The Privileged Planet

[Jose Fly]

Jose- you say genetic information can increase. How? Can you explain or reference a document? Do you think such information can also degrade?

Before we do that, you need to tell me what you think "genetic information" is, and how to measure it.

 

[Right Divider]

You didn't answer the question. Why do courts call expert witnesses to testify on scientific matters, rather than random people off the street?

Because their expertise is valuable. Unless, of course, their bias interferes with their judgment.

And you're back to saying that asking you to define your terms is a "red herring".

You asked me to equate single common ancestor with "single kind". How can I do that when you refuse to say what a "kind" is?

This is your brain-block. Your "theory" is that all life is descended from a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR. So get over your obsession with 'kind' and PROVE that all life came from this SCA.

Why not? Did you even read the paper?

No, I did not. Maybe I will later, but my point still stands that similarities do NOT IPSO FACTO mean that ALL LIFE has descended from a SCA.

It constantly amazes me how when your own behavior is reflected back at you, you are completely oblivious to it.

You too.

How do you know? You can't even say what you've studied in evolutionary biology, so how in the world can you say anything at all about it?

You are just too clueless to YOUR OWN bias here. Just because the life that WE CAN CURRENTLY observe branches into smaller groups does NOT mean that this can be extrapolated BACK to a SCA. It is just as valid to consider that there were numerous original creatures and NOT JUST ONE.

What do you mean "smaller groups"?

Poor choice of wording on my part when trying to communicate with someone like you. I should have said "less diverse" groups, as their variability is reduced due to the loss of the ability to breed amongst a larger gene pool.

I agree. If that's all there was to universal common ancestry, it would indeed be a mere assumption. Fortunately, that's not the case.

Feel free to show us your UNEQUIVOCAL evidence that common decent from a single ancestor is the ONLY possible outcome based on the data that we have in the present.

You mean you don't know?

I know what most atheistic ToE'ers said, but you seem to have some strange version of your own.

What have you studied?

Lots of stuff.

Why not?

Because fossilization is a sporadic phenomenon and it not a crystal clear road-map into the past.

I don't have a "scientific explanation of all things". If anyone did, science would be finished. Why in the world would you think that's the case?

You claim to KNOW that ALL LIFE is descended from SCA. That is a very bold claim that you cannot back up with "science".

As are "kinds" and "genetic information".

You are not going to worm out of any of this by attempting this silly little "road block".

 

[Jose Fly]

Because their expertise is valuable.

Valuable for what?

No, I did not.

So let's see....you make all sorts of claims about what the data does and doesn't indicate, and demand that people provide you the data that supports their conclusions. But when someone actually provides you with some data, you don't even bother to look at it, yet declare it to be not supportive of their conclusion.

And now you're demanding more data?

This is why creationists are a laughingstock.

Just because the life that WE CAN CURRENTLY observe branches into smaller groups does NOT mean that this can be extrapolated BACK to a SCA.

I agree.

I should have said "less diverse" groups, as their variability is reduced due to the loss of the ability to breed amongst a larger gene pool.

Not always. For example, in speciation events via polyploidy, the newly evolved population has more genetic diversity than the parent population.

Feel free to show us your UNEQUIVOCAL evidence that common decent from a single ancestor is the ONLY possible outcome based on the data that we have in the present.

So the guy who earlier dismissed data without even bothering to look at it, is now demanding more data. Hmmm.....

Lots of stuff.

Such as?

Because fossilization is a sporadic phenomenon and it not a crystal clear road-map into the past.

I know fundamentalists are prone to black/white thinking, but you do realize there's an enormous gray area between "a perfect record" and "nothing at all", don't you?

You claim to KNOW that ALL LIFE is descended from SCA. That is a very bold claim that you cannot back up with "science".

That's hardly surprising coming from someone who reaches conclusions about data that he's never even looked at.

 

[exminister]

Before we do that, you need to tell me what you think "genetic information" is, and how to measure it.

A gene is a section of DNA that carries the code for a particular protein. Different genes control the development of different characteristics of an organism. Many genes are needed to carry all the genetic information for a whole organism.

I don't understand what you mean about measuring it?

So what does it mean to increase information or information degrades?

 

[Right Divider]

I read your amazing article and was impressed with all of the assumptions, inferences and circular reasoning!

Here is one of my favorites:

Phylogenomics
Phylogenomics is a methodology for annotating the specific molecular function of a protein using the evolutionary history of that protein as captured by a phylogenetic tree [17].

"as captured by a phylogenetic tree"

From the informative Wikipedia (highlighting by me for emphasis):

A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a branching diagram or "tree" showing the inferred evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other entities—their phylogeny—based upon similarities and differences in their physical or genetic characteristics. The taxa joined together in the tree are implied to have descended from a common ancestor.
In a rooted phylogenetic tree, each node with descendants represents the inferred most recent common ancestor of the descendants, and the edge lengths in some trees may be interpreted as time estimates. Each node is called a taxonomic unit. Internal nodes are generally called hypothetical taxonomic units, as they cannot be directly observed. Trees are useful in fields of biology such as bioinformatics, systematics, and comparative phylogenetics.

So they found a way to get the data to match their assumptions.

Well done!

 

[6days]

So they found a way to get the data to match their assumptions.

Well done!

Yep.... interpreting to fit the belief system.

 

[Interplanner]

More re mutations and how they dead end:

http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/Mutations_and_Darwinism.html

Here's the summary description of the presentation:

Description:

Covers the fact that evolution is true but going the wrong way. The problem with evolution has never been the survival of the fittest, but the arrival of the fittest, and this is still the most serious problem today with Darwinism. The fact is, we are descending genetically as the scriptures teach, not ascending upward biologically, as evolution incorrectly teaches. A major theory of the source of phenotype variations for natural selection to select from is macro-mutations. The empirical evidence, however, is clear—neither macro-mutations nor micro-mutations can provide a significant source of new genetic information:

The fact is Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or tissues. What mutations eventually lead to is sickness and death because the vast majority of mutations, over 99.99%, are near neutral or harmful. In each new generation of humans an estimated 100 to 200 new mutations are added to the human gene line. Thus 100 to 200 new mutations are added to the offspring compared to the parents. Both creationists and Intelligent Design advocates conclude that the only plausible source of genetic information is intelligence. Intelligent Design only postulates an intelligent source, and creationists conclude the source is an Intelligent Creator we call God.

 

[Jose Fly]

I read your amazing article

First, thanks for at least reading it. That alone is pretty rare among creationists.

So they found a way to get the data to match their assumptions.

No, you misunderstood.

The scientists developed a statistical model based on phylogeny (the relative evolutionary relationships between different organisms such as humans, flies, worms, etc.). Then, they input genetic sequences from all sorts of organisms into that model, with the hope that it would correctly identify what those sequences did (the output). So, there were basically a few possible outcomes.

If their phylogenetic model was completely inaccurate, it wouldn't have identified genetic function any better than if they had just guessed out of pure chance.

If their phylogenetic model was accurate in some areas and inaccurate in others, it would have correctly identified genetic function about half the time, and been wrong about half the time.

If their phylogenetic model was basically accurate, it would have correctly identified genetic function almost all the time.

So as you can see, if you want to look at the inferred evolutionary relationships (the phylogenetic model) as an assumption, then the whole point of the paper was to test that assumption. If the output was gibberish, the assumption was wrong. If the output was accurate identification of genetic function, the assumption was correct.

And since you read the paper, you know that the output was the correct identification of genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy. That can only mean one thing....their assumption/phylogentic model was at least 96% accurate. There's no other explanation for the results.

That's why this paper is such powerful evidence for the evolutionary common ancestry of all those organisms that were in the phylogeny. Does that make sense?

 

[Jose Fly]

A gene is a section of DNA that carries the code for a particular protein. Different genes control the development of different characteristics of an organism. Many genes are needed to carry all the genetic information for a whole organism.

FYI, I'm a biologist, so there's no need to explain basic genetics to me.

I don't understand what you mean about measuring it?

So what does it mean to increase information or information degrades?

If someone is going to make claims about "genetic information" then they need to define "genetic information". That's just common sense. And if they're going to make quantitative claims about "genetic information" (e.g., whether it increases or decreases), they need to provide a means of measuring it. Understand?

 

[Jose Fly]

The fact is, we are descending genetically as the scriptures teach, not ascending upward biologically, as evolution incorrectly teaches.

Straw man. Evolution is not about "ascending upward". Your source is about 160 years behind the times.

The empirical evidence, however, is clear—neither macro-mutations nor micro-mutations can provide a significant source of new genetic information

And what is "genetic information"?

The fact is Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species

Yes it does. Speciation has been directly observed, many times. Your source is either lying to you, or is completely incompetent.

Intelligent Design only postulates an intelligent source

ID creationism is dead...has been for a long time now. All it ever was, was a legal strategy to circumvent court rulings against teaching creationism in public schools, and the Dover ruling put an end to that.

 

[Right Divider]

First, thanks for at least reading it. That alone is pretty rare among creationists.

No problem.

No, you misunderstood.

The scientists developed a statistical model based on phylogeny (the relative evolutionary relationships between different organisms such as humans, flies, worms, etc.). Then, they input genetic sequences from all sorts of organisms into that model, with the hope that it would correctly identify what those sequences did (the output). So, there were basically a few possible outcomes.

If their phylogenetic model was completely inaccurate, it wouldn't have identified genetic function any better than if they had just guessed out of pure chance.

If their phylogenetic model was accurate in some areas and inaccurate in others, it would have correctly identified genetic function about half the time, and been wrong about half the time.

If their phylogenetic model was basically accurate, it would have correctly identified genetic function almost all the time.

So as you can see, if you want to look at the inferred evolutionary relationships (the phylogenetic model) as an assumption, then the whole point of the paper was to test that assumption. If the output was gibberish, the assumption was wrong. If the output was accurate identification of genetic function, the assumption was correct.

And since you read the paper, you know that the output was the correct identification of genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy. That can only mean one thing....their assumption/phylogentic model was at least 96% accurate. There's no other explanation for the results.

That's why this paper is such powerful evidence for the evolutionary common ancestry of all those organisms that were in the phylogeny. Does that make sense?

So their statistical model is based on the ASSUMED relative evolutionary relationships.....

So how is this a scientific method again?

How is this NOT circular reasoning?

The model is based on an assumption and when the data is passed through this model, it verifies the assumption. Nothing to it.

 

[Jose Fly]

So their statistical model is based on the ASSUMED relative evolutionary relationships.....

No, the phylogeny wasn't merely "assumed". Phylogenies have been around for over a century and are based on diverse data, e.g., comparative anatomy, biogeography, the fossil record, comparative genetics. The point of this paper was to demonstrate the superiority of their phylogenetic model over others, by showing how it correctly identified genetic function at a much higher rate (96%).

So how is this a scientific method again?

They had a hypothesis (our phylogenetic model more accurately reflects evolutionary relationships than others).

They tested this hypothesis by inputing genetic sequences from very diverse organisms into the model.

Had the output been no better than chance (usually less than 25%), they would have concluded that the model was not an accurate representation of evolutionary relationships.

Had the output been better than chance, but worse than the other models, they would have concluded that the model was a worse representation of evolutionary relationships than the others.

But what they got was an output that correctly identified genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy, far superior to other models, thereby confirming that their model is at least 96% accurate in the way it represents evolutionary relationships.

That's how science works. If you think you have a model that is a better representation of reality, you test that model and see what you get. They did exactly that and got extremely powerful confirmation that their model is very close to reality.

How is this NOT circular reasoning?

Maybe you should explain how you think it is circular, because I have no idea where you got that from.

The model is based on an assumption

As I said, it's not an assumption, but is based on other data.

and when the data is passed through this model, it verifies the assumption. Nothing to it.

That's how science works. You test your ideas. And that's exactly what these scientists did.

 

[Right Divider]

No, the phylogeny wasn't merely "assumed". Phylogenies have been around for over a century and are based on diverse data, e.g., comparative anatomy, biogeography, the fossil record, comparative genetics. The point of this paper was to demonstrate the superiority of their phylogenetic model over others, by showing how it correctly identified genetic function at a much higher rate (96%).

Phylogenies are a hotly debated topic, even among atheistic evolutionists.

To cut to the chase: This does not prove that ALL animals share a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR (no matter how you slice it).

The farther back in time you go, the more these various phylogenies blur. This is one of the reasons for the debate.

I'll say it again: descent with modification is fully compatible with Biblical creation. The difference is that YOU ASSUME that life began by accident with a SINGLE creature, whereas Biblical creation says that there were more than one created by God.

Neither one of us were there and the actual physical evidence that we do have cannot confirm one or the other.

 

[Jose Fly]

Phylogenies are a hotly debated topic, even among atheistic evolutionists.

That was the main point of the paper, i.e., to demonstrate the superiority of their phylogeny.

To cut to the chase: This does not prove that ALL animals share a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR (no matter how you slice it).

No, that wasn't a part of the paper. But it does provide extremely powerful evidence that organisms as diverse as humans, worms, flies, dogs, frogs, and others all share a common evolutionary ancestry.

I'll say it again: descent with modification is fully compatible with Biblical creation.

Really? So a shared evolutionary ancestry between humans, flies, worms, fish, and dogs is compatible with Biblical creation?

The difference is that YOU ASSUME that life began by accident with a SINGLE creature

No I don't. There's some pretty good arguments being made that the first life on earth was a sort of metapopulation. But even under that hypothesis, they were all very simple organisms that loosely resemble today's bacteria.

whereas Biblical creation says that there were more than one created by God.

Right. The Bible doesn't say God created a collection of various single-celled organisms that evolved into the diversity of life around us today.

Neither one of us were there and the actual physical evidence that we do have cannot confirm one or the other.

Again, how do you know what the physical evidence does or doesn't indicate? Every time I ask you this question, you wiggle and squirm out of it, giving the unmistakable impression that you have something to hide (likely that you haven't studied this subject much at all).

If that's the case and your views on the subject are almost exclusively from your reading of the Bible, why not just say so?

 

[Right Divider]

That was the main point of the paper, i.e., to demonstrate the superiority of their phylogeny.

Then congrats to them. They have the best phylogeny!

No, that wasn't a part of the paper. But it does provide extremely powerful evidence that organisms as diverse as humans, worms, flies, dogs, frogs, and others all share a common evolutionary ancestry.

It provides no such thing. Once AGAIN, common DESIGNER is just as legitimate an explanation.

Really? So a shared evolutionary ancestry between humans, flies, worms, fish, and dogs is compatible with Biblical creation?

No, as I said (and you still ignore). God created various TYPES of animals that HE CALLED KINDS. This was the starting point of LIFE ON EARTH.

No I don't. There's some pretty good arguments being made that the first life on earth was a sort of metapopulation. But even under that hypothesis, they were all very simple organisms that loosely resemble today's bacteria.

LOL, Even a "simple organism" is VASTLY complex.

Right. The Bible doesn't say God created a collection of various single-celled organisms that evolved into the diversity of life around us today.

Of course not, they were fully formed animals (and plants). That singled-celled starting point that grows into everything that we see today is a fantasy.

Again, how do you know what the physical evidence does or doesn't indicate? Every time I ask you this question, you wiggle and squirm out of it, giving the unmistakable impression that you have something to hide (likely that you haven't studied this subject much at all).

Nobody was there. Therefore, all that we have would be called circumstantial evidence.

If that's the case and your views on the subject are almost exclusively from your reading of the Bible, why not just say so?

It's funny (nay, stupid) that you cannot see that YOUR view has no more support in this regard (the ORIGIN OF LIFE). Your rejection of your creator has you so puffed up that you just can't be wrong. Typical atheist.

How about you explain scientifically, how you KNOW that there is no God?

I have far more respect for those that are at least honest enough to call themselves agnostics. They have more integrity than someone that claims that they KNOW that there is no God.

 

[Jose Fly]

Then congrats to them. They have the best phylogeny!

The most accurate.

It provides no such thing.

Yes it does. You simply saying "no it doesn't" doesn't negate the results.

Once AGAIN, common DESIGNER is just as legitimate an explanation.

We've been over this. All you're doing is making an after-the-fact assertion of "God just made it that way", which can be done with anything, including Last Thursdayism.

No, as I said (and you still ignore). God created various TYPES of animals that HE CALLED KINDS. This was the starting point of LIFE ON EARTH.

And these results contradict that.

Of course not, they were fully formed animals (and plants).

And these results contradict that.

That singled-celled starting point that grows into everything that we see today is a fantasy.

Why, because you say so? Given that you have no expertise in this field at all, why would you think your say so carries any weight at all?

Nobody was there. Therefore, all that we have would be called circumstantial evidence.

In the same way that forensic scientists solve crimes that had no eye witnesses.

It's funny (nay, stupid) that you cannot see that YOUR view has no more support in this regard (the ORIGIN OF LIFE). Your rejection of your creator has you so puffed up that you just can't be wrong. Typical atheist.

I'm not an atheist. Did you forget?

How about you explain scientifically, how you KNOW that there is no God?

See above.

I have far more respect for those that are at least honest enough to call themselves agnostics. They have more integrity than someone that claims that they KNOW that there is no God.

Which is what I told you I was earlier. Apparently you forgot.

 

[Right Divider]

The most accurate.

Yes it does. You simply saying "no it doesn't" doesn't negate the results.

We've been over this. All you're doing is making an after-the-fact assertion of "God just made it that way", which can be done with anything, including Last Thursdayism.

And these results contradict that.

And these results contradict that.

Why, because you say so? Given that you have no expertise in this field at all, why would you think your say so carries any weight at all?

In the same way that forensic scientists solve crimes that had no eye witnesses.

I'm not an atheist. Did you forget?

See above.

Which is what I told you I was earlier. Apparently you forgot.

Apatheism (/ˌæpəˈθiːɪzəm/ a portmanteau of apathy and theism/atheism), also known as pragmatic atheism or practical atheism, is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity.

Your cluelessness is as tiring as this attempt to distant yourself from your true belief.

 

[Jose Fly]

Like I said, you must have forgotten our earlier exchange.

Post #115

 

[Right Divider]

Like I said, you must have forgotten our earlier exchange.

Post #115

Two posts BEFORE that you said that you were an apatheist

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4466122&postcount=113

Make up your mind.

Oh wait, you're just a random collection of molecules. Never mind.

 

[Greg Jennings]

The whole kleptch thing I found rather amusing myself