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 16 of 49
 [ 977 posts ] 
onceforgivennowfree
Author Message
fightofthejellyfishUser avatarPosts: 62Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 5:34 amLocation: Australia Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:Please answer unambiguously, yes or no.
Do you accept that mutations that deteriorate genomes are more frequent than those who destroy information? A few days ago you claimed to disagree with that statement and I presented a scientific article that proves my premise correct. Your coments on that please

Remember I based my argument on 3 premises

1 Mutations that deteriorate are more frequent than those who create new information

2 Most mutations are not selected nor removed by natural selection

3 Mutations accumulate from generation to generation.

If you accept these 3 premises it follows logically that genomes deteriorate as time passes, if deterioration is the prevailing trend, you can´t have molecule to man evolution.

Since you first had problems with premise 1, lets focus just on this premise, after we are done we can move to the next premises.

So please answer unambiguously, do you accept premise 1? If not please explain why is the author of the research paper that I posted wrong, if yes please tell me which of the other 2 premises you consider controversial.

dandan,

Seriously? Are you really still trying to get people to concede to a premise for an argument that has already been shown to be wrong in other ways?

You've had a number of detailed replies explaining why nobody is going to agree to this premise. The answer as I gave you is that it can be true in some populations at some times and false at others. For instance the paper you yourself cited talked about genes that are no longer necessary for survival to reproductive age since modern medicine has taken up the slack. This change in our environment means that at the moment in developed nation human populations it is now a neutral mutation to disable certain genes where it was not before. AronRa gave you the example of vitamin C production, the monkeys in which this mutation occurred ate fruit getting plenty of vitamin C in their diet, thus they didn't die when this gene was disabled there was no selective pressure to keep the gene and it was free to be disabled.

Have a look a you argument again. As you've now defined it there is a disconnect between you first and second premise such that your premises are not sufficient to reach the conclusion you want. It is not enough to say that most mutations are neutral, most mutations don't disable genes, you need to show that all mutations that deteriorate genes are neutral. Otherwise all you can conclude is that genes that are not necessary for survival will deteriorate which is a conclusion that has been a part of evolutionary theory since Darwin, this is what leads to vestiges.

To put it another way. You keep saying that your first premise has nothing to do with "bad mutations", however your assumption that mutations that disable genes would be neutral (not removed by natural selection) in your second premise is wrong. In most circumstances disabling a gene would be a very negative mutation.
Thu May 22, 2014 5:33 am
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Let me try to be absolutely clear about this, because you're still not giving me a definition that allows me to give you an answer.

dandan wrote:With information I mean a portion of DNA that has ether a direct or an indirect function.


This doesn't really answer my question, so I'll give you a few hypothetical scenarios. You just tell me whether it's an addition of information or a loss. (eg. 1 = loss, 2 = add, etc.)
We start with the DNA sequence GTC-GTT-GTA-GCA, 12 letters long. I've already highlighted the codons. Let's imagine that this sequence codes for the ability to use proteins as part of your daily diet. The above sequence allows you to use 10% of all proteins you eat.

1) We now introduce a new codon through mutation: GTC-GTT-GTA-ACT-GCA. Suddenly, we can use 15% of all proteins.

2) From the original sequence, we delete a codon. GTC-GTT-GCA. We can only use 5% of proteins.

3) We add a new codon: GTC-GTT-GTA-ATT-GCA. We can only use 5% of proteins.

4) We delete a codon: GTC-GTA-GCA. We can use 20% of proteins.

5) We change a letter: GTC-GTA-GTA-GCA. We can use 20% of proteins.

6) We change a letter: GTC-GTC-GTA-GCA. We can use only 5% of proteins.

This is purely hypothetical, but by answering these four questions I can finally have what I'm looking for: An answer to the question "how do you define information".

dandan wrote:The article that I presented proves that mutations that destroy information are more frequent, you asked me for evidence for that premise and I present it.


As I already pointed out, you interchange "destroy information" with "deleterious". They are not the same. The articles you produced agree that deleterious mutations are more frequent, NOT that mutations which destroy information are more frequent.
That's why I'm so adamant we use exact definitions.

dandan wrote:Evolutionists have a sick obsession with “definitions” If you don´t what to call it information, don’t ‘call it information, you can call it anyway you what.
The fact is that mutations that destroy what I/Debski call information are more frequent than those who create it, if you don´t what me to use the term “information” please tell me what term should I use.


Up until now you hadn't told us, or at least I haven't yet seen it, that you were using Dembski's bogus definition. So you agree with the following nonsensical definition?

Dembski wrote:For there to be information, there must be a multiplicity of distinct possibilities any one of which might happen. When one of these possibilities does happen and the others are ruled out, information becomes actualized. Indeed, information in its most general sense can be defined as the actualization of one possibility to the exclusion of others (observe that this definition encompasses both syntactic and semantic information).


If you actually agree with that definition, then I have to ask you to read the following article. It's slightly outdated but the basic argument is still valid: The problem is that Dembski conflates definitions from two fields. From that it follows that his argument is false.
That's why "evolutionists have (such) a sick obsession with definitions": We care passionately about what is actually said, not about what we think you said.

dandan wrote:I am not talking about “bad mutations” vs “good mutations” I am talking about mutations that destroy information vs those who create it. For example a mutation that prevents the coding of a protein would be a mutation that destroys information, regardless if this is good or bad for the organism.


Your ideas aren't even internally consistent.
I think I may have pointed this out in some other threads, but there are cases where there is a definite addition of information (addition of a codon), yet the protein doesn't code either. This flies in the face of your definition as I understand it.

AronRa wrote:So the example I gave, wherein a tumor inhibitor is switched off, and as a result, our brain grows larger and more powerful, that would be "destruction of information". Interesting.


My point exactly. The definition given by dandan is clearly not congruent with reality.

AronRa wrote:
dandan wrote:2 Most mutations are not selected nor removed by natural selection

Correct.


Aron, I must ask you to clarify that point. Do you mean that most mutations are not selected for because they are neutral or do you mean that the detrimental mutations are not selected against?
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

"I shall achieve my objectives through the power... of Science!" --LessWrong
Thu May 22, 2014 10:20 am
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 565Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Inferno wrote:Aron, I must ask you to clarify that point. Do you mean that most mutations are not selected for because they are neutral or do you mean that the detrimental mutations are not selected against?
With an estimated average of more than 100 mutations per human zygote, obviously the bulk of them would neither be selected nor removed. Taken as an average over many individuals, the vast majority of these mutations would be effectively neutral.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Thu May 22, 2014 1:12 pm
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

AronRa wrote:
Inferno wrote:Aron, I must ask you to clarify that point. Do you mean that most mutations are not selected for because they are neutral or do you mean that the detrimental mutations are not selected against?

With an estimated average of more than 100 mutations per human zygote, obviously the bulk of them would neither be selected nor removed. Taken as an average over many individuals, the vast majority of these mutations would be effectively neutral.


Agreed. The point that must be made though is: Natural selection et al work on them enough to prevent any "deterioration" or whatever dandan calls it. That's where he might get confused if one says "don't get selected for".
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

"I shall achieve my objectives through the power... of Science!" --LessWrong
Thu May 22, 2014 1:57 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3214Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Greetings,

dandan wrote:
You posted a article you claimed supported your premise - it did not. That's indistinguishable from "random"! Yet you accuse me of posting random articles?!

The articles I posted: do not support your premise either.

Without reading the other two articles, you ask me to tell you whether they support it or not: if a teacher gave you homework and you asked them, "What's the answer?", what would be their response?

You also appear to have missed the fact that I already answered your question in a earlier post!

What you are demonstrating is that you don't have enough knowledge about what you're talking about to dismiss what I and others are pointing out to you.

You now ask Inferno the same question and attempt to get him to ignore natural selection whilst using Dembski's invented definition of "information".

This is what's frustrating for those who are science-oriented and actually understand what the papers are saying.

Kindest regards,

The article that I presented proves that mutations that destroy information are more frequent, you asked me for evidence for that premise and I present it.

So please stop being a liar and quote the exact portion of any of your articles that disproves my argument, you have to prove[/ that mutations that create information are more frequent.

As I and others keep telling you - and you continue to ignore - the article does not prove that mutations "deteriorate the genome through loss of information", which is what you're claiming.

As for quoting portions of any article: Inferno already did exactly that for your own cited paper - which is another example of how you have ignored whatever any of us has said.

dandan wrote:
You now ask Inferno the same question and attempt to get him to ignore natural selection whilst using Dembski's invented definition of "information".


Evolutionists have a sick obsession with “definitions” If you don´t what to call it information, don’t ‘call it information, you can call it anyway you what.
The fact is that mutations that destroy what I/Debski call information are more frequent than those who create it, if you don´t what me to use the term “information” please tell me what term should I use.

Please quote the part of any of you article that says that mutations that create information are more frequent OR accept my premise.

Your own cited paper didn't support your premise. Since you haven't proven your premise, I don't have to disprove it!

The papers I posted show - amongst other things - that, in the first instance, Lynch's idea that ill-health might increase is not necessarily the case (as I noted); in the second, the authors accept the updated mutation rate and look at how that might affect accepted dating for the divergence between other apes and humans; and the third warns of the dangers of basing predictions on extrapolation from a particular section's mutation rate (as this might skew the results).

Your idea of what constitutes "information" (according to Dembsjki) is wrong - as is your confusing "deleterious mutations" for "mutations that deteriorate the genome", as Inferno has pointed out above.

Put those two together and you think that your paper means "mutations deteriorate the genome through loss of information".

If you're unable to understand what your own cited paper says - how can you understand what any of my cited papers say?

Neither your nor any other paper says what you think it says - as I and others keep telling you.

And neither I - nor anyone else - has to disprove your unproven premise.

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
Thu May 22, 2014 1:59 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3214Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Greetings,

By the way, Inferno, dandan is using creationist's earlier clarified definition from Dembski - as do most, if not all, Creationists - which is probably why you didn't see 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
Thu May 22, 2014 2:02 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

ARONRA
I haven't seen your article, or your citations. But based on what you say here, it seems that I don't need to ignore anything, (nor would I anyway; that's why I'm not a creationist). Instead, assuming you're phrasing this correctly, then I think I understand them. As I (and others) have already repeatedly explained, even mutations that disable previous gene functions [usually] do not destroy them, as many of them can be turned back on, and even those that can't be repaired can still be understood. So it only counts as 'information' depending on how you interpret it, and usually would not be 'destroyed' anyway. I have given a few examples to prove this, and each of them dis-proves the claims you made about that. How many more times must I and everyone else explain the same thing to you? I mean, I would have to guess that it's forever since creationists have a motto where they swear an oath never to admit when they're wrong


Ok so please provide a peer reviewed paper that states that mutations that create information are more frequent than does who destroy it. I already show a paper that shows that most mutations are degenerative mutations, why can´t you do the same?

Please try not to make a straw man, I already explain what I mean by information, so please provide an article that refutes my premise.

One of you r 7 “facts” that support evolution was that complexity increases, so please provide a peer reviewed article that proves that on average complexity increases as time passes.
Last edited by dandan on Thu May 22, 2014 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thu May 22, 2014 2:16 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

he who is nobody
Let me state this simply, you are arguing against a straw man of evolution, one that only exists in your mind. Furthermore, the evidence that you have cited to support your case, does not support your case. You are simply wrong and wrong on several different levels.


If you what to evolve a molecule in to a man, you need new genetic information, or portions of DNA with a function, mechanisms that create information have to outperform those who destroy it.
¿how is this a strawman?
Thu May 22, 2014 2:19 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

you need to show that all mutations that deteriorate genes are neutral.


I don’t ‘have to prove that all mutations that deteriorate are neutral, I just have to prove that most of them are.

so if I show you that, and support it with a peer revied article would you reject evolution? Please answer unambiguously yes or no
Thu May 22, 2014 2:27 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

DRAGAN
As I and others keep telling you - and you continue to ignore - the article does not prove that mutations "deteriorate the genome through loss of information", which is what you're claiming.

As for quoting portions of any article: Inferno already did exactly that for your own cited paper - which is another example of how you have ignored whatever any of us has said.


Ii can´t believe you are basing your argument on the ambiguity of the definitions of the terms. The vast majority of deleterious mutations are due to a loss of information, previously a given portion of DNA was functional, after the mutation, this portion of DNA no longer has these function.

Even if a loss of information translates in to something good for the organism it is still a fact that you can´t have molecule to man evolution, by destroying preexisting information.
Thu May 22, 2014 3:01 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 880Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:Even if a loss of information translates in to something good for the organism it is still a fact that you can´t have molecule to man evolution, by destroying preexisting information.

I probably know less about genes that anyone else here. Are there any mutations that add information to the genome? This is a simple question, I would expect a simple answer but for having asked this question before, you have not responded.
"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
Thu May 22, 2014 3:12 pm
fightofthejellyfishUser avatarPosts: 62Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 5:34 amLocation: Australia Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:
you need to show that all mutations that deteriorate genes are neutral.


I don’t ‘have to prove that all mutations that deteriorate are neutral, I just have to prove that most of them are.
No it has to be all otherwise you'd hit a floor where the genes that are neutral for survival are disabled leaving only the beneficial ones behind, a nice, sleek, evolutionarily optimized - looks like it was designed - machine ;-)

And if you knew that you "have to prove that most of them are [neutral]" all along then why wasn't it among your premises to begin with instead of waiting until I finally got it through to you that your argument was incoherent. Here I'll fix that for you now:
1 Mutations that deteriorate are more frequent than those who create new information

2 Most Mutations that deteriorate are neutral

3 Neutral
mutations are not selected nor removed by natural selection

4 Mutations accumulate from generation to generation.
Mine
Is this your position now?
It still doesn't quite work as an argument for reasons I gave you in earlier posts, but it's a big improvement. And Hey, your first premise that you were having so much trouble getting people to accept is now redundant. You can drop it completely and just move on to the new one.


dandan wrote:so if I show you that, and support it with a peer revied article would you reject evolution? Please answer unambiguously yes or no

Sure if you can find peer reviewed literature to show that most (50%+1) of our 20 000 genes could be disabled without loss of fitness for the individual then clearly evolution and all of modern genetics is bunk. Oh wait, you think you only have to show that the few that people survived because they are neutral are neutral. No I wouldn't accept that, that would be silly.
Thu May 22, 2014 5:34 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3214Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Greetings,

dandan wrote:DRAGAN
As I and others keep telling you - and you continue to ignore - the article does not prove that mutations "deteriorate the genome through loss of information", which is what you're claiming.

As for quoting portions of any article: Inferno already did exactly that for your own cited paper - which is another example of how you have ignored whatever any of us has said.

Ii can´t believe you are basing your argument on the ambiguity of the definitions of the terms.

There is no ambiguity. "Information" has a specific meaning: "a sequence of symbols".

It does not mean what you want it to mean - Dembski's made-up one.

dandan wrote:The vast majority of deleterious mutations are due to a loss of information,

As has been noted earlier, your arguments are not internally consistent.

You're now saying that deleterious mutations are due to "loss of information"??!!

dandan wrote:[...] previously a given portion of DNA was functional, after the mutation, this portion of DNA no longer has these function.

It may or may not - if the latter, then it may have a different function; in other words, it may code for something else. It still may do something as a number of the papers posted and explained by others have shown.

But the most important point is: a mutation in a sequence of DNA doesn't have to do anything:

1) That's why it's a accident!;
2) That's why neutral mutations are not selected out!

And - again - this comes back to my earlier point: information is just a sequence of symbols.

A change in the sequence just gives different information.

dandan wrote:Even if a loss of information translates in to something good for the organism it is still a fact that you can´t have molecule to man evolution, by destroying preexisting information.

That's a non sequitur.

You're extrapolating from a false premise to make a completely unsupported assertion - that "you can't have molecule to man evolution".

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
Thu May 22, 2014 5:54 pm
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:One of you r 7 “facts” that support evolution was that complexity increases, so please provide a peer reviewed article that proves that on average complexity increases as time passes.


I already did that here. He_who_is_nobody did it earlier, Dragan_Glas did it and AronRa did it, too. I don't know what your problem is...

dandan wrote:Ii can´t believe you are basing your argument on the ambiguity of the definitions of the terms. The vast majority of deleterious mutations are due to a loss of information, previously a given portion of DNA was functional, after the mutation, this portion of DNA no longer has these function.


As I pointed out, you're confusing terms here, that's why we're so adamant on you defining your terms properly.
A loss of information is, by your definition, a stretch of DNA which loses a letter. By contrast, a gain of information would be a stretch of DNA which has a letter added.
I already explained that both of these can be either beneficial or deleterious, depending on what the DNA was coding for. I also explained that letters may simply be switched or jumbled, which by your definition would be neither a loss nor a gain of information. However, both can also be beneficial or deleterious, depending on the DNA.

You are also wrong that "the vast majority of deleterious mutations are due to a loss of information". I haven't ever seen that in the literature nor do I think we will ever see it. As I pointed out, you can have silent, nonsense or missense point mutations, depending on the base nucleotide being changed. You can also have deletion, duplication, insertions, inversions and translocations affecting the nucleotides. All of these happen, as far as I know, at roughly the same intervals. Only deletion would fit your idea of a "loss of information".
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

"I shall achieve my objectives through the power... of Science!" --LessWrong
Thu May 22, 2014 6:19 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3508Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:he who is nobody
Let me state this simply, you are arguing against a straw man of evolution, one that only exists in your mind. Furthermore, the evidence that you have cited to support your case, does not support your case. You are simply wrong and wrong on several different levels.


If you what to evolve a molecule in to a man, you need new genetic information, or portions of DNA with a function, mechanisms that create information have to outperform those who destroy it.
¿how is this a strawman?


First off, stating molecule to man can be construed as a straw man against evolutionary theory, since creationists use that phrase as a type of shorthand for their misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Second, even based on your bastardized definition of information, I have already shown that using just mutations and selection, complexity increases. Thus, your argument is a straw man, because you are still insisting for us silly evolutionists to prove that the molecule to man evolution you hold in your head is correct. It is not, and no one is arguing for it.

MarsCydonia wrote:
dandan wrote:Even if a loss of information translates in to something good for the organism it is still a fact that you can´t have molecule to man evolution, by destroying preexisting information.

I probably know less about genes that anyone else here. Are there any mutations that add information to the genome? This is a simple question, I would expect a simple answer but for having asked this question before, you have not responded.


Based on the correct definition of information, every mutation adds information to the genome. However, a better answer in this case, is that point mutations and especially duplication would satisfy exactly what dandan is asking for. The fact that he was unable to answer Inferno’s questions about mutations is quite telling. Dandan has to know that by answering that question, his silly argument will fall apart in front of his eyes.

Inferno wrote:
dandan wrote:One of you r 7 “facts” that support evolution was that complexity increases, so please provide a peer reviewed article that proves that on average complexity increases as time passes.


I already did that here. He_who_is_nobody did it earlier, Dragan_Glas did it and AronRa did it, too. I don't know what your problem is...


As I stated before, I think it might have something to do with the language barrier. If it is not that, than it can only be willful deception on dandan’s part.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu May 22, 2014 6:36 pm
YIM WWW
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

MarsCydonia wrote:
dandan wrote:Even if a loss of information translates in to something good for the organism it is still a fact that you can´t have molecule to man evolution, by destroying preexisting information.

I probably know less about genes that anyone else here. Are there any mutations that add information to the genome? This is a simple question, I would expect a simple answer but for having asked this question before, you have not responded.


Such kind of mutation has never been reported, but it´s theoretically possible.
Thu May 22, 2014 6:54 pm
dandanPosts: 460Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 2:16 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Sure if you can find peer reviewed literature to show that most (50%+1) of our 20 000 genes could be disabled without loss of fitness for the individual then clearly evolution and all of modern genetics is bunk. Oh wait, you think you only have to show that the few that people survived because they are neutral are neutral. No I wouldn't accept that, that would be silly.


Most mutations are “slightly negative” these means that they are deleterious but they don´t kill the orgasm, which means that they reproduce and pass their mutations to the next generation.

Take these analogy, if you randomly change 1 letter from a book, in most of the cases you will destroy information, but it wouldn´t be a big deal, people will still understand the book. But if you repeat this over and over again, you will reach a point where you no longer have a book with information, but rather a bunch of random letters without meaning.
Thu May 22, 2014 7:02 pm
creationistPosts: 45Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:55 am

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Dandan - Did you notice how when you presented peer reviewed evidence all they did was go out and find other peer reviewed evidence that supposedly trumped your peer review? Curious how that works. This, yet again, establishes my point earlier. Peer review is interesting to read but in the bigger picture is worthless for trying to prove a point in an argument. All they'll do is find peer review that disagrees with yours and then claim your peer review is bad or wrong or not cited enough or whatever and that their's is absolute truth.

If you what to evolve a molecule in to a man, you need new genetic information, or portions of DNA with a function, mechanisms that create information have to outperform those who destroy it.
¿how is this a strawman?


I warned you about the 'information' thing! They'll run you around in circles with definitions as they have been for the past 400 posts. It's all they ever do.

You guys want to argue information? Fine.

Build the following

akjsjdgihgasiugfouasdbakjsboasdobonasd aoshdohasoidh a siodaio'sdiop as doiashdohasodh oaisaouisfouasf

And you can use the following directions to do it

1. aihsgdiuasupiduogahsdo
2. ashg9asdfoh asiodoi ashdhoas hdoouafoh as90
3. ahsduio;89as a 0sa-9d -0as -0a sd9as9da sdip'
4. aisbduhaso jaspad ak

There you go. Go ahead and build the above 'thing'. When you're done let me know if just any old 'shannon' information is enough for you to understand it or if you'd like me to put all of the above into 'specified' information.

When you've finished that then back up your claim that any old 'shannon' information inserted into the genome is enough to build arms, legs, veins, brains, and everything else. Cite sources that this is possible.




As for what Dandan said to me a few pages back you do realize he was joking. You guys do understand sarcasm right? I mean really.....you didn't actually think he was serious did you. You did realize he was making fun of you guys? Poking fun at the fact hat you all live by assumptions and circular reasoning. You all did get that right?
Thu May 22, 2014 7:03 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3508Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

dandan wrote:
MarsCydonia wrote:I probably know less about genes that anyone else here. Are there any mutations that add information to the genome? This is a simple question, I would expect a simple answer but for having asked this question before, you have not responded.


Such kind of mutation has never been reported, but it´s theoretically possible.


:facepalm:

After pages and pages of people correcting just about every sentence you have posted on this forum, you state this? Ignorance truly is bliss.

MarsCynonia, you do not know less than anyone else does on this forum, you at least know enough to ask questions when you are ignorant of a subject. That is something dandan has not displayed.

creationist wrote:Dandan - Did you notice how when you presented peer reviewed evidence all they did was go out and find other peer reviewed evidence that supposedly trumped your peer review? Curious how that works.


That is not the only thing that happened, as anyone can see.

Inferno, I feel sorry for you. you put so much work into one post that all the creationists on this forum will simply ignore. One can only hope the fence sitters will read it.

creationist wrote:You guys want to argue information? Fine.

Build the following

akjsjdgihgasiugfouasdbakjsboasdobonasd aoshdohasoidh a siodaio'sdiop as doiashdohasodh oaisaouisfouasf

And you can use the following directions to do it

1. aihsgdiuasupiduogahsdo
2. ashg9asdfoh asiodoi ashdhoas hdoouafoh as90
3. ahsduio;89as a 0sa-9d -0as -0a sd9as9da sdip'
4. aisbduhaso jaspad ak

There you go. Go ahead and build the above 'thing'. When you're done let me know if just any old 'shannon' information is enough for you to understand it or if you'd like me to put all of the above into 'specified' information.

When you've finished that then back up your claim that any old 'shannon' information inserted into the genome is enough to build arms, legs, veins, brains, and everything else. Cite sources that this is possible.


:facepalm:

Once again, you display your ignorance of how DNA works. Try answering Inferno’s question above and you will finally start to understand how DNA works. It is only analogous to our language; it is not our language.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu May 22, 2014 7:15 pm
YIM WWW
creationistPosts: 45Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:55 am

Post Re: onceforgivennowfree

Try answering Inferno’s question above and you will finally start to understand how DNA works. It is only analogous to our language; it is not our language.


Fine

You just tell me whether it's an addition of information or a loss. (eg. 1 = loss, 2 = add, etc.)
We start with the DNA sequence GTC-GTT-GTA-GCA, 12 letters long. I've already highlighted the codons. Let's imagine that this sequence codes for the ability to use proteins as part of your daily diet. The above sequence allows you to use 10% of all proteins you eat.

1) We now introduce a new codon through mutation: GTC-GTT-GTA-ACT-GCA. Suddenly, we can use 15% of all proteins.

2) From the original sequence, we delete a codon. GTC-GTT-GCA. We can only use 5% of proteins.

3) We add a new codon: GTC-GTT-GTA-ATT-GCA. We can only use 5% of proteins.

4) We delete a codon: GTC-GTA-GCA. We can use 20% of proteins.

5) We change a letter: GTC-GTA-GTA-GCA. We can use 20% of proteins.

6) We change a letter: GTC-GTC-GTA-GCA. We can use only 5% of proteins.

This is purely hypothetical, but by answering these four questions I can finally have what I'm looking for: An answer to the question "how do you define information".



Let me try

You just tell me whether it's an addition of information or a loss. (eg. 1 = loss, 2 = add, etc.)
We start with the DNA sequence GTC-GTT-GTA-GCA, 12 letters long. I've already highlighted the codons.

1) From the original sequence, we delete a codon. GTC-GTT-GCA.

2) From that sequence, we delete a codon. GTC-GTT

3) From that sequence, we delete a codon. GTT

4) From that sequence, we delete a codon. OOPS! Nothing left!

So in a creationists world we have now effectively deteriorated the genome. Of course, to some of you evo's, we have somehow added information or created a new function or whatever else happens in your fairy tale world when the above example plays out in the genome.

This is the thing about 'hypothetical situations'. You can stack the odds completely in your favor. How does Inferno know that his scenario is accurate? How does he know that it actually changes 'how many proteins can be used'? How does he know what these effects will have on the rest of the genome and what other functions may have been affected by any of the changes he made above? How do the changes he put in his scenario affect the epigenome?

So this lays out, yet again, what I said earlier. You guys are so indoctrinated that all someone has to do is simply type anything out in whatever post and it's all of a sudden absolute law and truth. Even hypothetical situations are accepted as some kind of online peer review. You guys are wanting SO BADLY for evolution to be true that you'll just take anything and everything someone writes down or types out as 'science' even though Inferno clearly said it was a hypothetical situation.

Inferno -

How do you know that the changes you illustrated above are actual real-life scenarios within the human genome? Has this hypothetical of yours appeared in a book or a paper you read as having been observed in a lab or were you just trying to illustrate a point? What evidence can you give that "The above sequence allows you to use 10% of all proteins you eat" and that the changes you illustrated affect how many proteins can be used from mutation to mutation? Why would your example be more accurate than my example?


Once again, you display your ignorance of how DNA works. Try answering Inferno’s question above and you will finally start to understand how DNA works. It is only analogous to our language; it is not our language.


And you, yet again, make it easy for me to show why you're a completely shallow thinker that has very little common sense let alone scientific knowledge. As you can see from above, a language is a language is a language. Take any language in the world and it all works the same. Take stuff away and you deteriorate the language. You make it less 'specified'. You make it more difficult, not more simple, to understand. You admit DNA is a language so you admit that randomly changing any language one letter at a time always does more harm than good. If you disagree then prove you claim.
Last edited by creationist on Thu May 22, 2014 8:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Thu May 22, 2014 8:05 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 16 of 49
 [ 977 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests