Creation vs. Evolution

[DFT_Dave]

No, I am pretty sure you are confusing these issues. One can be a scientist, accept evolution, creationist or any other label and not actually understand that which they accept or oppose. Because their area of expertise in an other field. Creationist scientists are (in every case I have researched) incapable of understanding biodiversity through evolution. This is why they are not considered "scientists" in regard to this area of biology.

Just how many times are you going to repeat your biased opinion?

Creationists understand what evolution is, we just agree with Gould, "it's never been seen in the rocks".

We disagree with Gould that PE answers the problem. PE is a theory that attempts to explain why there is no fossil evidence for gradualism by saying evolution is a "fast gradualism" that leaves no evidence, another oxymoron for morons.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I'm not sure that creationists actually need peer review Dave, even if they know what it is. Adherence to a literal Genesis is all they seem to worry about whatever science and evidence may say.

The prediction of evolution is not found in the fossil record.

The prediction of creation is found in the fossil record, stasis and sudden appearance.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Creation science is an oxymoron.

"Creation science is an oxymoron", is a fallacy and a bias, and not even an oxymoron.

--Dave

 

[Jukia]

"Creation science is an oxymoron", is a fallacy and a bias, and not even an oxymoron.

--Dave

Yeah,creation science is just ignorant is a better description.

 

[alwight]

The prediction of evolution is not found in the fossil record.

That's what you think anyway.

The prediction of creation is found in the fossil record, stasis and sudden appearance.

--Dave

The big bang may have been about as sudden as it gets, but complex creatures and plants all need rather more time.
"Sudden" in terms of geology and fossils isn't what you so want it to mean. In terms of human life spans that kind of "sudden" is still way too slow to be observed.

 

[gcthomas]

Creationists understand what evolution is, we just agree with Gould, "it's never been seen in the rocks".

I would love to see you supply a source for this blatant lie. Do you need to be so dishonest? Can't you support your argument without fibbing?

Gould NEVER SAID that evolution has never been seen in the rocks.

You are a liar, or an uneducated idiot. Which is it, Dave?

:think:

I'm guessing both.

 

[gcthomas]

"Creation science is an oxymoron", is a fallacy and a bias, and not even an oxymoron.

--Dave

You love to quote mine (read 'lie about') Gould, so quote mine this!

As a term, CREATION SCIENCE is an oxymoron - a self-contradictory and meaningless phrase - a whitewash for a specific, particular, and minority religious view in America, biblical literalism.​

from 'Creation Science is an Oxymoron', Gould

 

[Yorzhik]

Neither did your quote do anything to show it does. Just because you think they are the same does not mean everyone else has to. Need I repeat myself in saying "It doesn't mean you can substitute mutation load and entropy where ever you find it whenever you want to" - that means that when you see I or any scientist saying "mutational load" you can't just substitute in "entropy" just because they didn't pre-emptively post a treatise against your stupid assumptions each time.

You are a liar plain and simple and have been caught using pathetic quote mining. You're not even smart about it, most quote miners aren't dumb enough to quote mine someone who can reply to them.

Well then, the entire topic hinges on whether mutational load is a result of entropy or not.

I think it is. Therefore, I did not lie. A lie would have been if I knew they were not but claimed your quote said they did.

But now that the technical definition of what a lie is has been explained to you, let's find out if mutational load really is a natural state of entropy. I submit it is, and we can start with this video that simple talks about what entropy is.

Because of what entropy is, as energy is transferred to create the next generation, the molecules will tend toward disorder. Your quote says as much. However, you come along and then claim that Natural Selection can weed out the mutational load. Here is your quote again:

That mutational load exists is not in dispute. Even these guys admit it. But what they do, and what I think you are doing, is saying that the load can be overcome by selection. Well of course that's what we're doing. I thought I'd been obvious on that. If that weren't what we we're doing wouldn't this be an agreement that deleterious mutations occur?

So the obvious next question would be, since you agree that mutations occur from one generation to the next, is what causes those mutations fundamentally? If it mutations aren't a state of entropy, then what is it?

 

[gcthomas]

Yorzhik, Shannon's theory says that, up to a specific channel capacity, discrete data can be transmitted with effectively 100% confidence and fidelity, so the Laws of Thermodynamics don't directly apply to communication.

Do you agree with Shannon's information theory that you keep referring to?

 

[doloresistere]

Mutations are generally copying errors. There is still the same length of dna as before. The amount of order in the cell is the same as before the mutation and therefore no increase in entropy.

 

[noguru]

The prediction of evolution is not found in the fossil record.

The prediction of creation is found in the fossil record, stasis and sudden appearance.

--Dave

You are a blatant liar, a fraud and a false prophet. I am certain God does not need you to lie on His behave. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but you are too oblivious to even know you are doing wrong.

In short, you are the scum of the earth. I sure hope you do/did not procreate.

 

[gcthomas]

yorzhik doesn't get that information theory doesn't heed the usefulness of the information.

 

[Yorzhik]

Entropy is a thermodynamic state variable, not a process, so entropy is a result, not a cause of anything.

Yes, I'd agree that since entropy is hard to define that Common Descentists love to use the word since it muddies the waters.

But in common parlance entropy is why ice will melt in a cup of water. Even though entropy is really the measure of the changed states of the glass over time, we say entropy is why the ice melts. Sure, that isn't technically accurate. But if you have a better word to use, then please do tell. Go ahead, substitute a single word in place of where "entropy" is normally used: Ice melts in a glass of water because of ______. Don't like that one? Try this one: A frying pan cools when it's taken off the stove because of ______. Now, you might want to put "the second law of thermodynamics" in that spot, but even Prof. Lambert says, "Because entropy is an index of the second law's predictions about energy, the short word entropy is often used interchangeably for the cumbersome phrase, "the second law of thermodynamics"." So feel free to do that if you like. Would you like to do that?

I can, with 100% accuracy predict that GCT will not provide us with a better word to use because of 2 things. The first is what I already pointed out; that CDists never like things to be clear. The second is that there is not better term.

 

[Yorzhik]

Yorzhik, Shannon's theory says that, up to a specific channel capacity, discrete data can be transmitted with effectively 100% confidence and fidelity, so the Laws of Thermodynamics don't directly apply to communication.

Do you agree with Shannon's information theory that you keep referring to?

Oh, but they do. Sure, the SLoT says that mutations will happen, but the result is a loss of information. So both Shannon's theory AND the SLoT combined give us the certainty that all mutations enter at the transmission phase of information passing from one generation to the next.

Would you deny that? Are you saying that mutations don't happen, or if they do happen that they aren't entering at the transmission phase? Which is it?

 

[Yorzhik]

Mutations are generally copying errors. There is still the same length of dna as before. The amount of order in the cell is the same as before the mutation and therefore no increase in entropy.

Entropy in communication is different from entropy in physics despite the video I posted earlier saying otherwise. So which are you talking about?

And here is another related question: do you deny that mutational load exists?

 

[doloresistere]

I don't know what mutational load is.

 

[noguru]

I don't know what mutational load is.

Here is a paper that might shed some light on it for you.

Geneticists and Drs involved with research into human genetic disorders/diseases have some concerns of a buildup where natural selection no longer serves the purpose for selection pressure.

 

[DFT_Dave]

I would love to see you supply a source for this blatant lie. Do you need to be so dishonest? Can't you support your argument without fibbing?

Gould NEVER SAID that evolution has never been seen in the rocks.

You are a liar, or an uneducated idiot. Which is it, Dave?

:think:

I'm guessing both.

"In biology, saltation (from Latin, saltus, "leap") is a sudden change from one generation to the next, that is large, or very large, in comparison with the usual variation of an organism. The term is used for nongradual changes (especially single-step speciation) that are atypical of, or violate gradualism - involved in modern evolutionary theory...Saltation was originally denied by the 'modern synthesis' school of neo-Darwinism which favoured gradual evolution--Wiki"

Evolution is gradualism. By saying "gradualism...was not seen in the rocks", Gould, by definition, was saying evolution is not seen in the rocks.

Slow gradualism has been replace with unverifiable fast gradualism, to fast to be seen in the rocks, with periods of long "no evolution" that is seen in the rocks--stasis.

The Quote Mine Project

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]​

I have fairly represented here what Gould wrote.

Just how much reading of Gould's articles and books do I, or anyone else, have to read until we are exonerated from the charge of quote mining? I think we are quote miners only because we are creationists. I have never called any evolutionist a quote miner who quoted the Bible. No one has to have read the whole Bible before they can quote accurately anything from Genesis.

Gould and Eldredge reject Darwinian slow gradualism that is not seen in the rocks for rapid gradualism that is not seen in the rocks either. "Rapid gradualism", that's an oxymoron.

--Dave

 

[noguru]

"In biology, saltation (from Latin, saltus, "leap") is a sudden change from one generation to the next, that is large, or very large, in comparison with the usual variation of an organism. The term is used for nongradual changes (especially single-step speciation) that are atypical of, or violate gradualism - involved in modern evolutionary theory...Saltation was originally denied by the 'modern synthesis' school of neo-Darwinism which favoured gradual evolution--Wiki"

Evolution is gradualism. By saying "gradualism...was not seen in the rocks", Gould, by definition, was saying evolution is not seen in the rocks.

Slow gradualism has been replace with unverifiable fast gradualism, to fast to be seen in the rocks, with periods of long "no evolution" that is seen in the rocks--stasis.

The Quote Mine Project

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]​

I have fairly represented here what Gould wrote.

Just how much reading of Gould's articles and books do I, or anyone else, have to read until we are exonerated from the charge of quote mining? I think we are quote miners only because we are creationists. I have never called any evolutionist a quote miner who quoted the Bible. No one has to have read the whole Bible before they can quote accurately anything from Genesis.

--Dave

That's because the Bible is a book that requires more of an interpretation based on evidence newly discovered. As St. Augustine has pointed out, if the evidence does not match our interpretation of the Bible, then perhaps our interpretation is faulty.

You have willfully misrepresented what Gould has said. And even when corrected you continue to repeat the error. This is does not bolster anyone's confidence level in your level of awareness and/or honesty. In short, you make it abundantly clear that you are not to be trusted.

 

[noguru]

Gould and Eldredge reject Darwinian slow gradualism that is not seen in the rocks for rapid gradualism that is not seen in the rocks either. "Rapid gradualism", that's an oxymoron.

--Dave

:rotfl:

What is the cutoff for you between rapid and gradual, 100 years, 1k years, 10k years...?

What do you think that cutoff is for Gould and Eldredge?