Real Science Radio CRSQ (Vol 43, Num 1)

[Bob Enyart]

Morphy, now we're awaiting...

Morphy, now we're awaiting...

Morphy, now we're awaiting your undoing. ...

Please feel free to answer my reply above. Or would you like me to defend my Evolve program as a tool which effectively refutes Darwinian naturalism?

Let me know, -Bob Enyart

ps. Johnny, if you fully retract the claim you just made, I will stop quoting you in my signature. -BE

 

[Jukia]

Bob, you need to define what an increase in genetic information constitutes. Looking at any point mutation, how can we tell if the information has increased or decreased in the genome? So I ask you, if you are going to post again, please elaborate on what set of criteria I can apply to any mutation to see if the information has increased or decreased.

".

Pastor Bob, can you respond to this? Or is this another manganese nodule thread wherein you silently disappear after it seems you are simply wrong? Thanks.

 

[bob b]

It's amazing how Bob Enyart can be so bright as far as economics is concerned and how terribly wrong and UNFAIR if it is about evolution...

It is amazing to me how evolutionists can believe that a genetic disease illustrates an evolutionary process that could cause a transformation known loosely as "molecules to man".

 

[Jukia]

It is amazing to me how evolutionists can believe that a genetic disease illustrates an evolutionary process that could cause a transformation known loosely as "molecules to man".

A continuing argument from incredulity from bob b.

 

[Johnny]

ps. Johnny, if you fully retract the claim you just made, I will stop quoting you in my signature. -BE

Quote me if you like. I stand 100% by my statement.

Your failure to provide any criteria by which to identify increases or decreases in genetic information did not go unnoticed.

 

[Jukia]

"Information" is that latest buzz word of ID/creationism. Methinks most of those who use it do so only because it makes them sound intelligent. Still waiting for a response from Pastor Bob.

 

[bob b]

A continuing argument from incredulity from bob b.

Another strange human who thinks that genetic diseases are the "proof" that all life descended from a single primitive replicating molecule.

"Evolution comes in many strange [dis]guises".

 

[bob b]

"Information" is that latest buzz word of ID/creationism. Methinks most of those who use it do so only because it makes them sound intelligent. Still waiting for a response from Pastor Bob.

Most biology books which mention the human cell marvel at the amount of information it contains.

Unless one assumes that the first primitive protocell contained this same amount of information then it would appear logical that somewhere along the line, assuming macroevolution is true, that information somehow was added to the earliest genomes to accumulate to the amount that is there in today's human genomes.

But then logic is not the strong suit for many evolutionist "campfollowers".

 

[Morphy]

Wow, at least! Dear Bob,

First of all, thanks for your response, nice to talk to somebody I listen to almost everyday. My IP appears on your website on a regular basis Had I an opportunity to live in America I would call you but since I don't the Internet has to suffice...

Anyhow, to the point:

Morphy, of course you reinforce my argument that evolutionists are so desperate for examples of evolution, that they point to diseases caused by mutation as excellent examples of Darwinism, as when you wrote, “sickle cell anemia is an excellent example” of “evolution… creat[ing] new abilities.”

If you give me detailed genetic codes of all human ancestors from the first alive, primitive prehistoric cell to the human genome I won't resort to diseases. It's easy to back up evolution with genetic diseases since their inheritance, behaviour of the specific gene in general gene pool and molecular mutations are well known.

Similarly, if we were discussing car engines I would not talk about Chevy's but about European; not because Chevy produces less or more complicated, just because I would know more about European models.

Since I'm a doctor it's easy for me to discuss genetic diseases. Was I a molecular biologist I would give you different examples.

When you use common genetic terms that are nonetheless unfamiliar to most readers, they may be impressed by your detailed account of sickle cell mutation, and think that somewhere hidden in the apoptosis, uracils and codons lies a defense of your assertion that sickle cell mutation is really an information increase and a change toward improvement in the human genome.

I'm sorry if my language was too difficult for most readers, but one CANNOT talk about genetics without having at least basic knowledge of the issue. Similarly, one cannot discuss the Bible without having read it, am I right?

You're a pastor thus I don't expect you to know all the particulars of DNA, replication, coding of information and so on, but the language I use is as familiar for me as the Bible is for you. But if you talk about genetics in your shows you must know at least basics.

Sickle cell gene is an increase of information. Without it human gene pool would be smaller. Just like the Internet - there is a lot of junk stuff but it IS information wheter you appreciate it or not.

Sickle cell gene is an improvement of the human genome in malaria plagued areas. The problem with creationists is you, guys, always seek purpose. But there is really no purpose in DNA mutations. They happen all the time without any master idea; if they are not repaired and they give any advantage to the genome they stay in gene pool. If they don't - they either disappear or are very rare. Moreover, I don't know detailed statistics (probably nobody knows...), but positive mutations are extremely rare, like 1:1.000.000? Or maybe even rarer.

The sickle cell anemia gene is an improvement in Africa, where malaria is a problem. If it wasn't - it would be as uncommon as it is in Europe.

It's just like rain tires and slicks. If a road is dry and you get rain tires - it is not an improvement at all. But if the road is wet, rain tires are significant improvement. Right or wrong?

Creationists don’t deny mutations. We don’t deny genetic recombinations, insertions, deletions, transpositions, substitutions, etc. We don’t deny that when such mutations occur, they can CHANGE the phenotype (tires to crescents).

If you add that there is natural selection - then it is enough to prove there is evolution.

Obviously, it is not a proof a man evolved from a single cell, but it is suffice to prove evolution takes place.

We argue evolution requires billions of instances of genetic information INCREASE and IMPROVEMENT

Well, if a red blood cell is malaria resistant what is it if not improvement???

If there is a new gene in a gene pool what is it if not information increase???

Billions, you say. An average bacterium can multiple in 20 minutes. If you give them food, how long will that take when there is billion billion billion bacteria? A year? Or less? If there is a mathematician, please - count how much will that take.

and we crack up when evolutionists endlessly parade examples of mutation-caused disease as excellent examples of evolution. HIV uses CCR5 (Cysteine-cystenie chemokine receptor 5) as a vector, and mutation CCR5-delta32 (deletion of 32 sequential base-pairs) makes CCR5 unavailable to HIV, thus providing immunity to AIDS, etc. But the gene that codes for CCR5 seems to be redundant, so that other genes replace its function, giving another example of a breakdown with a fortuitous consequence (like the house fire which burst a water pipe which put out the fire). Scientists have documented about 10,000 disease-causing mutations, but none involving increased genetic information.

Wow, at least language I like

Let me ask my question one more time:

If there is a new gene in gene pool, what is it if not increase of genetic information, what is it?

Logic says: there can be decrease, steady state and increase. There is no other option.

If you have let's say 100 genes, and there is one more, brand new, due to spontanic mutation, has the amount of information, according to Bob Enyart:
a) increased;
b) decreased;
c) remained the same?

And it’s not true that insertions, substitutions, transpositions, etc., that break functionality are an increase in the genome, that’s something you’re just going to have to come to terms with.
[/font][/color]

Well, how about genes which cause some bacteria to be antibiotic-resistant? The genes are not responsible for any diseases yet they give an excellent, NEW ability for bacteria: they are resistant to human killing potential.

If a bacterium becomes resistant to an antibiotic and is not 'ill' (it can multiply at the same rate as others) what is it if not a new ability? What is it if not an increase of information? What is it if not an improvement?

By the way, I have carefully read a book, Not By Chance, by Dr. Lee Spetner, who has a place in the history of genetics for being the first to publish the mutation rates of various organisms. He explains with fascinating detail the mutation/disease process (what has been learned so far). The book is a tutorial on genetic processes, demonstrating that random mutations could not conceivably improve the operation of wildly complicated, complex interconnected systems.
-Bob Enyart

Why didn't you back up your arguments with dr Lee's?

 

[Morphy]

Morphy, now we're awaiting your undoing. ...

Please feel free to answer my reply above. Or would you like me to defend my Evolve program as a tool which effectively refutes Darwinian naturalism?

Let me know, -Bob Enyart

ps. Johnny, if you fully retract the claim you just made, I will stop quoting you in my signature. -BE

Sure, with pleasure, but tomorrow.

It's 0:20 AM right now and my wife just came a minute ago demanding me to go to bed, however silly it may sound

You know it is not a good idea to quarrel with a wife about such issues

Till tomorrow.
:help:

 

[bob b]

Wow, at least! Dear Bob,

First of all, thanks for your response, nice to talk to somebody I listen to almost everyday. My IP appears on your website on a regular basis Had I an opportunity to live in America I would call you but since I don't the Internet has to suffice...
Anyhow, to the point:
If you give me detailed genetic codes of all human ancestors from the first alive, primitive prehistoric cell to the human genome I won't resort to diseases. It's easy to back up evolution with genetic diseases since their inheritance, behaviour of the specific gene in general gene pool and molecular mutations are well known.
Similarly, if we were discussing car engines I would not talk about Chevy's but about European; not because Chevy produces less or more complicated, just because I would know more about European models.
Since I'm a doctor it's easy for me to discuss genetic diseases. Was I a molecular biologist I would give you different examples.
I'm sorry if my language was too difficult for most readers, but one CANNOT talk about genetics without having at least basic knowledge of the issue. Similarly, one cannot discuss the Bible without having read it, am I right?
You're a pastor thus I don't expect you to know all the particulars of DNA, replication, coding of information and so on, but the language I use is as familiar for me as the Bible is for you. But if you talk about genetics in your shows you must know at least basics.
Sickle cell gene is an increase of information. Without it human gene pool would be smaller. Just like the Internet - there is a lot of junk stuff but it IS information wheter you appreciate it or not.
Sickle cell gene is an improvement of the human genome in malaria plagued areas. The problem with creationists is you, guys, always seek purpose. But there is really no purpose in DNA mutations. They happen all the time without any master idea; if they are not repaired and they give any advantage to the genome they stay in gene pool. If they don't - they either disappear or are very rare. Moreover, I don't know detailed statistics (probably nobody knows...), but positive mutations are extremely rare, like 1:1.000.000? Or maybe even rarer.
The sickle cell anemia gene is an improvement in Africa, where malaria is a problem. If it wasn't - it would be as uncommon as it is in Europe.
It's just like rain tires and slicks. If a road is dry and you get rain tires - it is not an improvement at all. But if the road is wet, rain tires are significant improvement. Right or wrong?
If you add that there is natural selection - then it is enough to prove there is evolution.
Obviously, it is not a proof a man evolved from a single cell, but it is suffice to prove evolution takes place.
Well, if a red blood cell is malaria resistant what is it if not improvement???
If there is a new gene in a gene pool what is it if not information increase???
Billions, you say. An average bacterium can multiple in 20 minutes. If you give them food, how long will that take when there is billion billion billion bacteria? A year? Or less? If there is a mathematician, please - count how much will that take.
Wow, at least language I like
Let me ask my question one more time:
If there is a new gene in gene pool, what is it if not increase of genetic information, what is it?
Logic says: there can be decrease, steady state and increase. There is no other option.
If you have let's say 100 genes, and there is one more, brand new, due to spontanic mutation, has the amount of information, according to Bob Enyart:
a) increased;
b) decreased;
c) remained the same?
Well, how about genes which cause some bacteria to be antibiotic-resistant? The genes are not responsible for any diseases yet they give an excellent, NEW ability for bacteria: they are resistant to human killing potential.
If a bacterium becomes resistant to an antibiotic and is not 'ill' (it can multiply at the same rate as others) what is it if not a new ability? What is it if not an increase of information? What is it if not an improvement?
Why didn't you back up your arguments with dr Lee's?

If I might butt into this argument, I believe the good doctor has fallen victim to the multiple definitions of evolution.

Mere change is not the same as an increase in information.

Adding variety to a gene pool is not the same as increasing the amount of information in any single individual.

Creationists do not argue that information in a gene pool cannot change..

What they argue is that the enormous increase of information necessary to go from a hypothetical primitive protocell to a human being cannot occur via random mutations, even if all the failed trials are eliminated by natural selection.

The reasons are twofold:

1) there are way too many possible mutations for that process to work, and

2) creatures are composed of systems, each of which involves multiple proteins, with many proteins participating in multiple systems simultaneously (being in the genetic disease field I am sure you know this).

Mutations cannot accumulate in a linear fashion to achieve major transformations such as reptiles to birds or mammals. All breeders know that changes can be achieved only up to a certain point: the process cannot be extrapolated further than that.

Thus, the scenario that creatures were created in multiple forms at the beginning, and diversified within these "kinds", is superior to the concept that all creatures descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell.

Sorry about that.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Johnny: “Evolution is not about ‘an increase in information.’"

Johnny: “Evolution is not about ‘an increase in information.’"

“Bob, you need to define what an increase in genetic information constitutes.”

Johnny, why? We are debating evolution, and you have claimed “Evolution is not about ‘an increase in information.’"

So, I could take the time to explain to you the meaning of “an increase in genetic information,” but you have already decided a priori that “evolution is not about ‘an increase in information.’” That’s the bigger issue. So regardless of how perfectly you and I worked out a definition for an increase in genetic information, you have already decreed that “Evolution is not about ‘an increase in information.’" It’s a waste to refine micro matters when you’ve already lost at the macro level.

No request for definitions can save you now. Then, I gave you a chance to extricate yourself from your anti-knowledge, knee-jerk evolutionary claim, and you dug in further, saying:

Johnny: “Quote me if you like. I stand 100% by my statement.”

Well, since you’ve invited me…

Johnny: “Evolution is not about ‘an increase in information.’"
Johnny: “Evolution is not about ‘an increase in information.’"
Johnny: “Evolution is not about ‘an increase in information.’"
Johnny: “Evolution is not about ‘an increase in information.’"
Johnny: “Evolution is not about ‘an increase in information.’"

-Bob Enyart

 

[Bob Enyart]

The anti-information tendency of our TOL evolutionists

The anti-information tendency of our TOL evolutionists

Jukia, you asked me to respond to Johnny. If you would, please ask him to admit that evolution theory IS about genetic information, that it IS PRIMARILY about genetic information, and IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY about an increase in genetic information. So, if you can get Johnny to retract his claim that “Evolution is not about ‘an increase in information,’" then I’ll respond to Johnny’s further point. Otherwise, I’d just be giving him room for obfuscation, and allowing him to hide from his utterly unscientific but thoroughly understandable claim.

"Information" is that latest buzz word of ID/creationism. Methinks most of those who use it do so only because it makes them sound intelligent.

Jukia. What in the world are you saying? It’s difficult to parse. You think that someone sounds intelligent because they use the word information? You think that the concept of genetic information is somehow a recent push in creation arguments? Where have you been? In Does God Exist?, my Battle Royale VII with Zakath, the point came up that atheism leads to ignorance and an anti-knowledge preference, and we can see that evolutionists head toward the same anti-knowledge refuge. And it does follow, because knowledge is inherently not physical, and thus materialists who oppose anything non-physical end up opposing even knowledge and reason. Thus, it is the evolutionists in this thread that are seeking to minimize the role of information in our understanding of genetics and biological change.

-Bob Enyart

 

[Bob Enyart]

A quadriplegic is resistant to tennis elbow.

A quadriplegic is resistant to tennis elbow.

Morphy: “Well, if a red blood cell is malaria resistant what is it if not improvement???”

To which, I reply: Broken. Also:

A dead blood cell is malaria resistant. That’s not an improvement.
A quadriplegic is resistant to tennis elbow. Ditto.
A disease that preempts a worse disease is still a disease.

Morphy: “If you give me detailed genetic codes of all human ancestors from the first alive, primitive prehistoric cell to the human genome I won't resort to diseases. …positive mutations are extremely rare, like 1:1.000.000? Or maybe even rarer.”

Yes, I guess you could get one out of a million, considering that you morph a mutation-caused disease into something positive.

Morphy: “If you add that there is natural selection - then it is enough to prove there is evolution.”

Morf, you’re describing change, not Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution is not a synonym for the word change, it is a claim that a certain type of change has occurred, namely a change that adds genetic information to produce increasingly complex organisms. (It seems as though the evolutionists in this thread have gone senile, forgetting that Darwinism is supposedly PROVED by the evolutionary progression of SIMPLE to COMPLEX organisms).

If you had a lot of evidence for evolution, you could easily concede our point that disease is not excellent evidence for molecules-to-man evolution. But because of the absence of “excellent evidence” for evolution, you guys parade around evidence for de-evolution. News flash: Both sides believe in mutations, and that they often cause changes, including disease and death.

To provide evidence for molecules to man evolution, you’re going to have to show mutations that increase the information content of a genome, NOT evidence of disease, because that’s just too funny and easy for us creationists to explode.

And finally, you asked about drug resistance, which results from different known mechanisms including mutations, transfers, etc. I’ll describe a common mechanism, which is a mutation and a loss of information. The streptomycin antibiotic is a three-dimensional molecule that interlocks with a bacteria's ribosome (as in Mycobacterium tuberculosis), interfering with its protein synthesis and thus killing the bacteria that causes tuberculosis. If Mycobaterium has a ribosome mutation (breakage), and therefore its ribosomes are deformed and become less effective at assembling proteins (this actually happens), then the streptomycin molecule cannot attach as it did to the healthy ribosome because it's shape no longer fits into the deformed shape of the mutated ribosome. We call this a resistant strain, which it is, although at the cost of a broken ribosome which fortuitously eludes the antibiotic, harms its host, and makes all a little bit worse off for the mutation. I realize you asked for more particulars, but I suggest you read Spetner’s book. If you’d like, I’ll mail you a copy. By the way, he was with the Applied Physics Laboratory at John Hopkins University and in the Hopkins biophysics department.

And Morphy, since you invited me, I’ll post a defense for my Evolve.exe evolution refutation program. Coming soon to a thread near you!

-Bob Enyart

 

[Stratnerd]

BE,

How are you defining information (and on what level) and what would be an acceptable example of increasing genetic information?

 

[Morphy]

An allele which reproduces itself more often than another allele will find its frequency in a population increased as a function of time. Evolution.

Well, I couldn't have put it better.

But evolution is also about increasing "information" since new mutations always create new genes thus there is always a "breaktrough" what produces new "technologies" and new species.

 

[Bob Enyart]

First ask Johnny to retract: “Evolution is not about ‘an increase in information.’"

First ask Johnny to retract: “Evolution is not about ‘an increase in information.’"

Stratnerd, first ask Johhny to retract his statement that:

Johnny: “Evolution is not about ‘an increase in information.’"

And then I'll be happy to take the discussion further. Until then, perhaps you could feel free to explain it to him .

-Bob Enyart

 

[Stratnerd]

Dunno how I would define it. I don't really think of evolution in those terms.

 

[Morphy]

It is amazing to me how evolutionists can believe that a genetic disease illustrates an evolutionary process that could cause a transformation known loosely as "molecules to man".

It is amazing to me how an airplane can fly but it is obviously possible since I have experienced it many times...

If we cannot imagine something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It only proves our imagination has limits...

Obviously if molecules can create a monkey, a dolphin and Deep Blue (chess program which won against the best human player Kasparov) they can also make a man...

 

[Morphy]

Another strange human who thinks that genetic diseases are the "proof" that all life descended from a single primitive replicating molecule.

"Evolution comes in many strange [dis]guises".

Pity to say, but this is not an argument. This is an insult.

Let's focus on arguments not on personal insults like "strange human". I think we can do better than liberals, can't we?