can Ra possibly argue THAT?!?!)


:facepalm:

You are confusing the phenotype with the genotype. Any type of mutation can bring on a trait that causes a creature to lose their hair or to not grow as large. A deletion is the only mutation that could take information away. However, a duplication would increase the amount of information.

Thank you for another perfect example of the fact that you do not know the first thing about this subject.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sat May 17, 2014 1:53 am
YIM WWW
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3209Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Greetings,

creationist wrote:This is extremely dishonest on your part or shows your lack of knowledge about the genome.

Neither of those accusations are correct.

creationist wrote:The genome doesn't work the way you expressed above. Not at all. Not even close.

And the basis for that statement is...?

creationist wrote:The analogy you used is completely bogus from every single angle because none of it provides nor accounts for specified complexity.

It's quite clear that you haven't taken on board anything I posted earlier, including the Wiki article, and both Elsberry/Shallit's and Schneider's article, so let me make it clear.

:!: There's no such thing as Dembski's "specified complexity" recognised by science :!:

Continuing to argue from the basis of a debunked hypothesis is as unsupportable as arguing from the perspective of geo-centrism.

If you haven't read them, then please do so - if you have already done so, please re-read them and realise what they're saying about Dembski's CSI, IC and ID.

Here's TalkOrigins' article.

creationist wrote:You're still talking shannon information. Anyways, the genome and the above analogy don't have anything in common so I don't even know where to go with that.

Then please learn about how the genome actually works rather than continue arguing from a baseless position.

creationist wrote:As for the eye. you would first have to account for the 'evolution' of the photo-receptor, a nerve - which joins the photo-receptor to a brain cell, a brain cell to process the light stimuli. You can't just ASSUME they existed prior to your analogy and then build from there. It's obvious you've learned well from Ra. Assumptions and assertions.

If you want more on the eye see my earlier post to Gnug. There's no evidence at all for the evolution of the eye outside of fairy tale stories. This stuff we call 'empirical evidence' doesn't show the eye 'evolving'.

I didn't "assume" they already existed.

In the case of the first, It's only necessary for a skin-cell to become sensitive to light - that's not difficult to accept, is it?

In my analogy, the zero represents a skin cell - the one represents a mutation resulting in the skin cell being photo-sensitive.

Phototransduction and the Evolution of Photoreceptors

Multi-cellular organisms evolved through cells giving up various functions, thus losing their independence. Some cells would have to take over the task of processing any or all stimuli. Some cells would take over the task of regulating the internal workings of an organism - including cells that allow it to process stimuli that help it survive in its environment. Nerve cells would have evolved to provide stimuli from its skin to which it would respond - either avoid or approach something.

The evolutionary emergence of cell type-specific genes inferred from the gene expression analysis of Hydra

Or are you actually questioning the evolution of cells in the first place?

And I note that you haven't provided the exact quote and page number from Orgel's book.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat May 17, 2014 2:35 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 8 of 49
 [ 977 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 17 guests