Jump to content


Photo

No New Information?


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Scientia

Scientia

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington State
  • Interests:Evolutionary Biology, Ecology, Genetics, Gene Modification, Horizontal Gene Transfer, Population Genetics
  • Age: 31
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Washington State

Posted 10 April 2016 - 06:04 PM

I keep hearing creationists claim that there is no such thing as information and all mutations just remove information. never gain information (Despite the fact that whatever a mutation can do, it can undo).

If no new information was possible, then you would end up getting homogenized genes. All species would end up being identical. Think about it.

No new genes entering into the system; only the loss of genes. Try it out for yourself. Take a random number generator. Whatever number it is picked, is removed from the system.. Then roll again.. and again.
Or for a real life example, you have 5 kids, Sam, Tom, Rob, Jake, Mitch. You remove Rob. You now have Sam, Tom, Jake, Mitch. You remove Sam. You now have Tom, Jake, Mitch. The process will begin to eliminate kids until you only have one left.

To put the analogy into context, you would have various eye colors, blue, brown, green etc. Eventually, over time due to natural selection, all eye colors except 1 will be eliminated. And due to natural selection, a lack of variation will cause extinction.

So if no new information exists, then why aren't we all extinct?


 



#2 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 10 April 2016 - 06:28 PM

I keep hearing creationists claim that there is no such thing as information and all mutations just remove information.

Who has made these claims?

I'm pretty sure no Creationist has ever claimed there is no information. Then again we have had evolutionists here attempt to claim that DNA doesn't contain information.

Perhaps you'd care to provide some examples of mutations creating new information.
 

never gain information (Despite the fact that whatever a mutation can do, it can undo).

If no new information was possible, then you would end up getting homogenized genes. All species would end up being identical. Think about it.

You're looking at this from the evolutionists starting point, whereby you start with bacteria and thus must have new information for the differentiation of organisms.

If you want to understand the creationist's position you need to start at our starting point whereby all organisms are created with their unique DNA code intact. There is no need for new information since its already all there.
 

If no new information was possible, then you would end up getting homogenized genes. All species would end up being identical. Think about it.

No new genes entering into the system; only the loss of genes. Try it out for yourself. Take a random number generator. Whatever number it is picked, is removed from the system.. Then roll again.. and again.
Or for a real life example, you have 5 kids, Sam, Tom, Rob, Jake, Mitch. You remove Rob. You now have Sam, Tom, Jake, Mitch. You remove Sam. You now have Tom, Jake, Mitch. The process will begin to eliminate kids until you only have one left.

To put the analogy into context, you would have various eye colors, blue, brown, green etc. Eventually, over time due to natural selection, all eye colors except 1 will be eliminated. And due to natural selection, a lack of variation will cause extinction.


Again you are using the wrong starting point. Each organism has its own unique DNA code and thus removal of.genes won't lead to a lack of variation as the organisms were different to begin with. Also keep in mind that the removal of genes would be random as well so even two organisms with the exact same DNA may not have the same after a few alterations.. This isn't even including post-transcriptional modification and how even the same genes can lead to totally different products.
 

So if no new information exists, then why aren't we all extinct?
 

We are actually heading that way. Check out genetic entropy :)



#3 Scientia

Scientia

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington State
  • Interests:Evolutionary Biology, Ecology, Genetics, Gene Modification, Horizontal Gene Transfer, Population Genetics
  • Age: 31
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Washington State

Posted 10 April 2016 - 06:35 PM

Who has made these claims?

I'm pretty sure no Creationist has ever claimed there is no information. Then again we have had evolutionists here attempt to claim that DNA doesn't contain information.

Perhaps you'd care to provide some examples of mutations creating new information.
 

 

I'm getting mixed messages here....
 

You're looking at this from the evolutionists starting point, whereby you start with bacteria and thus must have new information for the differentiation of organisms.

If you want to understand the creationist's position you need to start at our starting point whereby all organisms are created with their unique DNA code intact. There is no need for new information since its already all there.

 

Uh no. I am looking at this from an allele perspective and the fact we are diploid organisms and can only contain two variations of any single gene. A population cannot contain all genes ever.

Each organism has its own unique DNA code and thus removal of.genes won't lead to a lack of variation as the organisms were different to begin with.

 

Stop analyzing from an individual perspective and look from the perspective of the entire population. The whole population might have 40% blue eyes, 10% green eyes and 50% brown eyes. But over time, it might eliminate a certain eye color and you might get 50% green eyes and 50% brown eyes, for example.

If no new information occurs, over time, since elimination is inevitable given enough time, the elimination of alleles would be inevitable. Without new variation there would be a homogenizing effect.


 



#4 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 10 April 2016 - 07:03 PM

I'm getting mixed messages here....

What "mixed messages", here on this forum we prefer people provide evidence with their claims.

Perhaps you may be used to making unsupported comments with impunity on evolutionist forums, don't expect to get away with it here.

I challenged your claim that creationists claim that there is no information.

I explained to you that we have had evolutionists claim that DNA contains no information.

I also asked you for an example of mutation creating new information.



Uh no. I am looking at this from an allele perspective and the fact we are diploid organisms and can only contain two variations of any single genes.

Which is an individual perspective yes... Since only individuals can only contain two variants of a gene.. Ironic that you complain about me talking about individuals later on, (even though I never did).

As I said you are looking at this from the perspective that information needs to "evolve". Creationists believe that organisms were created, hence the information was already there...


A population cannot contain all genes ever.

I never said it needed to.....

Stop analyzing from an individual perspective and look from the perspective of the entire population.

I never mentioned an individual or population... YOU DID THOUGH as I explained above. Hypocrite much? ;)


The whole population might have 40% blue eyes, 10% green eyes and 50% brown eyes. But over time, it might eliminate a certain eye color and you might get 50% green eyes and 50% brown eyes, for example.

So you aren't talking about new information, you are talking about the deletion of information....

If no new information occurs, over time, since elimination is inevitable given enough time, the elimination of alleles would be inevitable. Without new variation there would be a homogenizing effect.

So you are saying that unless mutations lead to new information that means widescale elimination of genes is "inevitable".

How does the generation of new information stop the elimination of genes? Are you implying that genes "evolve" multiple times to replace those that are lost?

As I said, check out genetic entropy since that describes the loss of genetic information over time due to mutations... Hence the model you describe if no new information is created is what is actually happening in reality.

#5 Scientia

Scientia

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington State
  • Interests:Evolutionary Biology, Ecology, Genetics, Gene Modification, Horizontal Gene Transfer, Population Genetics
  • Age: 31
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Washington State

Posted 10 April 2016 - 07:15 PM

What "mixed messages", here on this forum we prefer people provide evidence with their claims.
 

 

You said no creationist has ever said that there is no such thing as new information. Then continued to ask me if I can point out an example of new information. ;)

Which is an individual perspective yes... Since only individuals can only contain two variants of a gene.. Ironic that you complain about me talking about individuals later on, (even though I never did).

 

Uh no. I am explaining that individuals can only have two alleles in their genome per loci.

Furthermore, the population CAN contain more alleles, but we aren't the ones who claim a single pair begat every human being.

Creationists believe that organisms were created, hence the information was already there...

 

Exactly. Which means we can't be diploid organisms.

But.. we are.

We cannot contain all the information in our systems or even in our population. If no new information ever entered into the system, we would quickly become extinct.


How does the generation of new information stop the elimination of genes?

 

It doesn't, but it allows NEW genes to come in and maintain variation within the species to prevent a homogenizing effect, which would be detrimental to the survival of the species. This is the basis of evolution. Even if it's not the same genes. It's a new variation OF genes.

Genetic entropy makes absolutely no sense. I have checked it out. The idea is bunk.



 



#6 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 10 April 2016 - 07:37 PM

You said no creationist has ever said that there is no such thing as new information.
 

 

You've added the word new... Go read your OP and you'll see that you stated that Creationists claim that there is no information... Not no new information.

Words they mean things.
 

Then continued to ask me if I can point out an example of new information. ;)
 


Certainly because randomness cannot create complexity. Now please provide your example.

 

Furthermore, the population CAN contain more alleles, but we aren't the ones who claim a single pair begat every human being.
Exactly. Which means we can't be diploid organisms.

But.. we are.
 


Weren't you talking about new genes not new alleles of the SAME genes? Shifting goal posts much?

What we actually don't agree with is the creation of NEW GENES, eg- that the sonar echolocation gene used by both dolphins and bats didn't magically appear from random changes.

 

We cannot contain all the information in our systems or even in our population. If no new information ever entered into the system, we would quickly become extinct
 


Um, but we do contain all the information needed.... Otherwise how could we exist at all?

This I the starting point for creationists whereby an organism contains all the needed genes to be that organism...

I'm wondering how you can claim that we don't have the information needed to be a human, yet still be a human...
 

You said no creationist has ever said that there is no such thing as new information. Then continued to ask me if I can point out an example of new information. ;)
Uh no. I am explaining that individuals can only have two alleles in their genome per loci.

Furthermore, the population CAN contain more alleles, but we aren't the ones who claim a single pair begat every human being.
Exactly. Which means we can't be diploid organisms.

But.. we are.

We cannot contain all the information in our systems or even in our population. If no new information ever entered into the system, we would quickly become extinct.
It doesn't, but it allows NEW genes to come in and maintain variation within the species to prevent a homogenizing effect, which would be detrimental to the survival of the species. This is the basis of evolution. Even if it's not the same genes. It's a new variation OF genes.
 



Ah so not new genes, just new alleles of the same gene....

Do you think that altering the allele frequency for, say, hair colour, would lead to large-scale structural changes as evolutionists assume occured?

Perhaps provide some examples of where changing the allele frequency of the same gene has lead to large-scale structural changes.

 

Genetic entropy makes absolutely no sense. I have checked it out. The idea is bunk.
 


Considering the fact that you replied straight away (approx. 12 mins) leads me to believe that you spent very little time, if at all, studying genetic entropy... Hence forgive me if I don't take your criticism as meaning anything.

Perhaps consider the fact that random letters added to a sentence destroys the meaning of the sentence, genetic entropy works on the same principle.

 

Or do you believe (faithfully I might add) that somehow randomness can create complexity?

 

Perhaps try 100 random letters and see if it can create a complete coherent sentence?


  • Gneiss girl likes this

#7 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 April 2016 - 02:47 AM

 

 

Scientia: for a real life example, you have 5 kids, Sam, Tom, Rob, Jake, Mitch. You remove Rob. You now have Sam, Tom, Jake, Mitch. You remove Sam. You now have Tom, Jake, Mitch. The process will begin to eliminate kids until you only have one left.

 

The fault with this analogy is that it assumes that there will be no further reproduction.

 

It is the shuffling of original information that can lead to something that appears to be new information but isn't. For example blonde hair and blue eyes are relatively, "new" features in humans, about 1,500 years old if memory serves. So then it is not the information that is new but because of a defect in a gene, and other factors, you get something morphologically, "new" but not informationally new.

 

Example: Gone with the wind can become, "go with the wind", you lose the, "n" and, "e" and you have a new word but haven't really added any code. This is why it might seem creationist PLAY with information, but in fact it is just that information is very, very complex subject. What we mean by, "new" information is new writing for new anatomical features. A new book to add to the collection. In case you haven't noticed, errors in A Christmas Carol, aren't going to lead to a new book called Moby Dick

 

Consider natural selection acting upon an isolated population of dogs in a cold place where strong dogs are needed, you will remove the weaker, short haired-dogs and genes. However, it is possible because of epigenetics, that where there is now only a population of long-haired dogs, nevertheless information can either be regained from genetic-drift from an outside group if the isolated group has not diverged for a long enough time, or alternatively a combination of complex factors such as selection-pressure in the isolated group, would re-introduce the missing genes. Chance alone through selective-pressure, would make shorter-haired dogs re-appear, for example. 

 

Don't forget, when we look at the creatures according to their kinds, there does seem to be an informational limit, in that humans differ for example, but the differences are superficial really, we don't see any half-apes that have went back to the trees, for example. :P



#8 Scientia

Scientia

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington State
  • Interests:Evolutionary Biology, Ecology, Genetics, Gene Modification, Horizontal Gene Transfer, Population Genetics
  • Age: 31
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Washington State

Posted 11 April 2016 - 03:09 AM

Example: Gone with the wind can become, "go with the wind", you lose the, "n" and, "e" and you have a new word but haven't really added any code

 

Or Fat can change to Rat which then can change to Rate which can change to Fate which can change to Gate which can change to Gator.

There are addition mutations just as there are deletion mutations. It's a CHANGE in code. It's not simply a deletion of code. There are ways to add on nucleotides and remove nucleotides.
 

What we mean by, "new" information is new writing for new anatomical features

 

Then it's a misrepresentation of what new information actually means. Everything is modified off of predecessor anatomical features. For example. In dolphins, the flippers are modified arms. In bats, the wings are modified arms. Everything is just modified from different features that use to exist in the past with different functions. Modification. Modification. Modification. Evolution does not state that we will just evolve wings one day. First, there is nothing to modify them from. Second, we're too heavy for wings. Three, it would cost too much energy.

 In case you haven't noticed, errors in A Christmas Carol, aren't going to lead to a new book called Moby Dick

 


False analogy and just erroneously wrong when you put in selective pressures and reproduction along with mutational occurrences.
 


it is possible because of epigenetics

 

That's not epigenetics.
http://www.animalgen...olor/Length.asp

There is a gene that controls hair length. It's not simply a regulation control mechanism. Furthermore, if what you claim is true, they wont get long hair due to lack of mutational representation. But they might not even be able to survive to successfully mate in the first place and continue reproduction due to the rapid change in environment rather than a gradual change.

It's just statistics. I'm not sure why stats is so hard for people to grasp.
 

we don't see any half-apes that have went back to the trees, for example

 


We are apes. Half apes doesn't make sense either. Do you ever see a half wolf, half poodle? Or half wolf, half Chihuahua? Without hybridization, I mean? No. Of course not. You find a population of Chihuahuas and a population of wolves. but we know Chihuahuas and wolves share a common grey wolf ancestor. Same with any dog breed.

I think one of the main issues with rejection of evolution is a lack of understanding and a lack of willingness TO understand the process.





 



#9 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 April 2016 - 03:46 AM

 

 

Scienta: Or Fat can change to Rat which then can change to Rate which can change to Fate which can change to Gate which can change to Gator.

There are addition mutations just as there are deletion mutations. It's a CHANGE in code. It's not simply a deletion of code. There are ways to add on nucleotides and remove nucleotides

 

Which is logically inconsequential, because none of those things will give you the writing-abilites required to write a new book.

 

 

 Scienta: Everything is modified off of predecessor anatomical features. For example. In dolphins, the flippers are modified arms. In bats, the wings are modified arms

 

That's a bare-assertion. In logical-notation there is something called, a conspicious absence of evidence, which allows us to falsify an antecedent by use of the modus tollens, (method-of-destruction).

 

If bats had progenitors with arms, we would be expected to find many intermediate pre-bats showing how exaptation of the primordial arm, occurred leading to a wing. So then the only evidence you have is the pentadactyl, homological pattern in the anatomy of the forelimb. 

 

There are no intermediates ever found for arms evolving into flippers, nor are there any pre-bat transitionals. Because this evidence is absent, we can conclude via the tollens that evolution did not take place.

 

 

 

Scienta: False analogy and just erroneously wrong when you put in selective pressures and reproduction along with mutational occurrences.

 

You will have to be FAR cleverer than that in debate. Here the red highlighted part is  not a rebuttal, it is actually a bald-statement, which is called a bare-assertion fallacy.

 

So much for the intellect of the scientific evolutionist. "Khan..I'm LAUGHING at the superior intellect.." - Captain Kirk - The Wrath Of Khan.

 

 

 

Scienta: It's just statistics. I'm not sure why stats is so hard for people to grasp.

 

Well, statistical arguments are usually regarded as pretty tenuous examples of inductive reasoning and probability. For example in a room of 100 people, of which 10 were atheist and 90 were Christian, we could create a statistic that there were 30 people with a high IQ and only 2 of them were atheist.

 

Can you see how misleading the use of that statistic will be?

 

Khan, to get past Kirk, you're going to have to get past his cleverness, which is razor-sharp. I don't see it happening Khan, because, "like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target". ;)

 

 

 

Scienta: We are apes. Half apes doesn't make sense either. Do you ever see a half wolf, half poodle? Or half wolf, half Chihuahua? Without hybridization, I mean? No. Of course not

 

I didn't mean what you think I meant. I meant that if a group of people tried to go back to being arboreal, then selection would perhaps favour more ape-like arms and hands for strength in trees. 

 

Also if an ape evolved to be a fully bipedal human, logically it would HAVE TO evolve intermediate stages, to get to the human bipedalism-stage. This is not to misunderstand evolution, I just used the term, "half-ape", colloquially.

 

 

 

Scienta: I think one of the main issues with rejection of evolution is a lack of understanding and a lack of willingness TO understand the process.

 

This is called poisoning-the-well fallacy, where you state that; "evolution isn't the problem, the problem is with those that don't accept it"

 

Fictional-Hitler: "we all know jews aren't first class humans, the problem is with those who can't be educated into knowing why it is a factual claim!"

 

That type of sophistry, gets you out of having to prove evolution is a fact. Think about it, I could respond like this; " I think one of the main issues with the rejection of Christianity is the lack of understanding and willingness to accept it as a scientific fact".

 

I understand the theory of evolution very well. Sure, not to a scientific level, but then 90% of secular scientists are in the same boat as me, since they don't study it closely either, as they work in different fields. So even scientists don't fully understand all of the details of evolution.

 

So you are IMPLYING a false conditional implication of this;

 

IF you don't accept evolution THEN it's because you don't understand it. (non-sequitur, as the consequent doesn't follow the antecedent. We know there are PHD level scientists that understand evolution but don't accept it)

 

 

 

Mr Spock: "He's intelligent...but inexperienced(at debate)...his pattern suggests 2-D thinking." - Mr Spock, The Wrath of Khan.


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#10 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 11 April 2016 - 09:01 AM

 

It's just statistics. I'm not sure why stats is so hard for people to grasp.
 

 

Well Math isn't "Science"/Physics/Biology...much like A Tape Measure isn't Carpentry. One of the main reasons is they're different words.

 
Math is Immaterial "Abstract" and @ BEST, merely "describes"... it "EXPLAINS" exactly Squat/Nada/Niente.
 
Science is in the business of EXPLAINING by Validating/In-Validating "Cause and Effect" relationships between Independent and Dependent Variables via Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING.
 
 
Albert Einstein: Lecture, Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin 27 Jan 1921...
 
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
 
 
"Indeed the entire science of statistics is designed to cope with the ambiguity of most scientific evidence, and my professor, Theodosius Dobzhansky, the most eminent experimental evolutionist of his day, used to say that “statistics is a way of making bad data look good.”
Response to critics March 6 1997; Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and Billions of Demons’, review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
(I HIGHLY recommend reading this review)

 

 

We are apes.

 

:rotfl3:

 

And Turkeys are Squirrels!!  :rolleyes:

 

The Taxonomic Classification System is a convention for classification, it's a "man-made" construct and somewhat arbitrary.
 
It's based on what the "Conventioneers" deem as similar characteristics then categorize. I can make one up right now...
 
Classification I: Duccolslopelgertz and Sluccols:
 
Duccolslopelgertz: These have hair, hands, forward-facing eyes, smelly armpits, most can calculate correctly 1 + 1 = 2 when challenged.
 
Sluccols: having hands, hair, handlike feet, and forward-facing eyes, agile tree dwellers, they cannot calculate 1 + 1 = 2 when challenged.
Are Duccolslopelgertz, Sluccols ??
 
Classification II:  Duccolslopelgertz and Sluccols:
 
Duccolslopelgertz:  These have hair, hands, forward-facing eyes.
 
Sluccols: having hands, hair, and forward-facing eyes.
 
Are Duccolslopelgertz, Sluccols ??
 
The Classification Convention is of NO USE outside it's domain; unless you're partial to entertaining Begging The Question Bonanza's ??
:running1:   

 

 

I think one of the main issues with rejection of evolution is ....

 

 

It Doesn't Exist!!

 

You don't even know what it is, SEE Here: http://evolutionfair...er/#entry130557 ...

 

Scientia: Evolution. The change of allele frequencies over time within a population.

 

Sorry but  :rotfl3:

 

 

regards


  • mike the wiz and Gneiss girl like this

#11 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 11 April 2016 - 09:27 AM

 

I keep hearing creationists claim that there is no such thing as information and all mutations just remove information. 
 

 

 

 

You said no creationist has ever said that there is no such thing as new information.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm getting mixed messages here....
 

 

I wonder why??  :think:

 

 

I have been discussing these matters for many many years; I have never heard even a Baby Creationist say:  "there is no such thing as information".

 

This is the first sentence in your OP; So much for the integrity of the ENTIRE TOPIC :get_a_clue: it's not only False.... it's Incoherent.

 

 

Then you double down with: "You said no creationist has ever said that there is no such thing as new information."

 

Let's compare with the First: "I keep hearing creationists claim that there is no such thing as information and all mutations just remove information."

 

 

Is there a difference between: "as new information" and "as information" ??  Is this "Mixed Messages"?  :laugh_point:

 

 

Maybe the reason you're getting "mixed messages" is due to you BIRTHING THEM?  brightidea.gif

 

 

regards


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#12 nandoschicken

nandoschicken

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Cambridge, UK

Posted 12 April 2016 - 04:56 AM

 

There are no intermediates ever found for arms evolving into flippers, nor are there any pre-bat transitionals. Because this evidence is absent, we can conclude via the tollens that evolution did not take place.

 

its an exceptionally rare event that would capture fossilization in a marine environment or in a humid jungle...



#13 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 April 2016 - 06:59 AM

its an exceptionally rare event that would capture fossilization in a marine environment or in a humid jungle...


Ad hoc hypothesis alert.. You do realise that ad hoc hypotheses are used to save pseudoscience from falsification.... Oops.

Yet even with all the millions of fossils we have there still isn't a single transition between flippers or wings... Funny that... Hmmm.

#14 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 24 June 2017 - 05:39 AM

... Take a random number generator. Whatever number it is picked, is removed from the system.. Then roll ...

.
I had to write random number generators several times--for each new programming language I learned at college: I don't remember the requirement that the number produced becoming ineligible thereafter--all that was required is that the output could not be predicted, that there were no patterns in the result no matter how many times the program is invoked.

There are deterministic and non-deterministic algorithms for random number generators: the former is somethimes called "pseudo-random" (not random, but may be "random-enough" for certain programming tasks) and the latter "true", which is essential for secure encryption.

Deterministic algorithms use a starting point that may be predictable, called a seed, which violates the requirement for random; Non-deterministic ones use an unpredictable source as a start-point, which is what was required for me to get a passing grade for the assignment.

Approved Random Number Generators for FIPS PUB 140-2
How Computers Generate Random Numbers

#15 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 24 June 2017 - 06:13 AM

A population cannot contain all genes ever.

????
you either made a mistake somewhere, or you must be incredibly ignorant on what a gene is.
a gene is one of 64 possibilities, and to claim an organism can't contain these 64 possibilities is the most absurd thing i ever heard.
there is no doubt about it, you are incredibly confused about something.

#16 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 24 June 2017 - 11:50 AM

 

A population cannot contain all genes ever.

????
you either made a mistake somewhere, or you must be incredibly ignorant on what a gene is.
a gene is one of 64 possibilities, and to claim an organism can't contain these 64 possibilities is the most absurd thing i ever heard.
there is no doubt about it, you are incredibly confused about something.

 

 

Do you maybe mean codons instead of genes?

 

 

EDIT: @Schera Do: it doesn't look like Scientia was giving a general description of how random number generators work, but suggesting a process in which the first step involved using a random number generator, the next one eliminating the number you got from the set the RNG was allowed to generate, and repeat.



#17 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 June 2017 - 12:04 PM

If the theory of information we use is incorrect, it will cause errors in reasoning.

There are two theories that are commonly accepted today. One is a theory made popular by the reigning garu Claude Shannon. The other theory is basically for creationists authored by Wener Gitt.

It was Shannon that defined code and information interchangeably giving the impression that they are one and the same things. That action violated the law of non-contradiction and the law of identity. This confusion between the two separate identities of code and information help to generate a lot of mis-communication and wrong conclusions.

In order to unravel the confusion caused by this, we need to deliniate and clearly define code and information. We will discover that code does not "store" information.

We know of no place that information can inhabit accept a mental state. Thus Information resides only in a mental state (our mind and others). This poses a problem for communication between us and others. If we cannot transmit thoughts (pure formation) from our mind to others we would be isolated from others.

Helen Keller was in such a state until a teacher came along and invented a special touch code for her to communicate with others. Today we have the touch code braille, which is commonly used by blind people. Helen was deaf and blind. She couldn't hear to learn sound code.
However, even though she could hear hwe gifted teacher taught her to approximate audible code (words). Her speech lacked the nuance level detail we expect from others.

We seem to look in vain for the physics of information. What, for example, is the weight, height, color, length, width, taste etc. of information? As of yet no one has come forth with any physics of information.
And yet formation is something that we deal with in our minds or mental state every day.

All of us know what information is intuitively and because of that there is no need to define it other than to call it information. Considered it a core concept. Information is information. So, If we accept and acknowledge the mental state we accept the existence of information.

Now code--that's another story. What is code? Since we cannot send pure information or our thoughts through the air, to others, we have figured out a way to represent information in the physical world by the use of code.

Code is anything physical, which we can associate the information in our mind to. Ink on paper is code or matter with physics given specific order. What we commonly call our alphabet can be used to create words (code strings) to which we associate meaning from our mind.

Probably the most common use of code is in the concept we call language. Thus we have a speech system which allows us to create unique sounds and associate meaning or information in our mind to the particular sounds we can create.

Since we have no way of transmitting pure thought, or information through thin air and into the physical environment, we can generate audible code which which when coupled with consensus meaning can represent the information in our minds. Consensus is necessary for the process to work efficiently.

Let's see if we can think of an example to demonstrate this? Suppose we have mis-associated the "wrong" (different) information to the word (aural or visual code) cow? Probably, others have associated cow, to a four-legged creature that weighs about 1200lbs and gives us milk. If we have associated a four-legged creature that weighs about 60 pounds to the code "cow", we would mis-communicate when we talk with others about a cow. For the process to work there must be consensus as to the meaning we give (cow) code.


Take note of the fact that code does not store information. We can't look at the code c-o-w under a microscope and find the DNA of a cow. All we will see is the smaller components of the ink and paper. There are no instructions to make a cow in the letters c-o-w.

It is important than that we understand that if DNA is it code cannot store information. Code and information have two different identities. Code is not a storage medium.

Moreover, code is a variable. It can represent whatever information we decide to associate to it. Code is associate to information in a mental state by intelligent beings. Sometimes we call this meaning. But the information is stored in the mental state only--not in code! Thus code is a representative of information for use in the physical realm.

Mutations involves physically changing code (a physical). But, what if the code that mutates already represents information? That would mean there was no new information generated by the code, but that the code representing information was simply not appropriate (it wasn't there before). It ended up there by mistake.

Here is a sentence that demonstrates what might happen; "The dog ran up the red."
We might think the sentence doesn't make sense. It mutated. The code r-e-d was suppose to be h-i-l-l. "The dog ran up the hill, makes sense.

The word "red" has been associated to an entirely different mental meaning than the word "hill". Logically, this mutation did not create new information it substituted different information to a location in the sentence.

A mutation of a word could makes sense but change the basic meaning of what was done. "The dog ran up the plank! Say "plank" is a mutation from "hill". The mutation, though not causing new information, changes the entire meaning we associated to what the dog actually did.

There is no information in a book. A book consists of code strings of ink on paper (commonly called words). We have to "read" a book. What is involved in reading a book? It requires we match in our mind the symbols we find in the book that we have in a prior learning situation associated to information stored in our mind or mental state. Thus, code represents information but does not store it.

We, like the cell, have an elaborate error (mutation) correcting subroutine written into our software. Here is some mutated code:

O sey kan u sea bi thu dauns Earl Lee lite...

Did your error correction software kick in?

The way way that mutation can seem to appear to cause "new" information has been explained. Since code is physical, we have to ask the question what does the code mean? Has this "new" code already been associated to information?


 


  • MarkForbes likes this

#18 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 24 June 2017 - 02:40 PM

A population cannot contain all genes ever.

????
you either made a mistake somewhere, or you must be incredibly ignorant on what a gene is.
a gene is one of 64 possibilities, and to claim an organism can't contain these 64 possibilities is the most absurd thing i ever heard.
there is no doubt about it, you are incredibly confused about something.

 
Do you maybe mean codons instead of genes?

can't get nothing past this guy.
crow tastes pretty good this time of year eh?

#19 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 15 July 2017 - 06:08 PM

 

 

 

its an exceptionally rare event that would capture fossilization in a marine environment or in a humid jungle...

 

I just wanted to share one of those "rare" examples of fossilization in a marine environment.

 

Look up this excellently preserved nodosaur that recently went on display in Drumheller, Alberta, complete with remaining keratin. 

Attached Files



#20 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 15 July 2017 - 06:19 PM

 

... Take a random number generator. Whatever number it is picked, is removed from the system.. Then roll ...

.
I had to write random number generators several times--for each new programming language I learned at college: I don't remember the requirement that the number produced becoming ineligible thereafter--all that was required is that the output could not be predicted, that there were no patterns in the result no matter how many times the program is invoked.

There are deterministic and non-deterministic algorithms for random number generators: the former is somethimes called "pseudo-random" (not random, but may be "random-enough" for certain programming tasks) and the latter "true", which is essential for secure encryption.

Deterministic algorithms use a starting point that may be predictable, called a seed, which violates the requirement for random; Non-deterministic ones use an unpredictable source as a start-point, which is what was required for me to get a passing grade for the assignment.

Approved Random Number Generators for FIPS PUB 140-2
How Computers Generate Random Numbers

 

I'm coming in late to this conversation, but it is an important one. The issue of genetic information and the capacity of mutations to "write" novel genetic code, should be looked at more closely. There is more to be said.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users