Creation vs. Evolution

[gcthomas]

Shannon doesn't include a measure of meaning, so your accusation is unfounded. Feel free to quote me otherwise if you can.

Good - so you agree that any discussion of 'meaning' on DNA with or without mutations has to take place outside of Shannon's Noisy Channel Theorem, such as when you describe mutations as "bad" information. ("'What works' defines what is good.")

So, what works is what allows the organism to survive and reproduce and pass on the DNA. If the DNA doesn't 'work' then that new information is either removed from the gene pool or it has a low-significance effect. Since mutations can undo the damage of a previous mutation, then it is self evident that mutations can increase the organism's fitness, so unless you have the unfounded belief that DNA started perfect in a divine creation event, a significant proportion of all mutations are beneficial. They are, in your terms 'good'.

The human mutation that allowed a portion of humanity to digest cow's milk is good. The gene that causes sickle-cell anaemia protects against malaria, so that's good. The mutation that allowed the digestion of alcohol is good for those who have it. There is a recent mutation in the US Midwest, where a family have unusually high bone density, such that one member had a major road crash and no broken bones. No-one in the family had ever had a broken bone and do not suffer from age related skeletal degeneration: this low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5 mutation is good, and medicines are being developed to try to reproduce the effect. It is a shame that humans weren't created with this form of the gene to begin with. :idunno:

Are you still going to insist that all mutations are 'bad'?

 

[alwight]

Since you provided no reply, but simply repeated your claim, I let you have another chance.

First, the message isn't, technically, entirely transcribed. Part of the process includes transcription, but messages in the cell in general, and my example in particular, include transfer and transmission as well. You certainly can't reduce the process of moving information to the next generation entirely to transcription.

I have disputed with you that it is a message, and that it is simply information, so please explain to me where any purposeful transmission is going on rather than just the storage of information?

Second, transcription is still a form of transmission. So even if you want to make that distinction, your claim is still just plain wrong.

No, you are wrong imo, transmission (in this case) involves only the relaying of information from point to point in the same form, while transcription involves set changes according to the requirements of the process. You only want there to be some kind of overlap simply to enable you claim that Shannon theory must apply where actually it doesn't.

 

[Cross Reference]

Evolution doesn't say that no. It says that birds came from reptiles as you say, but certainly not from snakes.

I am happy to get that understanding. Thank you. But does it really matter?

In terms of support for transitional species, look at the legless skink (lizard) species. It's a lizard with no legs, and it slithers like a snake. We can also look at large snake species, many of which still have tiny hind legs that lack much real function anymore.

"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:"Genesis 3:14 (KJV)

Does not that verse, which speaks of a curse on the serpent, connote legs?

We can also look at dinosaurs (therapods, specifically) to see that they have the same hip structure as birds, some had feathers, and some even had hollow bones. These are all adaptations seen only in therapods and in birds. When you add in the fact that birds appear in the fossil record around the end of the dinosaurs' reign, then it seems pretty likely that therapods were the predecessors to birds

Really? Please explain why there are no fossils of dinosaurs with even a hint that feathers were ever in their makeup/life cycle up until the time they would have taken into their thinking the idea they would like to fly or even have a need to?

Perhaps you might explain what would have happened had they tried to fly without a full compliment of them due to them wearing off while still having to forage for food on the ground while waiting out the evolving gestation period?

 

[gcthomas]

I am happy to get that understanding. Thank you. But does it really matter?



"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:"Genesis 3:14 (KJV)

Does not that verse, which speaks of a curse on the serpent, connote legs?



Really? Please explain why there are no fossils of dinosaurs with even a hint that feathers were ever in their makeup/life cycle up until the time they would have taken into their thinking the idea they would like to fly or even have a need to?

Perhaps you might explain what would have happened had they tried to fly without a full compliment of them due to them wearing off while still having to forage for food on the ground while waiting out the evolving gestation period?

Do you imagine the only function of feathers is flight?

 

[Caino]

How did it feel after you got baptized in water? I was baptized with the Holy Ghost twice before I was baptized finally with full immersion in water. Water just made me feel more complete and closer to God!



Praise His Holy Name!!!

Michael

I was spirit born in 85'

 

[CabinetMaker]

As the atheists point out.... people who compromise in Genesis are inconsistent. If you interpret the Bible "in light of what we have learned", you are placing your own "wisdom" above God's. Its a form of idol worship.
*Have you learned that virgins give birth?
*Have you learned that someone in the grave can rise from the dead?
*Have you learned God can speak His creation into existence in six days?
*Have you learned that God can be trusted in all matters?

I believe in miracles. I don't believe in a literal 6 days of creation. That does not mean that I don't believe in a virgin birth, or that Jesus resurrected Lazarus or that I don't trust God. I believe God created all.

 

[Greg Jennings]

I am happy to get that understanding. Thank you. But does it really matter?

Quite a bit actually

"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:"Genesis 3:14 (KJV)

Does not that verse, which speaks of a curse on the serpent, connote legs?

I guess I don't recall the verse where God leaves tiny useless legs on some of the snakes.

Really? Please explain why there are no fossils of dinosaurs with even a hint that feathers were ever in their makeup/life cycle up until the time they would have taken into their thinking the idea they would like to fly or even have a need to?

Perhaps you might explain what would have happened had they tried to fly without a full compliment of them due to them wearing off while still having to forage for food on the ground while waiting out the evolving gestation period?

Ok, so there ARE tons of different dino fossils with feather imprints. We know for a fact that some had feathers.

You seem to be under the impression that feathers are for flight. That's not really so. A) you don't need feathers to fly, and B) flight is a secondary adaptation for feathers.

The kind of feathers that we see in dinosaur fossils are mostly for warmth and perhaps display. We don't know what color they were, but we know exactly what they looked like shape-wise. The feathers are so fine that they look more like hair than feathers

 

[MichaelCadry]

[QUOTE=patrick jane;4660431Dear patrick jane,

I don't remember saying 'Have a blessed Easter - hunt for eggs. What happened??
Something is wrong here. Hopefully this will fix it.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael, your knowledge of geophysics is on a par with your demonstrated (in)ability to prophesy – dead zero. Memorize the red triangles on the following chart.

​

And you clearly need to learn too.

Dear DavisBJ,

I just did learn what you pointed out and what I was told previously. That there are more volcanoes in the continental U.S. than just Mount St. Helens. I never said "I know everything."

Michael

 

[Yorzhik]

You and 6days have this penchant for often telling us what “science says”, yet the premier science institutions in the world almost universally disagree with your claims.

An appeal to authority. It's a logic fallacy.

 

[Yorzhik]

So, what works is what allows the organism to survive and reproduce and pass on the DNA. If the DNA doesn't 'work' then that new information is either removed from the gene pool or it has a low-significance effect.

And all you have to do is provide evidence that the new information works. So far, you have provided none.

Since mutations can undo the damage of a previous mutation, then it is self evident that mutations can increase the organism's fitness,

Sure. Show us the examples of this and you can include them as evidence for your side.

so unless you have the unfounded belief that DNA started perfect in a divine creation event, a significant proportion of all mutations are beneficial. They are, in your terms 'good'.

A significant portion? That's quite a claim. You'll have to provide evidence for that claim.

The human mutation that allowed a portion of humanity to digest cow's milk is good. The gene that causes sickle-cell anaemia protects against malaria, so that's good. The mutation that allowed the digestion of alcohol is good for those who have it. There is a recent mutation in the US Midwest, where a family have unusually high bone density, such that one member had a major road crash and no broken bones. No-one in the family had ever had a broken bone and do not suffer from age related skeletal degeneration: this low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5 mutation is good, and medicines are being developed to try to reproduce the effect. It is a shame that humans weren't created with this form of the gene to begin with. :idunno:

Great. For the sake of argument these are all mutations you can count for your side of the argument (except the sickle-cell anemia one). Now we can stack them up against that all the mutations that aren't good, but still exist in the human population.

Are you still going to insist that all mutations are 'bad'?

You act as if a single beneficial mutation means Shannon doesn't apply to messages in the cell. You are mistaken, Shannon applies to all messages that are transmitted (or transcribed even).

 

[Yorzhik]

I have disputed with you that it is a message, and that it is simply information, so please explain to me where any purposeful transmission is going on rather than just the storage of information?

Seriously? You are going to claim that DNA is only stored and never transmitted?

No, you are wrong imo, transmission (in this case) involves only the relaying of information from point to point in the same form, while transcription involves set changes according to the requirements of the process. You only want there to be some kind of overlap simply to enable you claim that Shannon theory must apply where actually it doesn't.

Shannon doesn't dictate anything about the form a message is transmitted in as to whether that defines if it is a message or not. Transcription is a form of transmission.

But go right ahead and grab your copy of The Mathematical Theory of Communication and show me otherwise.

 

[DavisBJ]

Hiding under logical fallacies

Hiding under logical fallacies

An appeal to authority. It's a logic fallacy.

I make no qualms about trusting in the qualifications and conclusions of the vast majority of scientists in their rejection of creationism. Call it “consensus”, call it “appeal to authority”, or whatever term you want to hide behind to deflect from addressing the issue that what you euphemistically call “science” is in reality a quirky fringe belief held by a small group of religiously motivated fanatics.

Do you agree with what 6days told us recently, in bold glaring text:

…young-earth creationists are consistent, for they embrace supernatural causation across the board.

You know what “supernatural” means? It means outside of what science deals with.

And as I already said in prior posts, “consensus” is poison to you. You know creationists have long since lost the battle in academia and in the scientific workplace, and of the large number of peer-reviewed scientific studies that are published annually, your side is almost barren of representation. The epitome of success for many creationists like you is sadly limited to occasionally scoring a debate point in obscure forums like this one.

A month or so ago you asked what my field of expertise was. Since my saying I am well qualified in some discipline could also be perceived as an appeal to authority, why did you ask?

 

[6days]

I believe in miracles. I don't believe in a literal 6 days of creation. That does not mean that I don't believe in a virgin birth, or that Jesus resurrected Lazarus or that I don't trust God. I believe God created all.

How do you choose when to believe God, and when not?
Why believe in the virgin birth when 'science' suggests its not possible?
Why believe thorns and pain are a consequence of mans sin, when 'science' suggests thorns and pain existed millions of years before Adam entered the scene.
Why do you believe God created, when 'science' suggests we are the result of billions of years of random processes that include suffering, pain, birth defects, extinctions etc?

Atheists see how inconsistent your beliefs are. Christianity is not like a buffet table where you and choose what to believe from God's Word. The very purpose of Christ's death and resurrection rest upon a literal first man..... a literal first sin..... and the curse that separates us from a Holy God.

 

[CabinetMaker]

How do you choose when to believe God, and when not?
Why believe in the virgin birth when 'science' suggests its not possible?
Why believe thorns and pain are a consequence of mans sin, when 'science' suggests thorns and pain existed millions of years before Adam entered the scene.
Why do you believe God created, when 'science' suggests we are the result of billions of years of random processes that include suffering, pain, birth defects, extinctions etc?

Atheists see how inconsistent your beliefs are. Christianity is not like a buffet table where you and choose what to believe from God's Word. The very purpose of Christ's death and resurrection rest upon a literal first man..... a literal first sin..... and the curse that separates us from a Holy God.

I ALWAYS believe God. Which means I believe what is observed about His creation and how it works. I see no inconsistency in me faith in God because my faith is from God. My faith is not based in rationalization, which really sets off the atheists. I'm, frankly, not overly concerned about my faith. They are not my judge.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear DavisBJ,

I just did learn what you pointed out and what I was told previously. That there are more volcanoes in the continental U.S. than just Mount St. Helens. I never said "I know everything."

Michael

Dear DavisBJ,

I sense that you are hoping that I am perfect. Yes, Mount St. Helens was erupting at the time that I received the word about it. Is this what you're wanting to rub in someone's face? How many 'active' ones? As if it mattered. We are Christians. That doesn't mean we don't make mistakes. Do you expect someone who knows everything? Wow, are you in for a bigger surprise! I'm not Jesus and never said that I was! Quit treating me like I don't make errors. I am a Witness of what I saw and heard from the Lord and His angels. That is my prophecy. That is what I am concerned with here. If you don't choose to accept it, fine. Moses and Jonah made mistakes also. All of the prophets did not claim to 'know everything,' despite the prophecies they had. And neither do I.

But I do know that, where the carcasses are, there also shall be the vultures.

Praise God And Jesus!!

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

An appeal to authority. It's a logic fallacy.

No, it's not a logical fallacy. The argument was of the form:
X holds that A is true.
X is an authority on the subject.
The consensus of authorities agrees with X.
There is a presumption that A is true.

Where is the fallacy, unless the argument was used to prove the truth of a proposition? (Which it wasn't.)

And all you have to do is provide evidence that the new information works. So far, you have provided none.

Sure. Show us the examples of this and you can include them as evidence for your side.

so unless you have the unfounded belief that DNA started perfect in a divine creation event, a significant proportion of all mutations are beneficial. They are, in your terms 'good'.

A significant portion? That's quite a claim. You'll have to provide evidence for that claim.

Great. For the sake of argument these are all mutations you can count for your side of the argument (except the sickle-cell anemia one). Now we can stack them up against that all the mutations that aren't good, but still exist in the human population.

So, you have agreed that mutations (noise in your terms) can add information. That some mutations can provide novel and useful traits. It is clear that a diploid organism can tolerate a lot of harmful recessive mutations, since these don't often get expressed. What other objections can you think of now all these have been answered in my favour?

You act as if a single beneficial mutation means Shannon doesn't apply to messages in the cell. You are mistaken, Shannon applies to all messages that are transmitted (or transcribed even).

No. Shannon Theory describes messages that external actors desire to be transmitted without change. It involves encoding, transmission, decoding and reading by the receiver. Your explanations is missing several parts of the sequence. And even if you still wish to apply it, since it is clear that noise adds information, and this new information is often interesting. You clearly haven't ever used Shannon's theory for actual technical purposes, but I'd suggest you read a technical document, rather than a YEC apologist blog.

Seriously? You are going to claim that DNA is only stored and never transmitted?


Shannon doesn't dictate anything about the form a message is transmitted in as to whether that defines if it is a message or not. Transcription is a form of transmission.

But go right ahead and grab your copy of The Mathematical Theory of Communication and show me otherwise.

Transmission is only one of at least five stages in the communications theory of Shannon. Where are the other four?

 

[Lon]

In thread commentary, nothing really to debate or refute here, just perspective as I see it:

So, you have agreed that mutations (noise in your terms) can add information. That some mutations can provide novel and useful traits. It is clear that a diploid organism can tolerate a lot of harmful recessive mutations, since these don't often get expressed. What other objections can you think of now all these have been answered in my favour?

The quotes are getting a bit messed up, but I think this was yours. I'm not sure this kind of discussion has to be against a biblical worldview. We are simply using scripture to try and figure out what is happening as a reference point. For this particular, we can ask if 1) we reap what we sow, that is, if there are genetic consequences to our choices too, and I think that has to be a given. 2) How this might jive with perfection before sin enters the world and a result after. Science doesn't really pay attention to stuff like that but a Christian, who is a scientist, would. He'd be asking about chicken/egg sorts of questions. A scientist without a bible background will be asking similar questions but he isn't going to use scripture as a sounding board to understand his/her universe. In this instance of discussion, I wonder what a mutation is. If Christ is holding the universe together such as given in Colossians 1:16-18, then perhaps beneficial mutation is seen as grace in sustaining a universe where we too are players and making life-altering decisions. You may not appreciate such but I'm trying to say that a science observation doesn't need to be contested. Rather, we mostly contest/question scientific conclusions, especially as/when they do not seem to jive with biblical revelation. If a scientist sees religion as an enemy for that, such isn't even good science, but bias, which rarely serves a good or unifying purpose.

No. Shannon Theory describes messages that external actors desire to be transmitted without change. It involves encoding, transmission, decoding and reading by the receiver. Your explanations is missing several parts of the sequence. And even if you still wish to apply it, since it is clear that noise adds information, and this new information is often interesting. You clearly haven't ever used Shannon's theory for actual technical purposes, but I'd suggest you read a technical document, rather than a YEC apologist blog.

As I'm reading up on this, it seems to me that sickle cell anemia is NOT beneficial, whether it guards against Malaria or not. That's a bit like saying Cancer cures heart disease. From a creationist perspective, it doesn't 'look' as random as 'natural selection' would allow. A couple of the articles were trying to figure out why creations might be against Shannon's theory. One of the points would be the problem of random undirected happenstance that is the descriptive language fault of secular science (evolution, 'natural' selection, accidental happenstance etc.). Such a debate doesn't undo lab results or Bible verses.

Transmission is only one of at least five stages in the communications theory of Shannon. Where are the other four?

Interestingly there is a mathematics theory by the same name but about mathematical information and computers. The other is by a biologist. Are these two related or just share a last name? What's the connection?

 

[gcthomas]

In thread commentary, nothing really to debate or refute here, just perspective as I see it:

The quotes are getting a bit messed up, but I think this was yours.

Thanks - I've tidied up the quote tags. I agree with most of what you write - I live and work with Christians, and none have the conflict with science that I see with some on ToL. There should be no reason - if Scripture is true, then science and Scripture should be approaching the same truth, and we can all learn from the science.

As I'm reading up on this, it seems to me that sickle cell anemia is NOT beneficial, whether it guards against Malaria or not. That's a bit like saying Cancer cures heart disease.

I see your point. Sickle Cell Anaemia is an unmitigated harm, but it is recessive, and the allele that causes the disease when a person carries two copies of it will cause malaria resistance when there is only one copy. Millions die of malaria, and many more are ill for life. So, in the balance of things, the presence of the allele provides more good for a population than is does harm. Of course, if malaria was better controlled, the balance of harm and good would be different, so the benefit is dependent of the precise environment the carrier finds himself.

 

[Lon]

Thanks - I've tidied up the quote tags. I agree with most of what you write - I live and work with Christians, and none have the conflict with science that I see with some on ToL. There should be no reason - if Scripture is true, then science and Scripture should be approaching the same truth, and we can all learn from the science.

Mutual here.

I see your point. Sickle Cell Anaemia is an unmitigated harm, but it is recessive, and the allele that causes the disease when a person carries two copies of it will cause malaria resistance when there is only one copy. Millions die of malaria, and many more are ill for life. So, in the balance of things, the presence of the allele provides more good for a population than is does harm. Of course, if malaria was better controlled, the balance of harm and good would be different, so the benefit is dependent of the precise environment the carrier finds himself.

Here is a thought though, could such be intelligently used by scientists/doctors to find ways to thwart Malaria though? I'm sure that must be where you are headed. I think the big picture is that we are all on board for serving humanity. Perhaps a few concessions would produce a few more scientists becoming Christians. I am a YEC (at least mainly lean that way) but think that sometimes the message and importance gets lost in the disagreeing details. Our faith must be understood as authoritative but I didn't have a lot of trouble in most of my science classes. Phalanges are phalanges afterall.