Creation vs. Evolution

[Jose Fly]

Mutations do not create.

Sure they do....new traits, genetic sequences, and even species.

Why do you think anyone should take the say-so of "6days at Theologyonline" over observed reality?

 

[Tyrathca]

You never, nor has anyone else, rebutted any evidence I brought against mutation + NS. Or concerning Shannon information. I'd be willing to open another thread on the topic if your side can learn to behave yourselves.

Your memory may fail you but mine hasn't. We've actually had this very debate a few years back, unfortunately the only reference to it I can find is in this thread where you quote mined me from that debate. Unfortunately it seems that original thread no longer exists (probably deleted by Stripe as he often did back then).

A summary of that debate as I vaguely recall (and partly explored in our subsequent argument in this thread) is:
1) You don't understand Shannon information all that well and can't show any mathematics
2) Shannon information is often inappropriate to apply to genetics, especially the way you used it (which used layperson summaries rather than actual math)
3) You can't seem to understand that information isn't a universal well standardised term and that Shannon information is not the same or interchangeable with other types of information or with entropy.


If you would like to revisit it again by all means start, if I have the time I'll trounce you like I (and others) did back then.


Below is the exchange back in 2014...

Tyrathca does something no CDist should ever do; He locks in an answer. In this case, he admits entropy here. The first quote is the admission:

Originally Posted by Yorzhik That mutational load exists is not in dispute. Even these guys admit it. But what they do, and what I think you are doing, is saying that the load can be overcome by selection. Originally Posted by Tyrathca Well of course that's what we're doing. I thought I'd been obvious on that. If that weren't what we we're doing wouldn't this be an agreement that deleterious mutations occur?

Thank you Yorzhik for showing what a decietful and lying person you are to try and quote mine me so blatantly.

Even reading the quote you have of mine it is obvious I am NOT talking about entropy, regardless of how many times you tried (ineffectively and erroneously) to conflate it and the term mutational load in that thread. To quote myself only two posts earlier in that same thread:

It doesn't mean you can substitute mutation load and entropy where ever you find it whenever you want to.

 

[6days]

Sure they do....new traits, genetic sequences, and even species.

Rapid adaptation and speciation is part of observable science and the Biblical creation model. Rapid Adaptation is possible because of pre-existing information and mechanisms.

Why do you think anyone should take the say-so of "6days at Theologyonline" over observed reality?

Always go with observed reality!!
Common ancestry though is a religious belief....not observed reality.
Sexual selection, natural selection, genetic drift, mutation rates are part of observed reality and support the Biblical model.

 

[Jose Fly]

Rapid adaptation and speciation is part of observable science and the Biblical creation model.

You mean the "Biblical creation model" that can't be defined? Can't say whether the earth is 6,000 years old or 4.6 billion years old? Can't say whether the earth rotates and orbits the sun, or if it's stationary and is orbited by the rest of the universe? Can't say whether speciation happens? Can't say whether natural selection happens? Can't say whether populations evolve?

That one?

Rapid Adaptation is possible because of pre-existing information and mechanisms.

What mechanisms?

Always go with observed reality!!

I agree. And in this case, reality shows that mutations do indeed "create" new sequences, traits, and species.

Common ancestry though is a religious belief

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....because "6days at Theologyonline" says so.

Sexual selection, natural selection, genetic drift, mutation rates are part of observed reality and support the Biblical model.

Some of your fellow creationists, e.g., Stripe, strongly disagree.

 

[6days]

If you would like to revisit it again by all means start, if I have the time I'll trounce you like I (and others) did back then.

Not sure...but if its the same thread I participated in a wee bit, Yorzik seem to trounce whoever it was he was arguing with. If its the same thread..... I was arguing against using Shannon info, but Yorzik seemed to win the argument even though using Shannon. (And I still argue that Shannon does not apply to genetics)

 

[6days]

Some of your fellow creationists, e.g., Stripe, strongly disagree.

Wow... You are so much like Dawkins who continues to use the arguments he has been proven wrong on.

 

[Jose Fly]

Wow... You are so much like Dawkins who continues to use the arguments he has been proven wrong on.

And here we go again.....you claim that I've "been proven wrong", I'll ask where and/or for you to explain how, you'll dodge/ignore the question, and then once it's buried deep enough in the thread, do it all over again.

Once again demonstrating how it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

 

[Tyrathca]

Not sure...but if its the same thread I participated in a wee bit, Yorzik seem to trounce whoever it was he was arguing with. If its the same thread..... I was arguing against using Shannon info, but Yorzik seemed to win the argument even though using Shannon. (And I still argue that Shannon does not apply to genetics)

Yorzik did so well that he couldn't even convince you his argument was valid despite you already agreeing with his conclusion....

 

[Daniel1769]

Some day, the godless, random, meaningless, big bang, evolution, spinning ball, sci-fi nonsense will be looked on as one of the most absurd and ridiculous ideas ever imagined by human beings. The entire current model of life and the universe is so unfounded, so outlandish, that one struggles to comprehend how they could ever have bought into it in the first place.

 

[6days]

And here we go again.....you claim that I've "been proven wrong", I'll ask where .....

Many times.... over and over.
For example you were shown many times that Stripe and I agree on rapid adaptation... Yet you keep claiming we disagree (And hardly a good argument anyway... As if evolutionists agree about much. Look at the hundreds of different 'trees' they create as an example).

See http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110849
As explained to you often... As you were proven wrong on before... Stripe agrees but does not like rubbery words such as 'speciation'.

 

[Tyrathca]

Many times.... over and over.
For example you were shown many times that Stripe and I agree on rapid adaptation... Yet you keep claiming we disagree (And hardly a good argument anyway... As if evolutionists agree about much. Look at the hundreds of different 'trees' they create as an example).

It never ceases to amaze me how creationists rail about how evolution is impossible and then in the next breathe propose hypermegasuper-evolution on steroids to create the countless species we see now from their creation myth bottlenecks in thousands of years (like the ark)...

 

[6days]

Yorzik did so well that he couldn't even convince you his argument was valid despite you already agreeing with his conclusion....

Same conclusion... approached from two different angles.

 

[6days]

It never ceases to amaze me how creationists rail about how evolution is impossible and then in the next breathe propose hypermegasuper-evolution on steroids to create the countless species we see now from their creation myth bottlenecks in thousands of years (like the ark)...

Rapid adaptation is OBSERVABLE!!!
Common ancestry is a belief about the past.

 

[Yorzhik]

Excuse me, what subject are we actually talking about here...

The topic was if you are qualified to talk on this subject before I'm going to invest my time talking with you. Sorry, you have shown yourself to be but a waste of time.

 

[Tyrathca]

Same conclusion... approached from two different angles.

Mental and linguistic gymnastics aside, despite agreeing with the same conclusion as Yorzik you agree with me that Yorzik's angle/approach was wrong?

 

[Yorzhik]

I was arguing against using Shannon info, but Yorzik seemed to win the argument even though using Shannon. (And I still argue that Shannon does not apply to genetics)

The Shannon argument is the weakest form of an information argument against common descent. But that's the point, common descentists cannot win even the easy arguments, much less the stronger arguments against them. If you can use the stronger argument, then that's so much the better.

 

[Caino]

That is my God... the God of the Bible who allow us to choose... allowed us to love.

Your god is a cruel god... 'creating' through a process of death, pain,suffering and extinctions.

Yea right, I've read about the ISIS like God in the Old Testiment.

Everyone and everything evolves. Evolution is a fact regardless of the creation myths of religion.

 

[Jonahdog]

Rapid adaptation is OBSERVABLE!!!
Common ancestry is a belief about the past.

Response to 6 is basically futile. He is a Borg.

 

[Yorzhik]

Your memory may fail you but mine hasn't. We've actually had this very debate a few years back, unfortunately the only reference to it I can find is in this thread where you quote mined me from that debate. Unfortunately it seems that original thread no longer exists (probably deleted by Stripe as he often did back then).

A summary of that debate as I vaguely recall (and partly explored in our subsequent argument in this thread) is:
1) You don't understand Shannon information all that well and can't show any mathematics
2) Shannon information is often inappropriate to apply to genetics, especially the way you used it (which used layperson summaries rather than actual math)
3) You can't seem to understand that information isn't a universal well standardised term and that Shannon information is not the same or interchangeable with other types of information or with entropy.


If you would like to revisit it again by all means start, if I have the time I'll trounce you like I (and others) did back then.


Below is the exchange back in 2014...

We can get straight to the point. Mutations occur in the transmission phase of communication within a cell. You'd agree with that, wouldn't you?

 

[Daniel1769]

Macroeveolution is a scientific fact. It's just that no one has ever observed it, tested it, developed any experiments, and it is not falsifiable. But besides the glaring lack of any objective proof, it's hard science.