Creation vs. Evolution

[Yorzhik]

Why can't you clearly explain what you imply? WHAT is it that you think applying Shannon's theories to DNA transcription says about evolution?

I keep asking and you do nothing but wriggle and avoid answering. No wonder others have become convinced you are not the expert you claim to be.

I haven't wriggled at all. I've only answered your questions directly and completely. It is not applying Shannon's theories to DNA transcription, it's applying Shannon's theories to any communication in a cell. Especially those concerning reproduction. That would include the myriad of communications that are epigenetic.

If one cannot get more information from a particular communication source passed to its result, then one cannot expect to get more information from one generation to the next. Please, admit that is very clear.

 

[6days]

Yes religion. *I have often had Fundamentalists declare to me that it was specifically Christianity that provided an expectation that the universe was governed by logical laws, and that is why science matured most dramatically in the western world.

Ok..... Sounds correct. However, it wasn't the religion itself. It was the belief in the Creator God of the Bible

Not dodged...it was off topic. We were discussing contributions to our world that have resulted from a belief in the biblical Creator.

You desperately want to claim that modern science and great universities spawned out of a background of Christian belief are still your bosom buddies.

Not even a tiny bit true. We were talking about a historical perspective.
Review....
Tyrathca "By your own admission you've had 5,000 years and have nothing to show for it."

6days "Actually, we have modern science to show for it. We have some of the worlds greatest universities....art....music...hospitals, etc".

I don't necessarily agree with all decisions that are made in modern hospitals. I don't necessarily agree with all that is taught in modern universities.

Now let’s restate that in more truthful terms. You strongly disagree with core concepts that are fundamental to what is taught in the best universities.

My statement is correct. It seems like the truth is a bitter pill for you.

And..... you are still trying to move the goalposts. The argument I made was that a belief in the Biblical Creator has made huge contributions to our world. This belief helped usher in modern science... universities....art....music...hospitals, etc.*

 

[gcthomas]

Please, admit that is very clear.

You seem to be suggesting that losing information on the way to producing a protein affects the inheritance of the next generation. Is that what you are saying?

 

[Yorzhik]

I understand. Rather than admit to a silly error – blame it on your monitor. Those creationist monitors will do that to you.

I’ve got several monitors, from an old one before the VGA days, to some hi-res ones. And I can display the HDF on them all. In one picture.

I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong. But I wasn't wrong. It is good to understand the context from the viewers point of view and learn about how to have a rational discussion.

Why didn’t you say that in plain English, instead of complaining about nebulous “information that labels each object” that you expect to see?

You ask a direct question, I give a direct answer.

So, as I understand it, you feel the science community should publish the HDF with text near each distinct object telling how far away it is from the earth?

Or how about a nifty interactive picture where they break it up into smaller pictures that show the data in a popup when you roll over it with your mouse. I know that's new technology and maybe those "star picture guys" haven't heard of it so when you see them mention it.

Was it the distance to each object you failed to find, or did you find the distances, but it was not superimposed on the HDF image?

Failed to find distances for each object in light years.

I see snide put-downs often enough that I don’t get very excited.

That's good. You deserve snide comments in return for your arrogant, uncharitable, and dismissive ones.

Kinda interesting that when I point out that you use “common descent” in a way I have never seen, and then I am at fault me for asking what it even means in that context. Are you one of those guys who beats up his wife, and then says “It was her fault”?

Anyway, here is what you said that you accuse me of playing stupid over:

I am going to translate “common descentists” as simply meaning those who believe in an old universe.

No. "Common descentist" are people who believe in a single common ancestor to all the diversity of life we have on earth today. But they get all worked up when one points out that there is little science behind deep time and more evidence for young ages.

I have to chuckle at the evidence you offer for showing that awkward information is being glossed over. Your evidence of “glossing over” – no picture with distance labels beside the objects. That’s it. Wow.

I admit it's just a small piece in a large body of evidence.

The claim of “glossing over awkward information” is pretty much a generic slap against the integrity of scientists that creationists levy regularly. Tell you what, Yorzhik, occasionally over the past few years I have been in contact with some of those scientists that ran the HDF project. If I put you in personal contact with those scientists, will you agree to be as direct in telling them that they are “glossing over awkward information” in deference to billions of years timelines, and will you be willing to back your claim with specific evidence (something more substantial than a picture that you want to see) in place of assertion?

Yeah! Put me in contact with them and I'll always be direct and honest.

I suspect you will not, since the HDF data (both raw and pre-processed) has been publically available for many years. The creationist community is as welcome to it as the secular scientists are, and I would be surprised if you guys don’t already have it. Here is a quote from a Cornell University website from nearly 20 years ago, speaking about the HDF data:

The observations were made from 18 to 30 December 1995, and both raw and reduced data have been put in the public domain as a community service.​

I don’t know how to “gloss over” data that is freely available to the public.

I'm sure our guys could go over it. But they can be dismissed because of their beliefs despite their good science.

Maybe that was done because you guys really need some martyrs. Or maybe you are just exaggerating once again. I have worked with a lot of scientists. And a lot of good Christians, some of whom made their beliefs well known. None of them got canned. Not a single one that I know of in any group that I ever interacted with got canned for their beliefs that I know of. Maybe I lead a charmed life, but I am only aware of a few scientists anywhere that got kicked out for not buying into an old earth. And in those cases it was for how they chose to practice science, or for personal issues, not for their beliefs.

So how many made their belief in a young earth well known and still kept their job? Sure, you can still say you are a Christian, but that is only as long as you bow to the alter of common descent, or at least drop a tiny bit in common descent's plate as it passes. Giving lip service to common descent has little cost to admit to, and a huge price to pay if you don't. Obviously human nature being what it is, just a little lip service to something that doesn't affect science experiments anyway just to keep one's job is easy to justify.

 

[Tyrathca]

Yes. We'll find that there is no more information in the Protein than what the DNA provided. And if noise entered the system the Protein will have less information than what the DNA provided.

OK, now as a general rule of thumb would you say a large protein (i.e. lots of amino acids) contains more information than a small one (i.e. less amino acids)? And that according to what you say here the DNA sequence for each would have comparable information to the proteins (either same or slightly larger than the protein)?

I'd do the math myself but I can't find a good cheat sheet for such calculations and I haven't touched math of this type in 10 years, so the time and effort required is a bit much for me to bother with at the moment. Especially if you can tell me with your "expert" opinion on the application Shannon information

Sure, we could start with the mRNA if you really wanted to. However, The information transmission for a particular protein starts with the portion of DNA selected according to the video, and I've been consistent with that the entire discussion.

No, no you really haven't. You consistently at the start of the discussion referred to DNA as the transmission while now it is the start/source (and mRNA is the transmission to the ribosome). I never wanted to start at mRNA I kept wanting you to understand when you were (seemingly unintentionally) talking about it.

 

[DavisBJ]

One Single Focused Question for 6days

One Single Focused Question for 6days

Actually, we have modern science to show for it. We have some of the worlds greatest universities...

Do or do not those great universities teach major aspects of science that have major conflicts with your nomadic Hebrew creation tale?

 

[Yorzhik]

You seem to be suggesting that losing information on the way to producing a protein affects the inheritance of the next generation. Is that what you are saying?

No. I'm saying that losing information on the way to producing a result from transferring information affects the inheritance of the next generation in the context of reproduction.

 

[DavisBJ]

… they get all worked up when one points out that there is little science behind deep time and more evidence for young ages.

If an intelligent and sincere young person has a strong desire to become a good scientist, what university that has a good science department would you recommend they apply to?

Yeah! Put me in contact with them and I'll always be direct and honest.

Kenneth Sembach is the director of STScI. His e-mail address is:

director@stsci.edu​

As director, he naturally is a pretty busy guy, but he has a substantial staff he can call on. Within his organization they often deal with schools and the general public, so he will probably refer your request for information down to one of those people. How about sharing with us what it is you ask him about what you term “awkward information that gets glossed over”, and the response you get back (with their permission)?

So how many made their belief in a young earth well known and still kept their job?

All of the ones that I know of. Nature doesn’t ask whether you believe in a young earth or old earth, so as long as you follow the scientific method, then no meter readings are going to change, no measurements should differ, no data should be affected.

Sure, you can still say you are a Christian, but that is only as long as you bow to the alter of common descent, or at least drop a tiny bit in common descent's plate as it passes.

Maybe your experience with religion really has been ugly enough that you like to use religious customs to denigrate the science you disagree with. When I was a Christian, and even now, I have enough respect for what religious rites mean to people that I would be disappointed in myself if I used them as you choose to.

 

[MichaelCadry]

First of all - gas = matter, second of all I can see gases sometimes, example being the sky is blue (rayliegh scattering in the gases). I can also feel it and detect it through a range of means.

Gas is just a less dense form of matter than liquids and solids. There is nothing mystical or supernatural about gas. If god is made of hydrogen gas he is therefore made of matter, the most simple and uncomplicated matter at that.

Mainly because you refuse to justify why I should believe a word you say, apparently your book doesn't have a section about that. Also what you say reads like you've made it up as you've gone along and have don't even have a high school level science education.

If you give me a reason to believe what you say then I'll read it. But you wont because you don't have a reason other than you have a realy good feeling about it.
You "guess"?!?!? Why do you guess that and why is god made of matter?

The reason why the sun is bright is not because of helium (a helium balloon isn't bright) it is because that hydrogen and helium is undergoing fusion and it is essentially a massive ball of superheated plasma (the sun is not made of gas). Scientists know quite a lot about the sun, you obviously do not...
And lots of people still believe in it (not me) so clearly neither of us can trust large groups of random people about the truth of things.
I have a lot of books to read already, I'm not going to waste my time with another unless I have a good reason to. You're too afraid to justify your book however.

Dear Tyrathca,

Most things are made of matter. Should you think that God isn't? Would you prefer that He was made from antimatter? Like I said, I don't know all of the elements that make up God's Spirit. And yes, I know that the sun is made of hydrogen and helium. You must think that I am dumb. Far from it. Sure, you can detect some gases, like the wind blowing, and the smell of some gases, etc. Of course.

My entire book justifies what I have to say. But you won't read it.

I graduated from high school with honors. I had Merit Algebra Trigonometry. I used to correct the teacher when he made a mistake and wondered why his equation didn't come out right. You don't know me. I've had tons of theology training than you could ever get out of colleges, like from God Himself and His angels. You wish you knew as much as me! Have you ever written a book? Is your book in the downtown Phoenix, AZ Library since 2003? If the book wasn't worth it's salt, it would not be there, much less be there for so long. Does that 'justify' my book for you? I've been told by others that it is an excellent book. You DON'T Know Me!!

Best Wishes, Believe It Or Not,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I believe they are true because they are true is a tautology. It is not a reason. It is not something with which we can have a discussion about (unless you think "is too! / is not!" is a discussion fit for anyone other than children)
He may be trying but he didn't do a "good job" and when it comes to science you don't get much kudos for effort, results are what matter.

Dear Tyrathca,

I think you just like to argue. Why do you think that I have said such a bad thing because of my words? I think you are just mean. Well, I know there is a good guy behind all of that reluctance/anger?? By the way, I could not come on to TOL and post last night because I went to bed early. I was really tired and had little choice at all. Hope you didn't miss me!! Heeeehehehee!!

Much Love, In Spite Of Yourself,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I hope you'll be just as correct as every other doomsday fetishist generations before you.

You'll have to verify the post number again, I'm afraid, the one you stated wasn't from you.

Cheers!

Dear TheDuke,

You're so pleasant it seems, when you write, so I am happy for that! I'll be more than correct about Jesus 2nd Coming, considering all the nuts who have come before me. They've made my job very difficult, to say the very least!

I'm very sorry about that post number. What a bummer! It is Post #16547. See what you think!! The book is FREE online. I made it that way. The only time you have to pay for it is if you get it from Barnes & Noble, or Amazon.com. Then, it's $14.95! Sheesh!

I'm very glad that you and others here are agnostic! It means that you're on your journey and that you're not sure or not about God, but at least you don't refuse Him. Yeaaah!!

Warm Regards,

Michael

 

[Lon]

(under the framework of evolutionary theory) it's the geneticists who do the work who are making that claim.

Through evolutionary analysis, we have identified candidate sequences for functional human transcribed pseudogenes, and have pinpointed 68 strong candidates for further investigation as potentially functional transcribed pseudogenes across multiple mammal species.
​

I'm curious....do you think they were lying when they wrote that?

"Evolution" is a bin word and, from what I can tell, overly used. In this particular instance, isn't it rather "building blocks/material?" "How" they are put together (whatever force, not the structure of how they fit), isn't pertinent to the analysis as far as I can tell. "Evolution did it" is not a satisfactory reasoning conveyance, either. Over-used, too sloppy, cliche. I am not a scientist by any means but as I teach and have read, the term is over-used in a greatly broad and exaggerated fashion where other description is preferred and better. In this case, I'm not finding 'evolution' as defining as say 'similar/same' building material (proteins)would convey. In science, when we draw all conclusions for students, they don't learn but are 'indoctrinated' at that point. "Evolution" should more often than not, be a drawn conclusion. It is rarely essential for understand most science except the science only interested in proving that, and for me, that's a waste of time. As a scientist, you don't need to hear 'evolution' to do most of your work. It just doesn't come up other than as (imho) a sloppy bin word. Agree? Disagree? How often do you say "evolution" during a work day? Did you yesterday?

 

[Lon]

I believe they are true because they are true is a tautology.

Intuition isn't always bad and rarely can be explained well. "I've got a bad feeling about this." -Han Solo. Think of it as preliminaries. Cut Michael a little slack once in awhile. The answers may come, maybe not. It's his thread afterall. It has a huge viewing.

It is not a reason. It is not something with which we can have a discussion about (unless you think "is too! / is not!" is a discussion fit for anyone other than children)

Er, even kids need to be taught. Patience and active listening: "What does this mean to you, Michael?"
(I'm guilty too, so call me a hypocrite. None of this meant to be accusatory).

He may be trying but he didn't do a "good job" and when it comes to science you don't get much kudos for effort, results are what matter.

If I got this on a paper, I'd say that teacher/prof "wasn't very helpful." Not only did you blame the theoretical student for conversation delivery (failure for which must be partially the fault of the other's patience and long suffering, if not their own inept deliver), you gave him nothing for him to improve by.
As I said, and I'll give you a touche~ for turning it back on my one day, couldn't your efforts and time have been about the same in effort and time to be just a bit more encouraging and debate-inviting yourself? -Lon

 

[MichaelCadry]

Intuition isn't always bad and rarely can be explained well. "I've got a bad feeling about this." -Han Solo. Think of it as preliminaries. Cut Michael a little slack once in awhile. The answers may come, maybe not. It's his thread afterall. It has a huge viewing.

Er, even kids need to be taught. Patience and active listening: "What does this mean to you, Michael?"
(I'm guilty too, so call me a hypocrite. None of this meant to be accusatory).
If I got this on a paper, I'd say that teacher/prof "wasn't very helpful." Not only did you blame the theoretical student for conversation delivery (failure for which must be partially the fault of the other's patience and long suffering, if not their own inept deliver), you gave him nothing for him to improve by.
As I said, and I'll give you a touche~ for turning it back on my one day, couldn't your efforts and time have been about the same in effort and time to be just a bit more encouraging and debate-inviting yourself? -Lon

Dear Lon,

How're you doing buddy!! It's really good to have you here!! I feel that I feel that what was written in the essay/chapter was basically true from what I know about the subject, and I could understand very clearly everything he said in the chapter. If Tyrathca really wanted to debate or comment on something he read in the chapter, then I say, go for it! Rather than some redundant response that he wrote to me. Thanks for asking!!

May God Pour Out Love And Great Joy Into Your Spirit, Knowing That His Son Is Returning Soon!! Surely the way the Earth is going now should clarify that for us!!

Much Love And Grace,

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

Dear Tyrathca,

Most things are made of matter. Should you think that God isn't?

Because then God didn't create space-time (i.e. the universe) since matter is a property of space-time. Also god is then bound by the limitations of matter. Finally there is literally no reason to believe is made of matter, at least not matter as we traditionally know it.

I graduated from high school with honors. I had Merit Algebra Trigonometry. I used to correct the teacher when he made a mistake and wondered why his equation didn't come out right. You don't know me. I've had tons of theology training than you could ever get out of colleges, like from God Himself and His angels. You wish you knew as much as me! Have you ever written a book? Is your book in the downtown Phoenix, AZ Library since 2003? If the book wasn't worth it's salt, it would not be there, much less be there for so long. Does that 'justify' my book for you? I've been told by others that it is an excellent book. You DON'T Know Me!!

No I don't know you, I only know what you write here and what you share here. That is the only metric I can know you buy. If I imply you are stupid it is only because I think what you have written is stupid, do you know better? Maybe, but I presume then you wrote rather unclearly to not show that.

And no your book being in a Phoenix public library does not justify your book. If you are as educated as you say you should know that this is a VERY low benchmark.

Dear Tyrathca,

I think you just like to argue.

Of course. Why would an atheist like me come onto a forum dominated by people who are almost guaranteed to disagree with me if I didn't like the inevitable arguments? Note I don't try to make arguments out of nothing, I don't need to on this forum

Why do you think that I have said such a bad thing because of my words? I think you are just mean.

I don't think you've said a "bad thing" I'm just trying to show why your argument is so flawed/hollow (as I think you don't realise how little you are actually saying). I assumed no malicious intent on your part.

Well, I know there is a good guy behind all of that reluctance/anger??

There is actually, people who know me in real life invariably say I'm a "nice guy" and in general I help people. I come across on the internet as far more hostile, mainly because I disagree with people so much here and it's so impersonal in general.

By the way, I could not come on to TOL and post last night because I went to bed early. I was really tired and had little choice at all. Hope you didn't miss me!! Heeeehehehee!!

Don't worry I regularly don't come on for days at a time (in fact I'm coming up to a stretch soon where I probably wont be able to come on for a week due to work.

 

[Tyrathca]

Intuition isn't always bad and rarely can be explained well. "I've got a bad feeling about this." -Han Solo. Think of it as preliminaries. Cut Michael a little slack once in awhile. The answers may come, maybe not. It's his thread afterall. It has a huge viewing.

Actually I find intuition to be extremely limited and flawed. Invariably what it ends up being is applications of rules of thumb/generalisations that work for simple common issues but invariably fail with anything unusual or complicated.

My biggest headache in the real world is dealing with people who have applied their "intuition" and I have to bail them out of the mess they've created either for themselves or another.

Er, even kids need to be taught. Patience and active listening: "What does this mean to you, Michael?"
(I'm guilty too, so call me a hypocrite. None of this meant to be accusatory).
If I got this on a paper, I'd say that teacher/prof "wasn't very helpful." Not only did you blame the theoretical student for conversation delivery (failure for which must be partially the fault of the other's patience and long suffering, if not their own inept deliver), you gave him nothing for him to improve by.
As I said, and I'll give you a touche~ for turning it back on my one day, couldn't your efforts and time have been about the same in effort and time to be just a bit more encouraging and debate-inviting yourself? -Lon

Yeah.... I get a bit impatient sometimes....

 

[gcthomas]

No. I'm saying that losing information on the way to producing a result from transferring information affects the inheritance of the next generation in the context of reproduction.

OK, thanks.

Do you believe that all 'noise' in this process is by necessity harmful or neutral, and that it cannot be beneficial?

Or, to put it another way: Shannon entropy describes the changes from a starting point of a perfect 'message', defining all noise as potentially damaging. Do you believe that all DNA mutations are by definition taking it further away from perfection as in Shannon communications theory?

 

[Lon]

Actually I find intuition to be extremely limited and flawed. Invariably what it ends up being is applications of rules of thumb/generalisations that work for simple common issues but invariably fail with anything unusual or complicated.

I disagree. In fact, I'd suggest your 'atheism' is, in fact all intuition. "It doesn't look right." The problem, in this case, is that we don't come from perfect morality and so employ excusing behavior for it and avoid anything resembling a better morality because it is puritanical, doesn't feel right, is uncomfortable. There is no empirical evidence that there is no god.

My biggest headache in the real world is dealing with people who have applied their "intuition" and I have to bail them out of the mess they've created either for themselves or another.

My brother is a fireman and says basically the same thing, but he isn't realizing that's his clientele, not necessarily a reflection on all of society. In fact, what you are saying has to be intuited if you've done no study over the matter. It is just that some of us are better than others at it.

Yeah.... I get a bit impatient sometimes....

Well, you have your job as an excuse. I'll have to shape up.

 

[Jose Fly]

Maybe your experience with religion really has been ugly enough that you like to use religious customs to denigrate the science you disagree with. When I was a Christian, and even now, I have enough respect for what religious rites mean to people that I would be disappointed in myself if I used them as you choose to.

That's a very good point. It's interesting how often creationists try to bash science by saying "It's just like our religion!"

 

[Jose Fly]

"Evolution" is a bin word and, from what I can tell, overly used.

"From what I can tell" being the key part.

In this particular instance, isn't it rather "building blocks/material?" "How" they are put together (whatever force, not the structure of how they fit), isn't pertinent to the analysis as far as I can tell.

Nope, not even close. Did you bother reading the paper?

"Evolution did it" is not a satisfactory reasoning conveyance, either.

Can you cite anywhere in any paper where the scientists write "evolution did it"?

I am not a scientist by any means but as I teach and have read, the term is over-used in a greatly broad and exaggerated fashion where other description is preferred and better. In this case, I'm not finding 'evolution' as defining as say 'similar/same' building material (proteins)would convey.

It'd probably help if you actually read the paper.

In science, when we draw all conclusions for students, they don't learn but are 'indoctrinated' at that point. "Evolution" should more often than not, be a drawn conclusion.

Yeah, that happened over a century ago. Or are you suggesting that scientists have to re-establish fundamental conclusions over and over and over again, before they can do any new work?

It is rarely essential for understand most science except the science only interested in proving that, and for me, that's a waste of time. As a scientist, you don't need to hear 'evolution' to do most of your work. It just doesn't come up other than as (imho) a sloppy bin word. Agree? Disagree? How often do you say "evolution" during a work day? Did you yesterday?

Why would you think your musings on this subject are of any value whatsoever, especially given how you are directly contradicted by the people who are actually doing the research?

Basically what's going on here is we've posted a series of published papers that describe in some detail how evolutionary theory is the entire basis for some important genetic research, and now you're coming along and declaring "No it isn't" and expecting everyone to just take your word for it.

I can't believe someone as incredibly intelligent as you would think that to be at all compelling.