Creation vs. Evolution

[Jose Fly]

No Jose... you have been answered many times.

Now you're just lying. Why? Why do you do this, while claiming to advocate for your God?

I've been asking you for weeks, "Given two genomes, how do we tell which has more "genetic information", and you've never once answered. You know how I know? Because no creationist has ever answered that question, ever. If you go to the TalkOrigins index page, (which is basically a playbook for arguing with creationists), they state "Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting."

So I'll tell you what. Answer the question above, and I'll email my contacts at TO and let them know that they need to change that entry to reflect your answer.

My question is not a trick question.... it isn't difficult.

Then answer it.

Lets try an analogous question.

Why analogize rather than stick to the subject at hand, i.e., genetic sequences? It's pretty simple...given two genomes, how do we tell which has more genetic information?

Answer the question.

 

[Jose Fly]

A good place to start would be some simple logic. For example if things have the appearance of design, could there be a designer?

What's the difference between things that "have the appearance of design" and things that don't?

Atheists must exclude the most logical answer and would rather believe in aliens, than an Intelligent Designer.

Irrelevant to your assertion (repeated below).

The most logical, and the most scientific explanation to origins is that in the beginning God created

Which dictates that "God" be testable and able to be investigated.

 

[6days]

*
I've been asking you for weeks, "Given two genomes, how do we tell which has more "genetic information", and you've never once answered.

You have asked variations of the question for the last couple years. And I recall answering you myself several times. You have been provided with various definitions and *answers. You seem to think you have a 'gotcha' question and that you just need to ask it the right way.*


In your most recent attempts at your repeated question... I tried to answer your questiin with a question and you just dodge it with your usual tactic of calling others a liar.


The question was " does the human genome have more genetic information, or that of the whisk fern?

You dodged so here is the answer.

The genome of the simple whisk fern is far larger than that of humans *But the whisk fern genome seems to be many many many many repeats of the same info. (Thus the analogous question i posed about bonzai).*So..... the simple answer to my question is that the human genome contains far more info than the whisk fern, even though its smaller. ( you might also want to check some of the definitions that have been given to you over the last couple years for genetic information... including another one I gave you just a couple days ago). *

I have explained before that having a book with page 16 inserted over and over and over does not give you more info. I have also said that Shannon info definition does not apply to genetic info. (Although i think Yorzick disagrees with me).*

*

You know how I know? Because no creationist has ever answered that question,*ever. If you go to the*TalkOrigins index page, (which is basically a playbook for arguing with creationists), they state "Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting."

So even though your question has been answered numerous times and in numerous ways.... you choose to believe 'Talkorigins'? No wonder you seem so frustrated Jose.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Moved

 

[Greg Jennings]

Dear Greg Jennings,

Man saw birds and tried to imitate them by trying to construct wings for their devices {planes}, and then man went even further and studied hummingbirds closely to understand them and man finally made his helicopter. They copied their 'design' from God and God assisted them in their endeavors, so that man could have planes and helicopters. He spoke to their thoughts regarding how to do each thing. Remember the Wright Brothers? If it weren't for God, they would still be In Memoriam. God has helped us vanquish diseases by God-given thoughts to make it happen, and for ALL that He Has Done, you treat Him like trash. Do you see where I'm going with this?? I hope so. God just keeps on giving, but His people appreciate it and you all decide it is no big deal!! For shame upon you all!!
​

​

​

​

​

​

Michael I don't see how I'm treating God like trash. I'm simply unsure of his existence. Are you unsure of the existence of your garbage?

 

[Greg Jennings]

You don't need to be an expert to know the answer. The genome of the whisk fern is much larger.
And you don't need to be an expert to know which contains more information. Make a guess.

So the whisk fern has more genetic information than a human......What exactly are you implying?

 

[Jose Fly]

You have asked variations of the question for the last couple years. And I recall answering you myself several times.

Yet somehow you never seem to be able to say what that answer is, or where you posted it. Looks like you're not telling the truth and trying to cover it up.

The question was " does the human genome have more genetic information, or that of the whisk fern?

That wasn't the question I asked. The question is exceedingly simple...given two genomes, how do we tell which has more genetic information?

See, if you really had a good answer to that question, you'd post it and make me look really, really bad. You'd be able to shut me up forever when it comes to "genetic information". And given your well-documented history of repeating your talking points ad nauseum, it's pretty obvious that if you did have an answer, we'd have all seen it hundreds of times by now.

The genome of the simple whisk fern is far larger than that of humans *But the whisk fern genome seems to be many many many many repeats of the same info. (Thus the analogous question i posed about bonzai).*So..... the simple answer to my question is that the human genome contains far more info than the whisk fern, even though its smaller. ( you might also want to check some of the definitions that have been given to you over the last couple years for genetic information... including another one I gave you just a couple days ago).

All that is meaningless until you can tell us how you're measuring "genetic information". Nucleotides? Protein-coding sequences? Non-coding sequences? Microsatellites?

All you've done is say "Yeah, the fern genome is bigger but there's repeats so there's less info". So if a gene is information, is a copy of that gene also information? What if we change the copy a bit? Does it now become "new information"? What if we take different bits of different genes and combine them? Is that now "new information"?

If not, then doesn't that mean the alphabet constitutes all the information in the universe, since all words (and numbers if you spell them out) and concepts are just rearranged copies of A-Z?

I have explained before that having a book with page 16 inserted over and over and over does not give you more info.

Why not?

I have also said that Shannon info definition does not apply to genetic info. (Although i think Yorzick disagrees with me).

Yes he does...pretty adamantly so it seems.

So even though your question has been answered numerous times and in numerous ways

No it hasn't. I asked "Given two genomes, how do we tell which has more information?" That's a process question...IOW, what method do you propose we use to quantify and compare "genetic information". If your only answer is "The fern genome has copies, so it has less info than the human genome", I have to ask...is that really your final answer? Is that really the extent to which you've thought of this?

.... you choose to believe 'Talkorigins'?

Why shouldn't I?

No wonder you seem so frustrated Jose.

Actually, I quite enjoy seeing creationists like you flounder around such simple questions. It serves as an excellent illustration of the state of creationism, i.e., that it's utterly useless and empty. You want a good example?

Just this weekend one of my kids was excited about the James Webb Telescope and we looked through THIS PAGE together. If you notice, it's all about billions of years, the big bang, stellar and galactic evolution, etc. Notice anything missing? Not one thing in any of it about creationism in any way shape or form.

You and I both know what that means...something I've said here lots of times. Creationism is absolutely 100% scientifically irrelevant and has been for at least a century.

So while it's fun and entertaining to sit here and watch you and other creationists make all sorts of grandiose claims about how awesome creationism is and how evolution and billions of years are just about to collapse, in reality none of it matters one single bit. ITRW science marches on, new discoveries are made, and our knowledge continues to accumulate, without even the slightest nod, hint, or whiff of creationism anywhere.

That's reality 6days. Your denial of it doesn't change it at all and never will.

 

[6days]

The question is exceedingly simple...given two genomes, how do we tell which has more genetic information?

You dodged the question. I gave two genomes as examplea asking which had more info. You dodged the question. I answered it.

See, if you really had a good answer to that question, you'd post it and make me look really, really bad.

No... you would still claim the question wasn't answered. I might think you look bad. GregJennings might think you look like a hero.*l

All that is meaningless until you can tell us how you're measuring "genetic information".* Nucleotides?* Protein-coding sequences?* Non-coding sequences?* Microsatellites?

This too was answered long ago. I told you that you can read entire books by information theorists, or by geneticists attempting to answer that question. If i recall correctly, I even suggested a book or two to you.

But essentially, it can't be measured at present since we don't fully understand the overlaying layers of complexity in our DNA, and how its read

All you've done is say "Yeah, the fern genome is bigger but there's repeats so there's less info".

I gave an example that was simple and easy. I don't know if you could find a single geneticist who would have any trouble answering similar to what I did.

So if a gene is information, is a copy of that gene also information?* What if we change the copy a bit?* Does it now become "new information"?

If NASA had an instruction manual with duplicated pages.... and then you start changing the instructions a bit... *does it become new information? Has the original information being corrupted?

(A book with many repeats of same page does not give extra info) Why not?

I will let you figure that one out.

I asked "Given two genomes, how do we tell which has more information?" *

You have been answered numerous times and in numerous ways, to the many ways you have posed this question over the last couple years. As I have told you before it seems as if you think that you have a gotcha question and seems to drive you crazy that you can't yet an answer that you want. You have been answered.

I quite enjoy seeing creationists like you flounder around such simple questions.

I guess it is a bit of a two edged sword Jose. *It seems you keep denying you have been answered... you keep dreaming up new ways to pose your question.*

Speaking of flounder..... that is a 'kind' of fish. Have you ever seen a dead flounder go against the flow? No? I haven't either. You should try and be a live fish, and not just go along with whatever talk origins tells you. Fortunately the great scientists of the past have been willing to flounder upstream against all the dead mainstream fish flowing down the river.*

 

[Yorzhik]

Am I the only one still confused as to what mRNA/transcription/translation has to do with inheritance or mutations?

Yes. Everyone else knows the DNA->protein message system is just a simple example, and the messaging systems in inheritance are much more complicated, but would have to follow the same principles of communication.

Shannon makes an assumption (that the original message is perfect and any changes from it are bad). His assumption says nothing about the nature of the universe and it's ability to create new information, it is simply a useful assumption for human communication systems.

Then answer this: Why does Shannon make that assumption?

Whether it be semantic information or not, the information can only degrade with noise. Which, if you work hard to misunderstand, means semantics doesn't matter with respect to the amount of information.

I'm sorry but are you still the same Yorzhik who said THIS:

Of course noise adds information.

But the highlighted portion has to be supported first. And so far, it is just your declaration that claims that noise according to Shannon doesn't degrade the signal in cell messages. Supply some evidence that noise in cell messages normally adds information "that happen to work" if you want to show me wrong. Nothing else will do.

Because there is good information and bad information according to Shannon.

What evidence will you accept since the standard of mutations improving fitness (easiest examples being common human pathogens) are rejected by you on the basis that information still decreased (somehow). It's circular.

Because we can actually measure the amount of Shannon information in almost all those cases, and it is less.

But first, you are confused about what fitness is in the context of common descent. Fitness in the context of common descent is the creating of new features that did not exist before, in a single organism in a population, that spreads to the rest of the population. Your example here is the loss of a feature.

But back to Shannon. In your example the code that coded for a place that the immune system could latch on to was no longer used. That's true for almost all examples used for common descent. Ergo, it is normal for noise to cause a loss of information just as Shannon would predict. And any example where information was increased by noise in a Shannon context, it turns out to be due to a broken part being repaired by a random mutation which is no information increase at all on the original message.

Digital communications assume that only the original message is desired.

Why?

The information of the received message with lots of noise may have lots of information about something (eg. about the source of the noise) but because it is not what the receiver wants it is assumed a priori to be bad.

Why? Why did Shannon and Weaver assume a priori that noise was bad? Are you sure it was a priori and not deduced by experiment and experience?

Genetic algorithms may be the best example of where digital noise/mutations is not assumed to be negative.

That isn't true. The random is controlled in genetic algorithms. It must stay within certain bounds, and it is never allowed to change the code that evaluates if the random change was good or bad. Shannon makes room for the controlled random because the code that creates those random messages always has more information than the upper bound of information that the random is allowed to be (for evaluation's sake). In this way genetic algorithms and the Monte Carlo method are the same... for the same reason.

Weaver is quite clear that "information here is used with a special meaning" specifically he makes the assumption that increased information due to the sender is good and increased information from sources other than the senders choice (noise) is bad.

"Some of this information is spurious and undesirable and has been introduced via the noise. To get the useful information in the received signal we must subtract out this spurious portion."

I.e. Yes noise introduces more information but it is obvious in the context of human communications that this is "undesirable" information and only the original message is "useful".

Why? Why does Weaver specifically make that assumption?

With inheritance and mutations however there is no such thing as desirable or undesirable, so the assumptions which lead to Weaver's comment don't apply in the new context.

This is the claim you have to support. This is what you have to demonstrate for common descent. Show us the evidence that noise is desirable and then we'll forget about Shannon and Weaver and use it in digital communications.

 

[Yorzhik]

Tyrathca has answered your last post to me, so I'll just comment on your interpretation of the 'where the joker is' comment: it is obvious to a native speaker that 'the joker' in this context refers to the role of the Joker in a game of cards, not a joking person. The Joker is often a wild card (that has a special function in the game), so the Joker in this case means that you have to pay special attention to the meaning of the word 'information' or you will get confused. And you have certainly got confused here. :doh:

That is clearly wrong because Weaver calls the extra information "undesirable", "spurious" and "bad"... not "special." It is you who are confused.

But just like I asked Tyrathca: Why? Why is the extra information of noise in a received signal "undesirable", "spurious" and "bad"?

 

[Yorzhik]

Surely any "shoddy science" could quickly be falsified by someone with your intellectual skills and deep understanding of science Yorzhik? :think:

Not "any" shoddy science, but specifically the science that is supposed to support common descent.

 

[Yorzhik]

Did you ever come up with a reason why your Shannon Info argument precluded evolution? Or how you could measure the semantic info that you blurred onto when it suited?

I finally got some time to answer some posts about Shannon information as you hopefully just read.

But you missed the point of the post. The point is that even if the evidence doesn't lead to Christianity in the end, you should stop your irrational adherence to common descent dogma and say, "if the evidence leads to Christianity, then so be it." Then you will be free to see the solid science that shows mutations+NS is wrong and you'll also see the shoddy science that common descent relies on. And you don't even have to be a Christian at the end of it all.

 

[Yorzhik]

Weeell, I'm not aware of any equivalent, associated, highly dishonest, donation seeking, agenda led institution for the purposes of providing fantasy based misinformation and pseudoscience to young people in schools. :think:

The only difference is that the government is not "donation seeking" unless you call "donations" money that is taken by force at the point of a gun.

 

[Yorzhik]

I have also said that Shannon info definition does not apply to genetic info. (Although i think Yorzick disagrees with me).*

Actually, we are just getting to that part of the conversation if you've read my posts immediately above. If you see the answer to "why?" then you'll understand that Shannon and Weaver apply to genetic information.

 

[alwight]

Shannon makes an assumption (that the original message is perfect and any changes from it are bad). His assumption says nothing about the nature of the universe and it's ability to create new information, it is simply a useful assumption for human communication systems.

Then answer this: Why does Shannon make that assumption?

Because Shannon's job was to pioneer high fidelity within digital transmission telecoms systems and not for the misapplication of it, as you disingenuously try to do, in a genetic transcription system? :doh:

 

[alwight]

Not "any" shoddy science, but specifically the science that is supposed to support common descent.

Agenda-specific anti-science then. lain:

 

[gcthomas]

I finally got some time to answer some posts about Shannon information as you hopefully just read.

You are still blurring the distinction between Shannon information (which, as you said before, is increased by noise) and semantic information (which you could call good or bad information). If you can't see that the roll of a digital telecoms system is to precisely reproduce elsewhere the input signal, whereas what an organism needs is simply a genome that 'works', then I cannot see why you would want to continue your pointless argument. Sexual reproduction scrambles all sorts of genes within chromosomes, so NO generation has exactly the same genome as the previous one - how can you insist that perfect reproduction is the aim of DNA replication?

And STILL no-one has answered the question as to how you would measure the 'goodness' of the information in a genome, or IOW the semantic information content, which Shannon doesn't touch on. Why are you avoiding an answer that is of such critical importance to your claims?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Actually you've always struck me as someone with comparatively a lot of free time on your hands. But ok. I'm not expecting immediate replies by the way and I won't care if you take a while to respond.

I'm not sure why I should trust the new York post over the government organisation in charge of monitoring weather. Do you have a reason why we should?

Dear Tyrathca,

I get a couple hours before I go to bed to post here. Sometimes more, sometimes none. Also, I went to your gov't. organization site and couldn't figure it out as far as giving me the info that I was seeking. That is why I suggested going to the archives of the New York Post for March 4, 1978. It sounds pretty easy, but I am in the U.S. and you are in Australia, so I can now see why you hesitate. I will try 2nite or so to find out if I can find the original article in the NY Post. We'll have to go from there. Perhaps it is on your site after all. Who knows?

That makes no sense Michael, either you misunderstood them or the reporter was palming you off for their boss to deal with. Reporters never need their sources to talk to the OWNER of the news agency. They don't even need them to talk to the editor. That's simply not how news organisations work. If the reporter had a good story it would be published.

Simply put it sounds like they didn't believe you based on their actions.

Or you were wrong all along. Which is more likely, that NOAA is wrong or you are?

You do not understand the 'gravity' of the story they would be writing. If the story were true, as I claim it, U.S. people and other countries also, would be thrown into panic and chaos; they might quit their jobs and just sit and wait, etc. They might try stocking up on food and water supplies which would not help them because stronger people with stronger weapons would just take away their stockpiles. It is all very Catch-22, to say the very least. You aren't seeing the picture behind the picture. You really have NO IDEA!!

But if it is more than a decade you would consider that a false prediction though? Sounds like you are seriously hedging your bets. Not really extremely soon either.

Ty, it is not more than a decade, by far. I just used that to avoid telling you that it could be a matter of weeks, months or years. Like I said, 'No one knows except the Father in Heaven {God}' I won't guess the time again as a surety, for I see how that negates the Scriptures. It is more than soon. Does that do it for you.

Warm Thoughts,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Apparently then Michael I need to have the secret decoder ring or safe code in order to unlock all the arcane mysteries held within Revelation currently only available to special people?

Alwight, having a decoder ring or a magic ball will not help. God gives the meanings to His prophets, for them to give to the remaining people. God does not tell each millionth of persons by Private Audience. He's not going to come and visit you specially because you want it to rather be so. He revealed these things to me for many of His own reasons. One of which, I loved Him and Jesus so strongly, the question never once entered my mind that they weren't telling the truth nor that they were not really in existence. I was pure as the driven snow as far as that went. I just know that our love and trust ran incredibly deep and that I would easily die for my good friend instead of him dying. I am different, is all. So He has revealed much to me which I try to then reveal to the rest of His People. I am getting this strong feeling that you atheists are not my true calling. Instead, I should be talking to the rest of His People!! They are the ones who could benefit by what I'm saying and even believe much of it to whatever points they choose. It is something that I will ponder much as I can in my spare time, like I have any spare time.

Warmest Thoughts & Cheerio, Matey!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I will simply accept whatever physical reality may or may not come along Michael, but I don't expect anything to come along all wrapped up in any Revelation type mumbo-jumbo or I might just die laughing first. lain:

Dear alwight,

You will not just die laughing first.

Michael