Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Is that “orderly universe” you speak of the one where God’s Word says snakes and donkeys engage in conversations, rivers are composed of red and white blood cells, wooden sticks and serpents are interchangeable, decomposing dead guys get up and start discussing the day’s events, and the intestines of living giant fish are good places to hide for a few days? Or is it the one where people walk through closed doors, or tap on rocks to get water, or the women sometimes transform into pillars of sodium chloride?

O, BJ, the things that have been kept hidden from you!! You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. You may never understand what is really going on! Que lastima!!

If You Only Had A God To Guide You,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

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?

Dear Greg J,

You are treating Him without respect. I am sure of Him and I am sure of what my garbage is. It is not a difficult thing. Especially when you know Him!!

Michael

 

[alwight]

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

Michael I think you should at least try to understand that no matter what you may believe you are not a divine Godly conduit, if God exists then God would be the one to pass on information, not you. You may not like it that you are not so special after all and that some people actually require solid facts and evidence rather than silly ancient scripture such as imo Revelation is, but there it is anyway.

 

[Yorzhik]

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:

You merely restated the question. You didn't answer it. Why was it Shannon's job to pioneer high fidelity? Maybe this will help you: why is high fidelity so important that Shannon's work is "seminal" and "great"?

And you haven't answered the previous question: Is DNA the same as the protein it makes? Maybe this will help you: Does Shannon apply to written communications?

 

[Greg Jennings]

6, are you saying that because a whisk fern has a longer genome than humans (that may or may not contain more "genetic information" than that of a human), that complexity decreases the longer a genome is?

Or to put it another way, are you saying that shorter genomes = higher life forms?

 

[Yorzhik]

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).

It's not me calling the information good or bad. It's Weaver. Weaver calls the extra information "undesirable", "spurious" and "bad"... not "special." But at least you are off that silly argument that noise is just "special" (like a joker in cards) information.

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

If you can't see that the roll of a digital telecoms system is to precisely reproduce elsewhere the input signal,

I'm the one that sees it. It's you that can't answer the question. Why? Why is the extra information of noise in a received signal "undesirable", "spurious" and "bad"?

whereas what an organism needs is simply a genome that 'works',

Oh no! gcthomas brings goodness, meaning, good, bad, desirable, and undesirable into his reply. Either that or my previous post where he accused me of the same was wrong. Which is it? Is meaning implied in a message because "it works"? If you answer 'yes', then you are admitting that Shannon assumes meaning without measuring it. If you answer 'no' then noise in cell messages is assumed to be bad and you have to show otherwise for your common descent theory to stand.

then I cannot see why you would want to continue your pointless argument.

Yes, we've already noticed you can't answer simple questions. And when you can't answer simple questions in a discussion you'd rather run away.

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?

Because that scrambling falls within Shannon too!

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?

You already said how we measure goodness. "What works" defines what is good. Now, go show us how you get something that works, on the message level, knowing you are bounded by Shaonnon.

 

[gcthomas]

Oh Yorz, you still don't get it. Shannon information has meaning and value that is imbued by the people who send and receive it. Evolution does not have those 'readers' to define that the original 'message' is de facto perfect. It only has selection - mutations change the DNA but you can't simplistically say either that this is a loss of 'information' (since Shannon/Weaver said it wasn't in the sense they described) or that it is 'undesirable' (which only makes sense when there is an actor to express the desire). The DNA simply IS. Often the mutation will have no or little effect on the organism, allowing it to persist, sometimes it will cause harm and eventually be removed from the gene pool. Sometimes a mutation will improve the gene pool's fitness ether immediately or when the environment changes. And yet you refuse to tackle actual selection processes, preferring to stick with your inexact comms analogy.

Come on, Yorz, why can't you actually discuss the mutations in the context of actual observed gene expression and selection processes?

 

[alwight]

You merely restated the question. You didn't answer it. Why was it Shannon's job to pioneer high fidelity? Maybe this will help you: why is high fidelity so important that Shannon's work is "seminal" and "great"?

I don't know if you have work at being obtuse Yorzhik but I suspect it rather comes naturally.
The answer is pretty obvious imo, since Shannon worked for the Bell Telephone Laboratories and his remit was to design methodology to maintain fidelity of the original data across telecoms transmission systems, despite all the well known inherent transmission issues (noise, inductance, attenuation, resistance, capacitance, etc) involved over distance also associated with analogue systems.

And you haven't answered the previous question: Is DNA the same as the protein it makes? Maybe this will help you: Does Shannon apply to written communications?

OK I'll play along, DNA is made up of four chemicals(adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T)) and represents genetic information, while protein is a structural component of living forms. I really can't even begin to imagine why you might want to suppose that they are the "same"? No, the protein is a representative transcription albeit constructed with high fidelity from the original information.
Written data is fixed and stored as it is and while it remains readable and transcribe-able, I see no point in trying to apply anything else to it, but by all means do enlighten me, have I fallen into your dastardly trap? :shocked:

Is the written data the "same" as what that data was perhaps used for Yorzhik?

 

[alwight]

Are the plans for a house the "same" as a house faithfully built from them? :think:

 

[alwight]

Dear alwight,

You will not just die laughing first.

Michael

Oh yes I might well do Michael, but it would probably be ironic laughter.

 

[ok doser]

Are the plans for a house the "same" as a house faithfully built from them? :think:

the folly of evolutionists:

plans for house:
View attachment 23519
house that results:
View attachment 23520

what random mutations produce:
View attachment 23521

what evolutionists think natural selection allows them to produce:
View attachment 23522


:mock:evolutionists

 

[alwight]

Thanks for demonstrating how three different transcription systems produce three different results and are not the "same" as Yorzhik seems to think.

 

[ok doser]

Thanks for demonstrating how three different transcription systems produce three different results and are not the "same" as Yorzhik seems to think.

not at all

i could design this house (transcription) using three different design techniques - old school pen and paper drafting, first generation software and state of the art current software

and if it was built by a competent builder (translation), it would look like this:

 

[Greg Jennings]

You merely restated the question. You didn't answer it. Why was it Shannon's job to pioneer high fidelity? Maybe this will help you: why is high fidelity so important that Shannon's work is "seminal" and "great"?

And you haven't answered the previous question: Is DNA the same as the protein it makes? Maybe this will help you: Does Shannon apply to written communications?

Yorzhik I'm unaware of any scientist involved with evolutionary theory or science of the natural world that has ever said that Shannon information can be applied to biological systems. Do you have a statement from one saying that Shannon information applies to biology?

 

[Greg Jennings]

the folly of evolutionists:

plans for house:
View attachment 23519
house that results:
View attachment 23520

what random mutations produce:
View attachment 23521

what evolutionists think natural selection allows them to produce:
View attachment 23522


:mock:evolutionists

This post here makes it painfully obvious just how little education you've received in the study of evolution, and likely in most of natural science as a whole. Fun fact: houses aren't biological organisms, and their behavior is not like that of biological organisms. They are shelters built by a biological organism.

To put in in terms that you specifically can more easily understand: You're a retard.

 

[ok doser]

This post here makes it painfully obvious just how little education you've received in the study of evolution...

quite a bit, actually

and i've taught it (what little of it is taught) in high school

, and likely in most of natural science as a whole.

:darwinsm:

good one!

Fun fact: houses aren't biological organisms,

fun fact - i never said they were

you'd have to be retarded to think i did

and their behavior is not like that of biological organisms.

see above

They are shelters built by a biological organism.

thank you captain obvious

To put in in terms that you specifically can more easily understand: You're a retard.

well, one of us is :chuckle:

 

[Greg Jennings]

quite a bit, actually

and i've taught it (what little of it is taught) in high school



:darwinsm:

good one!



fun fact - i never said they were

you'd have to be retarded to think i did



see above



thank you captain obvious



well, one of us is :chuckle:

So you're telling me you are educated in biology past a freshman level college course?

I must know what university. If you say Liberty then this will all make sense

 

[ok doser]

So you're telling me you are educated in biology past a freshman level college course?

I must know what university

BS in chemistry
MS in an applied field of chemistry
pre-med
MSEd in adolescent education
currently doing a reboot, working toward a PhD in the medical field

 

[Greg Jennings]

BS in chemistry
MS in an applied field of chemistry
pre-med
MSEd in adolescent education
currently doing a reboot, working toward a PhD in the medical field

Those are great degrees.

But evolution doesn't have anything to do with those degrees beyond having one freshman level biology course likely being a required part of your Chem BS. Unless you're saying pre-med is separate from all of your degrees somehow?

Which means that you have not taken any course dealing with evolution beyond a freshman level, correct?

And do you mind giving me the name of what you would consider to be the most prestigious scientific university that you've received a degree from? You may have just not seen where I asked previously

 

[ok doser]

Those are great degrees.

But evolution doesn't have anything to do with those degrees beyond having one freshman level biology course likely being a required part of your Chem BS.

Which means that you have not taken any course dealing with evolution beyond a freshman level, correct?

Microbiology at the masters level covered it pretty well
And I got a lot of bio-chemistry, again at the masters level, that covered it pretty well
same thing with pharma design

I don't believe I've seen classes offered specifically covering "evolution" - the ones i've encountered have been applications of the concept to other disciplines

well, how about that - ya learn something new every day:
https://www.rochester.edu/College/BIO/graduate/courses.html


but us chemists used to mock the guys in bio

until we needed them to design us ethanol producing microbes for our pilot plants :chuckle: