Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

Greg Jennings

New member
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:

Ok I'm actually pleasantly surprised. Perhaps you will be able to actually intelligently articulate what exactly you have a problem with in regards to evolution, which is far more than I can usually say here. Another pre-requisite question: Do you believe that a 6000 year old Earth and Noah's Flood are supported by scientific evidence?
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Perhaps you will be able to actually intelligently articulate what exactly you have a problem with in regards to evolution...

:think:


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
 

Jose Fly

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

Let's keep this in mind given what you say below.

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

There....the answer to the question "how do we measure genetic information" is "don't know".

So if neither you nor any other creationist knows how to measure "genetic information", how then can you claim that evolution can't cause it to increase? If you can't measure it, how can you make any quantitative claims about it?

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?

Depends on how you change it, doesn't it? As I said, if you believe copying, changing, and rearranging things can't generate new information, then by that logic....

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

....contains all the information there can ever be. No matter what it is, it's nothing more than rearranged copies of the above letters.

You should try and be a live fish, and not just go along with whatever talk origins tells you.

As your answer shows, Talk Origins was right. Despite all your grandiose claims about "genetic information", you don't what it is or how to measure it.

And I want to be clear about something here. I do appreciate you finally admitting that you don't know how to measure genetic information. It took a bit, but it's nice to see you finally get there. And given that your answer is "I don't know" we now see why you spent so much time ducking and dodging. But now, as with the pseudogene talking points before, I'm really hoping that you're done with this ridiculous "no increases in genetic information" talking point. I guess we'll see. I'll make sure and save your post just in case you forget. ;-)
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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.
Not true at all. Shannon does not not include anywhere, in any way, meaning imbued by the sender or receiver of a message. And not only do I understand that, but you haven't shown you understand what you say yourself, much less Shannon.

He was not talking about meaning imbued by senders or receivers when Weaver still called information created by noise bad. Why? You never answered the question.

Evolution does not have those 'readers' to define that the original 'message' is de facto perfect.
Which is why it is Shannon information and not whatever it is you are talking about here.

mutations change the DNA but you can't simplistically say either that this is a loss of 'information'
Yes we can. It can be measured by Shannon, modeled by Shannon, and Shannon was made to measure that exact thing.

or that it is 'undesirable'
You are 180 degrees wrong here. Weaver said exactly that it was undesirable.

(which only makes sense when there is an actor to express the desire).
"Spurious" would be a better word for you to use then, since you are so easily confused by "undesirable". Weaver used the two words interchangeably.

The DNA simply IS.
Well then, I guess that's the air-tight seal on your argument.

Seriously?

You do realize you just through science out the window with that statement.

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.
I'm not using a comms analogy. The messages in the cell are real and measurable by Shannon. It's very exact.

And somehow, you think some vague appeal to some noise that supposedly makes a cell work better is exact? That's the point gc; you have to come up with evidence to make such a claim. Let's see your evidence.

Come on, Yorz, why can't you actually discuss the mutations in the context of actual observed gene expression and selection processes?
That's what I'm discussing. You keep talking about anything but. It would be wrong not to channel Stripe at this point - Common decentists hate reading.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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.
"Because that was his job" does not answer 'why'. It's re-stating the question again. Why was it his job?

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"?
Where do you get the idea that I suppose they are the same just because I ask if they are or not? This is why it's so entertaining to talk with you; you respond like a half-wit that thinks he's a whole-wit.

No, the protein is a representative transcription albeit constructed with high fidelity from the original information.
Just like electronic messages. There is high fidelity only because noise is corrected, just like electronic messages.

Or do you think electronic messages don't use physical properties entirely?

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:
I wasn't laying a trap. You should read Shannon where he talks about messages in written word. A book could be translated into both electronic form or into DNA as media... and Shannon would apply to all of them if they were transmitted as a message in the same way Shannon applies to every message.

Is the written data the "same" as what that data was perhaps used for Yorzhik?
Perhaps you could restate this, it is difficult to figure out the antecedent of "that" I think.
 

6days

New member
There....the answer to the question "how do we measure genetic information" is "don't know".
No... Of course you don't.
So if neither you nor any other creationist knows how to measure "genetic information", how then can you claim that evolution can't cause it to increase?
It's pretty easy to understand it decreases. Even evolutionists see that all the time.

And..... No, of course mutations won't cause a gain of meaningful information in the genome.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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 thinks there are no messages in a cell. It was covered earlier in the thread so you'll have to go back and read.
 

6days

New member
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?
You have a great imagination Greg.
Maybe you could take solace in the point that size does not matter.

:devil:
 

alwight

New member
"Because that was his job" does not answer 'why'. It's re-stating the question again. Why was it his job?
I think I'll just gratuitously insult you instead here to get me in the mood, you are a complete moron Yorzhik.

Where do you get the idea that I suppose they are the same just because I ask if they are or not? This is why it's so entertaining to talk with you; you respond like a half-wit that thinks he's a whole-wit.
Then stop asking me if they are the "same" unless you have some pre-described foundation for asking such an otherwise stupid and meaningless question.

Just like electronic messages. There is high fidelity only because noise is corrected, just like electronic messages.
There is high fidelity because we are talking about a transcription system NOT a transmission system. What do you mean by "noise"? Noise from where exactly? "Noise" (interference) comes from outside it isn't a mysterious inherent characteristic. How is a genetic transcription system affected by "noise" given that it is a mechanical process?

Or do you think electronic messages don't use physical properties entirely?
Just because you might choose to see a "message" makes no difference to a transcription system.


I wasn't laying a trap. You should read Shannon where he talks about messages in written word. A book could be translated into both electronic form or into DNA as media... and Shannon would apply to all of them if they were transmitted as a message in the same way Shannon applies to every message.
Seems to me Yorzhik that no one should have given you the Big Book Of Shannon Information since you want it to apply everywhere. Why can you not be more specific or is obfuscation all you actually have?


Perhaps you could restate this, it is difficult to figure out the antecedent of "that" I think.
You are such a pompous dimwit Yorzhik.;)
 

gcthomas

New member
No... Of course you don't.

It's pretty easy to understand it decreases. Even evolutionists see that all the time.

And..... No, of course mutations won't cause a gain of meaningful information in the genome.

More claims without justification. Even Yorz misusing Shannon information is content that mutations can increase information. And you can't define what you mean by 'meaningful' - meaningful to whom?
 

gcthomas

New member
Not true at all blah blah blah common decentists etc

If you can't work out that Weaver was going beyond Shannon information to declare noise 'bad', then you have no more to contribute except for a buzzing background noise in this thread. The 'bad' idea comes purely from the assumption that in a comms setting what is 'wanted' by the receiver is an identical copy of the 'intended' transmission. I am still waiting for you to define how 'bad' is defined in a DNA evolution context, and who 'wants' that copy to be identical to the previous generation. Without that your comms analogy (ie use of Shannon) fails.

OK, here is a specific: Pandas are very poor at digesting bamboo given they have a carnivore digestive system. Imagine a mutation in an enzyme producing gene that would be deleterious in other bears by reducing their meat digestion, but that enzyme is slightly better for pandas as it enables them to digest plant material (a good thing). The differential here cannot be explained by your explanations unless you reject the possibility entirely.

Supplementary question: why did your God make Pandas without a gene to digest their main foodstuff? They only digest 17% of what they eat - seems like in imperfect creation to me.
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
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.

Don't worry Alwight, Jesus will end up passing on the information when you see Him coming with the clouds. You'll see.

Michael
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
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.


Dear alwight,
God has passed on the information to a witness who shares his testimony with the rest of the people. You don't seem to realize that God is not going to pop out of the clouds and say "Hey alwight, I have come to speak to you because you don't even believe in Me." It isn't going to happen that way!

Michael
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Sorry if this is too much of a break in the current thread, but I followed a bit of the PBS Nature episode last night, and all it did was reminded me how self-blinded scientists can be. 'The palantir only showed Denethor what Sauron wanted him to see--as another weapon to overthrow Gondor.'

In Patagonia, there is lots of buzz about recently found titanosaurus materials, including ACRES of scattered and broken eggshells. The shells are in good enough shape to see color, texture and final shape. The more useful discovery as far as the animals shape was the pile of bones, of course. (A further note on that below).

My point is that there is no way these ACRES of eggs are millions of years old, but only thousands. It's just not what happens in millions of years. Things don't have the crisp sharp edges in normal color etc.

Now, about the bones. What really seemed to be lacking was any diagramming of why the full site layout had the shape that it did. It was probably 150-200 feet from end to end and everything was contorted, twisted, etc. Instead they were removing things and 'analysing' them over at a remote lab. You could never do this in police forensics. I have seen other sites where they did indeed spend time with little flags, tags and markers to show what was where and how it related to the next, but here they were working with not one, but three bucket loaders and with jackhammers to extract things. Jackhammers? Really? Everything to make sure it was 'dated' in millions of years before anyone could truly think through what happened. Don't want anyone thinking this was recent and slammed, jammed, blasted, pulverized by the fingers of huge oceans of water and ice gone bezerk in a massive global flood and vertical tectonic catastrophe!

Please review my DELUGE OF SUSPICIONS at Amazon.com. Free e.copies to those who want to review to contact me with PM or get me an address at www.interplans.net.
 

6days

New member
gcthomas said:
God make Pandas without a gene to digest their main foodstuff? They*only digest 17%*of what they eat - seems like in imperfect creation to me.
*

Hmmmm how do you know what God designed their ancestors to eat? Maybe it was bamboo? But certainly a loss of genetic information has happened over the past 4500 years.*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top