The Privileged Planet

[Stuu]

It would be far easer to discuss Darwinianism if you called out something from OoS that you think is correct AND is unequivocally explained ONLY by the "Theory of Evolution".

I think the point is that the neo-Darwinian synthesis does not kill off the central thrust of the principle of natural selection, which was what Darwin established on the basis of his observations as a naturalist.

Since then, the mechanisms that give rise to variation, mutation, sexual recombination, sexual selection and so forth have been discovered and helped to complete the picture. The things that Darwin got wrong aren't central to the theory of evolution by natural selection. He was still right, and brilliantly so.

Can you think of another field of science that has not undergone a radical change of basic principles since 1859? The principle of natural selection remains while other fields were revolutionised through the discovery of the atom and its contents, relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics and modern cosmology.

Did Darwin get anything important wrong? Has the neo-Darwinian view made any radical changes?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Geneticists all perform the same science no matter if Hindu, atheist or Biblical creationist.

So, given that you believe in starting with scripture then looking to see how the evidence fits that, you must think at least some of these geneticists are taking the wrong approach.

Stuart

 

[Jose Fly]

And... I have shown your assumption is false.

This is positively fascinating to watch someone act like this. It puts me in mind of a creationist I met back around 2000. When I offered to take him to a university and show him some transitional fossils, he told me "If I held a fossil in my hand that scripture says can't exist, then I would have to conclude that Satan was tricking my eyes and the fossil wasn't real."

This is just like that.

Discerning genetic function has nothing to do with your belief system.

Amazing. You've been shown the paper that describes how genetic sequences from diverse taxa were put into a model that is entirely based on evolutionary relationships, and the model predicted genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy...far superior to other methods...and all you can do is basically say "Nuh uh".

Man but this is fun to watch.

Discerning genetic function is based on similar or same genes performing similar or same functions.

Nope, it's based on evolutionary relationships. You've been shown that repeatedly. Now we're all just sitting here watching your reactions for its pure entertainment value.

I suppose I can keep quoting scientists who say that common ancestry beliefs have never helped real science.

Funny how you think quotes trump actual science. :chuckle:

Or, we *can look at statements from evolutionists who admit common ancestry beliefs have lead to increased racism.

I can find you plenty of quotes from creationists who cite the "curse of Ham" as justification for their racism. Therefore.....? :idunno:

Then, *we can examine the role common ancestry beliefs have played in genocides ....etc.

Really? You sure you want to bring up genocide? Have you read the OT?

Common *ancestry beliefs are philosophical. ..not science.

Again, I'm sure you believe that. But given the foundational status of evolutionary biology to the life sciences the world over for the last 150+ years, your beliefs are 100% scientifically irrelevant. IOW, you are basically "Some anonymous poster on a fundamentalist Christian internet forum says evolutionary biology is a religion, not science".

 

[Right Divider]

I think the point is that the neo-Darwinian synthesis does not kill off the central thrust of the principle of natural selection, which was what Darwin established on the basis of his observations as a naturalist.

Natural selection was already known long before Darwin.

Since then, the mechanisms that give rise to variation, mutation, sexual recombination, sexual selection and so forth have been discovered and helped to complete the picture. The things that Darwin got wrong aren't central to the theory of evolution by natural selection. He was still right, and brilliantly so.

Typical hagiography.

None of these things describe how the vast amount of information that is in our DNA came into being.

Variation: within the kind --- check
Mutation: vastly destructive and NO known cases of actual information increase.
Sexual REcombination: enough said.
Sexual selection: once again, selection what ALREADY exists.

Can you think of another field of science that has not undergone a radical change of basic principles since 1859? The principle of natural selection remains while other fields were revolutionised through the discovery of the atom and its contents, relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics and modern cosmology.

Good old bait-and-switch.

Did Darwin get anything important wrong? Has the neo-Darwinian view made any radical changes?

Stuart

I guess that you don't get around much.

 

[Jose Fly]

Let's be absolutely clear what's going on here. This is the paper I've been linking to:

Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics

The very first two sentences in the abstract makes it absolutely clear what they did...

"We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy."​

Did you catch that? Even the name of the model they developed tells you what it's based on. It's "Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships". Its right there in the name. Yet 6days' reaction is "Discerning genetic function has nothing to do with your belief system".

Sometimes you have to wonder if this is what fundamentalism does to people, or if this is just the sort of person fundamentalism attracts. :think:

 

[Jose Fly]

Mutation: vastly destructive and NO known cases of actual information increase.

Maybe you can answer the question no other creationist can seem to answer. What is "genetic information" and how are you measuring it? If I have two genomes, how do I tell which one has more "genetic information"?

 

[Stripe]

What is "genetic information"?

It is the ability of a population's genome to reproduce its founding members.

How are you measuring it?

There are few quantitative measures available, because so little is understood about genetics. There are some qualitative measures that could be applied such as adaptability and diversity.

If I have two genomes, how do I tell which one has more "genetic information"?

Within a kind, the older one necessarily has more.

Can we get an assurance from you that you will not again say nobody can answer this question?

 

[Right Divider]

Maybe you can answer the question no other creationist can seem to answer. What is "genetic information" and how are you measuring it? If I have two genomes, how do I tell which one has more "genetic information"?

You're funny.

Do you think that our DNA has a lot of information or not?

 

[Jose Fly]

It is the ability of a population's genome to reproduce its founding members.

That doesn't make sense at all.

There are few quantitative measures available, because so little is understood about genetics. There are some qualitative measures that could be applied such as adaptability and diversity.

Given that the claims are about more, less, increasing, or decreasing "genetic information", you need to provide a quantitative means of measuring it.

Within a kind, the older one necessarily has more.

And how do you tell which one is older?

Can we get an assurance from you that you will not again say nobody can answer this question?

As soon as a creationist provides actual, useful answers.

 

[Jose Fly]

You're funny.

Do you think that our DNA has a lot of information or not?

You didn't even answer the questions. Again....

What is "genetic information" and how are you measuring it? If I have two genomes, how do I tell which one has more "genetic information"?

If you really have no idea, just say so.

 

[Right Divider]

You didn't even answer the questions. Again....

What is "genetic information" and how are you measuring it? If I have two genomes, how do I tell which one has more "genetic information"?

If you really have no idea, just say so.

I'm no expert on comparing "genetic information", but I'll bet that you are.

I guess that you want to send us into a discussion about how to identify information.

Maybe this will help you: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-is-a-structure-that-encodes-biological-6493050

The real point is that humans have a VAST amount of information in our DNA and according to evolutionists this information came about by either mutations (proven false by real science) or magic.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm no expert on comparing "genetic information"

Then how can you say anything about it one way or the other?

I guess that you want to send us into a discussion about how to identify information.

Um....when someone says there are "NO known cases of actual information increase".....that tends to lead to a discussion about "genetic information". Crazy, eh?

Maybe this will help you: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-is-a-structure-that-encodes-biological-6493050

I know what DNA is and how it works.

The real point is that humans have a VAST amount of information in our DNA and according to evolutionists this information came about by either mutations (proven false by real science) or magic.

You just said you're no expert on "genetic information" but here you are acting like you are an expert.

Let's try this one more time...

What is "genetic information" and how are you measuring it? If I have two genomes, how do I tell which one has more "genetic information"?

 

[Stripe]

That doesn't make sense at all.

Sure, it does. Read up on information theory and you'll find very similar language. :up:

Given that the claims are about more, less, increasing, or decreasing "genetic information", you need to provide a quantitative means of measuring it.

No, I don't. :idunno:

Of course it'd be great if I could. However, it is no disqualifying factor to have an idea that if true would make data collection difficult to come by.

And how do you tell which one is older?

Count the candles on its birthday cake.

As soon as a creationist provides actual, useful answers.

Oh. So you're just a troll then.

 

[Tambora]

Count the candles on its birthday cake.

:rotfl:

 

[Jose Fly]

Sure, it does. Read up on information theory and you'll find very similar language.

I have, and I've never seen what you're talking about.

No, I don't. :idunno:

Of course it'd be great if I could.

So the question remains unanswered.

However, it is no disqualifying factor to have an idea that if true would make data collection difficult to come by.

The fact remains that despite making arguments about increases, decreases, more, or less "genetic information", you can't provide a quantitative means of measuring "genetic information". Thus your quantitative claims about it are necessarily meaningless.

Count the candles on its birthday cake.

That's what I thought. Thanks for trying.

 

[Right Divider]

Then how can you say anything about it one way or the other?

Um....when someone says there are "NO known cases of actual information increase".....that tends to lead to a discussion about "genetic information". Crazy, eh?

I know what DNA is and how it works.

You just said you're no expert on "genetic information" but here you are acting like you are an expert.

Let's try this one more time...

What is "genetic information" and how are you measuring it? If I have two genomes, how do I tell which one has more "genetic information"?

I don't have to define it. I know that it exists because many people who do study it have said so and I believe them.

I understand your tactics, so I'm not going to fall for your tricks.

According to YOUR theory there was once no life on this planet and hence NO GENETIC INFORMATION. Now we have humans that have VAST amounts of THIS INFORMATION (regardless of how I define that).

Therefore, there must be SOME way that all of this information has come into existence. Many evolutionists have admitted that mutation is NOT how this information came into being. Only those that ignore ACTUAL science keep on "believing" that it does.

Regarding comparing genetic information, evolutions have many DIFFERENT opinions about HOW this should be done. Therefore, they argue among themselves about the PROPER way to do it.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't have to define it.

So we have yet another creationist who claims there's been "no increase in genetic information", yet can't say what "genetic information" is or how to measure it.

Hilarious.

I know that it exists because many people who do study it have said so and I believe them.

So if I showed you geneticists explaining how this "no genetic information" argument from creationists is junk, would you believe them?

I understand your tactics, so I'm not going to fall for your tricks.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight....asking you to define your terms constitutes "tricks".

See, this is why creationists lost so long ago in science, and have since constantly lost in court. In both those arenas you can't wave away questions and refuse to explain yourself. Well, you can but then no one takes you seriously and you lose.

Therefore, there must be SOME way that all of this information has come into existence. Many evolutionists have admitted that mutation is NOT how this information came into being. Only those that ignore ACTUAL science keep on "believing" that it does.

We can discuss that once you figure out what you're talking about.

Regarding comparing genetic information, evolutions have many DIFFERENT opinions about HOW this should be done. Therefore, they argue among themselves about the PROPER way to do it.

Yes, there's an entire field of science built around that; it's called comparative genomics, and the entire field is built around the evolutionary relatedness of various taxa. I've showed this to 6days as an example of how evolutionary common ancestry is central to useful field of science, but all he can muster in response is basically "Nuh uh".

Regardless though, the point stands. If you can't provide a quantitative means of measuring "genetic information", then all your quantitative arguments about "genetic information" are necessarily meaningless.

But then, I think we both knew that going in. I just wanted to see how long it took for you to admit it.

 

[OCTOBER23]

My Wife and I go to the Park and watch the Canada Geese and ducks

put their heads below the water and eat the Algae that grows on the

Polluted water and the Seagulls fly around and pick up bits of food

and garbage that the people drop.

This shows that God has created some animals to keep

the World clean.

 

[Right Divider]

So we have yet another creationist who claims there's been "no increase in genetic information", yet can't say what "genetic information" is or how to measure it.

Hilarious.

Once again, I don't have to define it.

It's been defined already and you know that.

So if I showed you geneticists explaining how this "no genetic information" argument from creationists is junk, would you believe them?

Go ahead if it makes you feel better.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight....asking you to define your terms constitutes "tricks".

Yes indeed, these are the games that you like to play.

See, this is why creationists lost so long ago in science, and have since constantly lost in court. In both those arenas you can't wave away questions and refuse to explain yourself. Well, you can but then no one takes you seriously and you lose.

Since science is simply knowledge and not the atheistic materialism that you seem to prefer, I'm fine with it.

We can discuss that once you figure out what you're talking about.

So I guess that you don't think that there has been an INCREASE in genetic information over time? You know, since I can't define it for you.

Yes, there's an entire field of science built around that; it's called comparative genomics, and the entire field is built around the evolutionary relatedness of various taxa. I've showed this to 6days as an example of how evolutionary common ancestry is central to useful field of science, but all he can muster in response is basically "Nuh uh".

I guess that you are specifically referring to some sort of EVOLUTIONARY comparative genomics. It's funny how that works.

Regardless though, the point stands. If you can't provide a quantitative means of measuring "genetic information", then all your quantitative arguments about "genetic information" are necessarily meaningless.

Quite the contrary. Once again I don't have to know anything about it. You've already told me that YOU know how to do it.

But then, I think we both knew that going in. I just wanted to see how long it took for you to admit it.

Once again, how did we get from ZERO genetic INFORMATION to vast amounts of it (regardless of HOW you want to measure it).

 

[Jose Fly]

Once again, I don't have to define it.

Because you can't. So it's been made quite clear that you make claims like "no additional genetic information", even though you have no idea if it's at all true.

It's been defined already and you know that.

Then post it.

So I guess that you don't think that there has been an INCREASE in genetic information over time? You know, since I can't define it for you.

Any way that I can think of to measure "genetic information" (strings of nucleotides, functional sequences), your argument is trivially easy to falsify. We see new genetic sequences generated by mutation all the time.

I guess that you are specifically referring to some sort of EVOLUTIONARY comparative genomics. It's funny how that works.

Um.......that's just HILARIOUS. Man creationists are entertaining! :rotfl:

Once again I don't have to know anything about it.

Ah, so your point here is that we should keep in mind that just because you say something, that doesn't mean you know anything about it at all. Good to know. :up:

Once again, how did we get from ZERO genetic INFORMATION to vast amounts of it (regardless of HOW you want to measure it).

Like I said, if we're talking strings of nucleotides and/or functional sequences, it's an easy question to answer. You can even see it for yourself via a simple experiment.