PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Information
       What do creationists mean by it?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:19 AM on July 17, 2009 :
Because a mutation of any kind is analogous to a spelling error. You might still get the protein that was coded for but if there's a demonstrable effect on that protein, it'll be deleterious. That's all that's ever been demonstrated.


A letter was added, the fitness improved, information was added. QED

Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor.


An example of increased fitness in a specific environment would be antibiotic resistance in bacteria where the loss or malfunction of a protein saves the bacteria where for example the protein that converts the antibiotic to a poison no longer functions. In this sort of scenario it has been demonstrated that the beneficial effect is only due to the loss of something, not a gain. It improves the bacteria's survival but only in that environment -there is a demonstrable fitness cost associated with the change that can be demonstrated when that mutated bacteria competes with the original parent population.


Yet another unsupported assertion based on your theological necessity.  Morton's demon prevails again.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:47 AM on July 17, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A letter was added, the fitness improved, information was added.


It seems you'd think  an unsightly unnneeded bump under an otherwise normal and functional foot was extra information as well.Since when does an extra nucleotide base on an otherwise functional protein amount to new information? If I stuck an extra nonsensical word in a perfectly good poem, would it be extra information just because it is extra?

Yet another unsupported assertion based on your theological necessity.  Morton's demon prevails again.


That's what you've got -you hit the nail on the head! Evolutionists know that the transitional fossil forms must have existed because of theological necessity -they don't have to see any of them - Morton's demon! They know a land mammal turned into a whale over millions of years due to theological necessity -no wonder they don't need evidence. Morton's demon!



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 11:43 AM on July 17, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:43 AM on July 17, 2009 :
Since when does an extra nucleotide base on an otherwise functional protein amount to new information? If I stuck an extra nonsensical word in a perfectly good poem, would it be extra information just because it is extra?


E coli K-12 has 4,639,221 base pairs.

Insert another and you have 4,639,222.  An increase in information.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:46 PM on July 17, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

E coli K-12 has 4,639,221 base pairs.

Insert another and you have 4,639,222.  An increase in information.


Go ahead, deceive yourself.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 01:55 AM on July 18, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

EVERY organism is transitional, hence every fossil represents a 'transitional' fossil.
You simply don't recognise this because you believe that forms are fixed and relatively constant. Evolution is a response to the observation that the forms of living things have changed dramatically over time.

Just as we now know that the earth is not fixed in space we KNOW that the forms of living things have changed dramatically over time. Evolution represents a very successful attempt to explain the observed changes.

In the short term living organisms appear to maintain fairly constant forms and functions. Creation would be a good explanation for fixed forms such as those observed over short periods of time. However, we are able to observe through the fossil records that forms and functions have changed and creation does not explain that change very well at all unless you are able to compress timescales to the point where you create the illusion of fixedness in forms hence the creationists obsession with young earth dating and their determination to ignore the vast majority of dating evidence.

Ive read the YEC material on dating and I HAVE come to MY OWN conclusion which is that the evidence for young earth is unconvincing. That is what you keep asking for isnt it? People to look at the evidence and make up their own minds. Well!  Ive done that and made up my mind (not that that is a particularly valid scientific approach to gaining knowledge but Ive done it anyway for my own satisfaction). So... dont bother telling me to look at the young earth evidence because I have and its rubbish.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 04:56 AM on July 18, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:55 AM on July 18, 2009 :
E coli K-12 has 4,639,221 base pairs.

Insert another and you have 4,639,222.  An increase in information.


Go ahead, deceive yourself.




   Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli
   Susanna K. Remold* and Richard E. Lenski

   Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

   Edited by M. T. Clegg, University of California, Riverside, CA, and approved July 30, 2001 (received for review March 22, 2001)

   Numerous studies have shown genotype-by-environment (G×E) interactions for traits related to organismal fitness. However, the genetic architecture of the interaction is usually unknown because these studies used genotypes that differ from one another by many unknown mutations. These mutations were also present as standing variation in populations and hence had been subject to prior selection. Based on such studies, it is therefore impossible to say what fraction of new, random mutations contributes to G×E interactions. In this study, we measured the fitness in four environments of 26 genotypes of Escherichia coli, each containing a single random insertion mutation. Fitness was measured relative to their common progenitor, which had evolved on glucose at 37°C for the preceding 10,000 generations. The four assay environments differed in limiting resource and temperature (glucose, 28°C; maltose, 28°C; glucose, 37°C; and maltose, 37°C). A highly significant interaction between mutation and resource was found. In contrast, there was no interaction involving temperature. The resource interaction reflected much higher among mutation variation for fitness in maltose than in glucose. At least 11 mutations (42%) contributed to this G×E interaction through their differential fitness effects across resources. Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor. More generally, our findings demonstrate that G×E interactions can be quite common, even for genotypes that differ by only one mutation and in environments differing by only a single factor.


By sticking with reality. . .


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 07:51 AM on July 18, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Waterboy
EVERY organism is transitional, hence every fossil represents a 'transitional' fossil.


Standard evolutionist fair –I’ve heard that extremely lame and retarded explanation before –so why are we looking for transitionals? Oh, we’re not, because everything is transitional! Oh, so the state of the fossil record is soooo bad that they now know that they aren’t going to find the transitionals, so everything is now a transitional.
Oh, I see. You guys really are desperate.

You simply don't recognise this because you believe that forms are fixed and relatively constant.


I simply don’t recognize this because there aren't any transitionals to recognize.
 
Evolution represents a very successful attempt to explain the observed changes.


Evolution represents a very philosophical choice to explain everything naturalistically and thus avoid the obvious alternative.

However, we are able to observe through the fossil records that forms and functions have changed and creation does not explain that change very well at all


Actually the fossil record shows nothing but dead bones .The rest of the story is the evolutionist’s interpretation of the dead bones using uniformatarian assumptions and naturalistic philosophical suppositions. If my grandfather is buried above a hamster does that tell us that he evolved from a small hairy rodent? What does being buried actually tell us and how much do we make up?

creationists obsession with young earth dating and their determination to ignore the vast majority of dating evidence.


Actually the vast majority of dating techniques give us a relatively young age. Only radiometric dating gives us an old age. Evolution requires an old age and that is why evolutionists will only use the method that gives them what they want –‘scientific’ justification for believing what they prefer to believe..

So... dont bother telling me to look at the young earth evidence because I have and its rubbish.


Why is it that I don’t think you even looked?


Apoapsis
at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose
By sticking with reality. . .


You mean by ignoring the content of your own copy and paste.






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:00 AM on July 18, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Standard evolutionist fair –I’ve heard that extremely lame and retarded explanation before –so why are we looking for transitionals? Oh, we’re not, because everything is transitional! Oh, so the state of the fossil record is soooo bad that they now know that they aren’t going to find the transitionals, so everything is now a transitional.
Oh, I see. You guys really are desperate.


The claim has always been that everything is a transitional. It's impossible for an organism that reproduced to not be a transitional between its parents and its offspring. ...That is, unless the offspring are genetically identical, down to the very last nucleotide. Needless to say, that never happens.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 7/18/2009 at 5:56 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:55 PM on July 18, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 5:55 PM on July 18, 2009 :
That is, unless the offspring are genetically identical, down to the very last nucleotide. Needless to say, that never happens.


I wouldn't say never, organisms that reproduce a-sexually will essentially produce clones barred any mutations. While it is probably rare, I wouldn't be surprised if at least one organism reproduced a-sexually and had one offspring without any mutations.



-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 01:50 AM on July 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:43 AM on July 17, 2009 :
A letter was added, the fitness improved, information was added.


It seems you'd think  an unsightly unnneeded bump under an otherwise normal and functional foot was extra information as well.Since when does an extra nucleotide base on an otherwise functional protein amount to new information?

Since that is what Shannon information definitions dictate.  Or do you now want to alter the definitions to suit creationism's needs?



If I stuck an extra nonsensical word in a perfectly good poem, would it be extra information just because it is extra?

Your query is an example of how those not in the know have convinced themselves that they know more than they do.

Sorry, but DNA is not just like the english language.

When you people learn the material above the level of a high school sophomore, maybe your triumphant claims disguised as "questions" will be taken more seriously.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:53 PM on July 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:45 AM on June 27, 2009 :
I don’t believe that such a thing is purely a matter of chemistry nor is it according to people like Dean Kenyon who used to be a foremost authority on such chemical inter-relations.


Actually, that is just creationist disinformation.  Kenyon was never the ultimate authority that he is made out to be by YEC propagandists.  His "textbook" never made it past one printing, and one of my grad school publications has been cited more times than Kenyons "seminal text" (as I've seen it described by YECs)  has been, despite his book being published 30 years earlier.



I believe that that DNA information was put there by an intelligence for a purpose and that the message is separate from the material carrier just like a DVD disc is separate from the information that it conveys. I’ve said before that DNA has to have 5 levels (statistics, semantics etc) that have to be present to constitute information. DNA has all 5 levels and thus fulfils the criteria for information.


YOU'VE said that have you?

Don't you mean biblical literalist Werner Gitt said that, and HE can't explain why increases in information at the lower levels - which he admits - cannot increase information at the 'higher' levels?
I'll pat your back too whenever you surprise me with something of worth. Have i never done so?

Not that I recall but that is because I am stupid and Derwood is clever… or is it because I interpret things differently from you and Derwood……Sigh! Whatever. I know what Derwood would say –he is fuuull of ….insight!


Ah, such thinly veiled jealousy and covetousness...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:58 PM on July 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 5:30 PM on July 14, 2009 :
Derwood, can a mutation remove or add a single pair of nucleobases?[/color]

Sure.
Such a mutation would be called an indel (short for insertion/deletion).  Most indels are pretty short - one or two nucleotides - but some can be millions of bps in length.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 5:01 PM on July 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:30 AM on July 15, 2009 :
I’m sensing some projection here.


Me too...

increased information due to mutation is directly observed.


Never has been observed before and I’m betting it never does.


Creationist Lee SPetner has admitted that information increasing mutation in genes encoding enzymes do occur.  What special knowledge do you possess to make such a pronouncement that he does not?



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 5:03 PM on July 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:30 AM on July 15, 2009 :

Hellooo! There may be more of us but we’re not getting better. Mutational load, thousands of mutational syndromes building up in the human population, wake up !


Building up?

Can you name, say, 10 "new" mutation-related syndromes that exist now that did not exist 50 years ago?

Just who’s being ridiculous here?!


Um, maybe the guy whose arguments consist of parrotting creationist charlatans and analogizing genomes to the english language?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 5:05 PM on July 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 12:37 PM on July 15, 2009 :
How could an insertion mutation not be an example of increased information?



By definition:


Any change in the DNA sequence of a once perfect Created Organism is a loss of information.
- YEC dictionary of TROOOF



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 5:07 PM on July 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:50 AM on July 17, 2009 :
Most of the microvariation we see can be attributed to information already present in the genome -shuffling of alleles.


Really?

Can you name an example of 'microvariation' resulting in speciation which is the result solely of such shuffling?


Where mutation contributes, it does so by removing or distorting what was already there -there is no mechanism that has been demonstrated that causes integrated systems to build up via mutation.





Any evidence of an intelligence designing and implementing such things in biological entities?


How do we know that that is what happened if it can't be demonstrated to be possible?

There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence at the very least.


That and the fossil record which demonstrates the lack of directional change

Absurd.
Any mammals alongside trilobites?



and enormous gaps convinces me that it can't happen and it never did.


Enormous gaps filled by Yahweh.

Sad how those gaps requiring Divine intervention keep getting smaller and smaller.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 5:12 PM on July 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:43 AM on July 17, 2009 :
Since when does an extra nucleotide base on an otherwise functional protein amount to new information?


Nucleotides are not on proteins.

It would do creationists well to actually possess basic knowledge of the things they pretend expertise on instead of just paraphrasing what they've read on creationist propaganda sites in the hopes that they will appear knowledgible.




If I stuck an extra nonsensical word in a perfectly good poem, would it be extra information just because it is extra?


No, you would just make it clearer how little you understand genomes byu employing so silly an analogy.


Yet another unsupported assertion based on your theological necessity.  Morton's demon prevails again.


That's what you've got -you hit the nail on the head! Evolutionists know that the transitional fossil forms must have existed because of theological necessity -they don't have to see any of them - Morton's demon! They know a land mammal turned into a whale over millions of years due to theological necessity -no wonder they don't need evidence. Morton's demon!


The creationist must feel all a-tingle having 'bested' an evil evo by simply ignoring evidence that anyone truly innterested could learn about in a few hours.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 5:16 PM on July 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:00 AM on July 18, 2009 :
Waterboy
EVERY organism is transitional, hence every fossil represents a 'transitional' fossil.


Standard evolutionist fair –I’ve heard that extremely lame and retarded explanation before –


Every time I see a creationist engage in that vacant-eyed, empty headed God gibberish, the word that comes to my head is also 'retarded.'

Weird, huh?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 5:17 PM on July 19, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationist Lee SPetner has admitted that information increasing mutation in genes encoding enzymes do occur.  


Well as far as I have heard, he said that no point mutation has ever been demonstrated to increase information. Do you have a reference? I have his book "Not by Chance" but I'd have to read the whole thing over to find the quote.

Since when does an extra nucleotide base on an otherwise functional protein amount to new information?

Nucleotides are not on proteins.


My apologies -I meant to say 'on DNA'- which would affect the manufacture of proteins.

No, you would just make it clearer how little you understand genomes byu employing so silly an analogy.


Extra nucleotides would affect the formation of a protein somewhere.So it might well be like an extra or incorrect word in a poem. I think you understand what I'm saying anyway.

Absurd.
Any mammals alongside trilobites?


Meaning what?







-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:35 AM on July 21, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well as far as I have heard, he said that no point mutation has ever been demonstrated to increase information. Do you have a reference? I have his book "Not by Chance" but I'd have to read the whole thing over to find the quote.

Spetner says, from here:
Spetner

"Max's pièce de résistance was the somatic mutations in B lymphocytes (B cells) of the vertebrate immune system as examples of random mutations that add information. He implied that Evolution could follow this method to achieve baboons from bacteria. I agree with him that these mutations add information to the B-cell genome. I also agree that they are random, but they are random only in the base changes they make; they are not random in where in the genome they can occur. More important, I do not agree that the grand sweep of evolution could be achieved through such mutations.
Although the somatic mutations to which Max referred are point mutations that do indeed add information to the genome of the B cells, they cannot be applied to Darwinian evolution. These are not the kind of mutations that can operate as the random mutations required by NDT that can, through chance errors, build information one base change at a time."

Spetner admits that some mutations add information.  That's all we're taling about here, we can tear apart his other misconceptions later.  But the main point is, Lee Spetner says that mutations can increase information.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:24 PM on July 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:35 AM on July 21, 2009 :
Creationist Lee SPetner has admitted that information increasing mutation in genes encoding enzymes do occur.  


Well as far as I have heard, he said that no point mutation has ever been demonstrated to increase information. Do you have a reference? I have his book "Not by Chance" but I'd have to read the whole thing over to find the quote.


Oh, something like that would never be in a creationist book.  After all, Spetner's silly book was intended to sawy rubes, not engage in real scientific debate.  Consider, for example, that he only writes about enzymes.  Apparently, he didn't realize that enzymes are but one type of protin, and a type of protein that actually would have very little if anything to do with, for example, morphological changes.

Since when does an extra nucleotide base on an otherwise functional protein amount to new information?

Nucleotides are not on proteins.


My apologies -I meant to say 'on DNA'- which would affect the manufacture of proteins.


Sure.
No, you would just make it clearer how little you understand genomes by employing so silly an analogy.


Extra nucleotides would affect the formation of a protein somewhere.So it might well be like an extra or incorrect word in a poem. I think you understand what I'm saying anyway.


Yes - creationists have minimal knowledge of the things that they seem to think they have sufficient expertise on to make proclamations in.  Using language analogies are fine in, say, a freshman biology class when introducing the concepts in genetics to those who may never have learned them before.  However, the language analogy fails when you go beyond the basic concepts.  Changing a protein may well occur via mutation, but it is hardly the same as mis-spelling a word in a poem.  Such simple-minded 'challenges' and 'explanations' may work for those with a similarly limited understanding of a subject, but once one goes beyond introductory materuial, such analogies just seem trite and meaningless.

Absurd.
Any mammals alongside trilobites?


Meaning what?


Meaning that mammals and trilobites did not coexist, which we would expect were the bible myths actually true.


So, that is all you intend to reply to?

Almost as bad as gluteus....




(Edited by derwood 7/22/2009 at 5:59 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 5:58 PM on July 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 5:24 PM on July 22, 2009 :
Spetner says, from here:
Spetner

"...I do not agree that the grand sweep of evolution could be achieved through such mutations. "


Coming from a guy who believes in silly ancient Hebrew numerology - he interprets the Torah to indicate that there were 365 animals on the ark, for example - that disbelief is most incredibly irrelevant.

But the main point is, Lee Spetner says that mutations can increase information.

Very reluctantly, to be sure, but denying it would make him out to be the creatist nutbag that he is.
I cannot find it, but I also seem to remember that Spetner later tried to undo his admission by claiming that any change to the "original" code is a loss of information, no matter the outcomes.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 6:02 PM on July 22, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Meaning that mammals and trilobites did not coexist, which we would expect were the bible myths actually true.


Only if the geological column theory is true which it appears not to be. What about dragon petroglyphs and stories of dragons in historical records that sound every bit like dinosaurs. If dinosaurs and humans didn't co-exist then where did the people get the details of dinosaurs right down to the patterns on their skin? Like the coelcanth, someone's going to find a trilobite in the future and then all that will happen is that the evolutionists will incorporate them into their plastic theory that remains true no matter what the evidence has to say.

I cannot find it, but I also seem to remember that Spetner later tried to undo his admission by claiming that any change to the "original" code is a loss of information, no matter the outcomes.


Well I was going to ask in what manner it constituted an increase in information but now that he has realized that there is no increase in information, it won't be necessary.

As far as I know, Spetner is not a creationist but then you guys think anybody that denies your dogma must be a creationist, so whatever.  






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:16 AM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Only if the geological column theory is true which it appears not to be.

Nope, the geologic column is well tested and valid.

What about dragon petroglyphs and stories of dragons in historical records that sound every bit like dinosaurs.

That's the funnjy thing, when you examine the evidence, they don't sound like dinosaurs.  Dragons traditionally had four limbs and wings, no vertabrate has ever had this confiruation, that's why we reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals are called tetrapods, four limbs.  
dinosaur petroglyphs?  Show me ones that are not a hoax.  You forget ancient peoples stumbled upon fossils and did their best to explain them.  The theory is the legend of the cyclops came form finding mammoth skull and the legend of the gryphon came from finding protodceratops fossils.

If dinosaurs and humans didn't co-exist then where did the people get the details of dinosaurs right down to the patterns on their skin?

They didn't.

Like the coelcanth, someone's going to find a trilobite in the future and then all that will happen is that the evolutionists will incorporate them into their plastic theory that remains true no matter what the evidence has to say.

Coelacanth living today are very different from fossilized coelacanths, a completely different genus.  It's obvious the modern coelacanth evolved.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:25 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:16 AM on July 25, 2009 :someone's going to find a trilobite in the future



Doubtful, but wouldn't that be cool!




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 01:26 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nope, the geologic column is well tested and valid.


Actually no, it is only declared to be valid by those who believe that the strata represent long ages; it's not like they have any options as long as they insist on natural processes being responsible for life. The geological column actually doesn't exist anywhere but in the textbooks, it's missing large chunks all over the planet but shows no signs of erosion between layers. Also polystrate fossils running through millions of layers of rock show clearly that all the layers had to be laid down rapidly.

You forget ancient peoples stumbled upon fossils and did their best to explain them.


Actually I'm not talking about people stumbling upon fossils, I'm talking about people from many ancient cultures from England to China having stories about them; also the indians of North and South America. They were written about in Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Switzerland,Scandinavia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Persia, Russia, India and Japan. The word dinosaur was only invented in the 1800's so the word used to describe them differs from culture to culture but the dragons were clearly dinosaurs of different kinds.  

Coelacanth living today are very different from fossilized coelacanths


I'd love to see the ancient vs the modern ones -I'll bet they were virtually identical and clearly identifiable.  



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:18 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually no, it is only declared to be valid by those who believe that the strata represent long ages;

Actually yes.  Evidence is overwhelming.  From here:
Geologic Column

The entire geologic column is found in 25 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order. These basins are:
The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

So once again, reality proves you wrong.

Also polystrate fossils running through millions of layers of rock show clearly that all the layers had to be laid down rapidly.

Wrong again, polystrate fossils only show that the layers that cover a tree had to be laied down rapidly, this is accomplished by mudslides, ash fall from volcanos and in no way invalidates the geologic column.

Actually I'm not talking about people stumbling upon fossils, I'm talking about people from many ancient cultures from England to China having stories about them; also the indians of North and South America. They were written about in Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Switzerland,Scandinavia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Persia, Russia, India and Japan.

They were all made up, we also have stories of giants, unicorns, Rocs, chimeras ad infinitum, stories don't equal truth, just look at the bible.

The word dinosaur was only invented in the 1800's so the word used to describe them differs from culture to culture but the dragons were clearly dinosaurs of different kinds.

Actually, when you look at the details, they are not dinosaurs, just desperate creationists trying to twist anything they can into they're silly superstitions.  

I'd love to see the ancient vs the modern ones -I'll bet they were virtually identical and clearly identifiable.  

And, as usual, you would be wrong, they are not virually identical, they are even a seperate genus.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:41 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The entire geologic column is found in 25 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order.


Well in other words what you are telling me is that only in these few places are all the layers present. Shouldn't they be everywhere? Doesn't time extend throughout? In the rest of the world where lots of layers are missing but clearly not eroded away, what does that tell us -that time went missing in the rest of the world wherever layers are missing?
What about the places where the layers are out of order? mixed up?

How do we date the rocks?
By the index fossils that are found in them and the theory behind evolution that puts certain dates on certain fossils.

How do we date the fossils?
By the rocks that they are found in ie. by the index fossils that were found in those rocks and according to the theory of evolution that underpins the entire story.

polystrate fossils only show that the layers that cover a tree had to be laied down rapidly


Precisely my point.

They were all made up


'Fraid not - even if you imagine that some were made up, which I doubt, you still need to discount stories of Marco Polo encountering dragons and historians, like the Roman Historian Livy who wrote once of a dragon in Africa which attacked the army of General Regulus. Why is it that the moment historical stories mention dragons, they all thought to have lost the plot? There are enough of these stories for me to say that evolutionists have lost the plot. They were particularly common in China and if you call them myths then that is because you prefer to think that, not because the evidence has been discounted.

Actually, when you look at the details, they are not dinosaurs


Actually when you look at the details they are, and all different kinds of dinosaurs are mentioned in different accounts.

I'd love to see the ancient vs the modern ones -I'll bet they were virtually identical and clearly identifiable.


And, as usual, you would be wrong, they are not virually identical, they are even a seperate genus.


Well I don't know how to insert them here but I had a look on the net by googling "coelocanth fossil" and "live coelocanth" and there is really little difference between the two so if anything there is more than one variety of coelocanth but any difference is easily change within the kind -so no macro change there. If they are in a different genus, maybe it's because evolutionists believe that some are millions of years old and some are modern.  



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:05 AM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:05 AM on July 26, 2009 :
The entire geologic column is found in 25 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order.


Well in other words what you are telling me is that only in these few places are all the layers present. Shouldn't they be everywhere? Doesn't time extend throughout?



Geological processes happen...it's amazing that we have the well preserved instances of the strata we do as opposed to the opposite.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 3:54 PM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:05 AM on July 26, 2009 :
How do we date the rocks?



By radiometric techniques such as argon-argon dating.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 3:56 PM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:05 AM on July 26, 2009 :you still need to discount stories of Marco Polo encountering dragons and historians, like the Roman Historian Livy who wrote once of a dragon in Africa which attacked the army of General Regulus...


Are you serious?  Perhaps we need to take into account the Harry Potter stories as well when we formulate scientific models and theories?  


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 3:58 PM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well in other words what you are telling me is that only in these few places are all the layers present. Shouldn't they be
everywhere?


No, because the earth's surface is not static, plate tectonics change and destroy the crust of the earth.  Erosion changes the surface of the earth.  Your problem is you can't explain the few places we do find that still contain the entire geologic column becasue according to your claims, it shouldn't exist at all.

Precisely my point.

Right, we know the mechanisms that form polystrate fossils, we know that they are best explained by natural geologic forces, we know they are not evidence for a world wide flood or a young earth.

'Fraid not - even if you imagine that some were made up, which I doubt, you still need to discount stories of Marco Polo encountering dragons and historians, like the Roman Historian Livy who wrote once of a dragon in Africa which attacked the army of General Regulus.

'Fraid so.  Marco Polo certainly didn't describe a dinosaur and General Regulus supposedly battled a giant snake, not a dinosaur.  A serpent is NOT a dinosaur.  As I said, when you look at the details, no dinosaurs were described.

Why is it that the moment historical stories mention dragons, they all thought to have lost the plot?

Because people did not travel much back in ancient times, they didn't know what animals really existed, there wasn't a common knowledge of whales, crocodiles, pythons, gorillas and the like.  So if a roman general going to Africa for the first time encounters a 30 foot python that kills one of his men, he is prone to exagerate and since he has never seen a snake that big, he would describe it in terms that make sense to a man of that time, a monster serpent, or Marco Polo describing an crocodile or large monitor lizard as a dragon.  the fact remains, there is absolutely no evidence of non avian dinosaurs surviving past the KT boundry.  And myths and tall stories aren't evidence of anything.

There are enough of these stories for me to say that evolutionists have lost the plot.

Since you are ignorant of biology, archaeology, anthropolgy to name a few, your opinion is worthless.

Actually when you look at the details they are, and all different kinds of dinosaurs are mentioned in different accounts.

Prove it, because your examples of Marco Polo and General Regulus certainly DIDN'T describe dinosaurs.

Well I don't know how to insert them here but I had a look on the net by googling "coelocanth fossil" and "live coelocanth" and there is really little difference between the two so if anything there is more than one variety of coelocanth but any difference is easily change within the kind -so no macro change there. If they are in a different genus, maybe it's because evolutionists believe that some are millions of years old and some are modern.

But they are different.  they are not "virtually identical" as you claimed.  They didn't remain static, they evolved.  Different genus is macroevolution.  Creationists claims that they didn't evolve are refuted.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:34 PM on July 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are you serious?  Perhaps we need to take into account the Harry Potter stories as well when we formulate scientific models and theories?

If lester could twist Harry Potter into supporting his fairytale, I'm sure he would.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:35 PM on July 26, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:16 AM on July 25, 2009 :
Meaning that mammals and trilobites did not coexist, which we would expect were the bible myths actually true.


Only if the geological column theory is true which it appears not to be.

Please enlighten us on the geological column 'theory' which is not true.  Another area of your expertise?


What about dragon petroglyphs and stories of dragons in historical records that sound every bit like dinosaurs.

What about winged fairies and sea nymphs - also found ancient pictures and pictograms and 'historical' records?


If dinosaurs and humans didn't co-exist then where did the people get the details of dinosaurs right down to the patterns on their skin?

Ever seen an iguana?  What sounds more impressive, say, in a culture that values 'warriors' - killing a 2-foot long iguana, or killing.. a GIANT one!  That... um... breathed FIRE!

Like the coelcanth, someone's going to find a trilobite in the future and then all that will happen is that the evolutionists will incorporate them into their plastic theory that remains true no matter what the evidence has to say.

Remaining 'plastic' is what a GOOD theory does.  It incorporates new evidence as needed.  Remaining static REGARDLESS of the evidence, like creationism, is what we get from dogmas.

I cannot find it, but I also seem to remember that Spetner later tried to undo his admission by claiming that any change to the "original" code is a loss of information, no matter the outcomes.


Well I was going to ask in what manner it constituted an increase in information but now that he has realized that there is no increase in information, it won't be necessary.

LOL!!!

OK - is this an increase or a decrease in information, as you consider yourself well-informed enough to know:

Science 27 September 2002:
Vol. 297. no. 5590, pp. 2253 - 2256

A Single P450 Allele Associated with Insecticide Resistance in Drosophila


Insecticide resistance is one of the most widespread genetic changes caused by human activity, but we still understand little about the origins and spread of resistant alleles in global populations of insects. Here, via microarray analysis of all P450s in Drosophila melanogaster, we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1. Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene.



As far as I know, Spetner is not a creationist but then you guys think anybody that denies your dogma must be a creationist, so whatever.  

I have no dogma.  Spetner IS a creationist - that you are unaware of this shows how people like him try to hide theiur true allegiances from the public so as to make their propaganda less suspect.

To see just what sort of a creationist he is, you may want to read this.

"How does this suggestion fit with Torah hashkafa? Is there room for such evolution, or for any evolution at all, within Torah? It turns out that the suggestion made here is derivable from Talmudic sources. Rabbi David Luria (RaDaL) indeed made such a derivation in his commentary to the Midrash Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer. From Talmudic and Midrashic sources he derived the necessity of animals to evolve. As Rabbi Luria interpreted the Midrash, there were 365 basic species (minim) of beasts created, and the same number of birds. All the others were derived from these. As each basic species moved into a different environment and found itself a new niche, it changed. The changes were dictated by the conditions under which it lived, including the food it ate. Rabbi Luria's conclusion is very much like the suggestion presented here."


365 species... Hmmm...

That mystical numerology again...






-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:42 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:18 AM on July 26, 2009 :
Coelacanth living today are very different from fossilized coelacanths


I'd love to see the ancient vs the modern ones -I'll bet they were virtually identical and clearly identifiable.  


I'd like to see your analysis of the two.

Of course, maybe they would be 'virtually identical and clearly identifiable' - sort of like how the tales in the bible are 'virtually identical and clearly identifiable' when compared to the religious mythology of other middle-eastern and north African lore of the time...




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:44 PM on July 27, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok
my turn to try and answer the question (the original questions)

Does a dog contain information on how to be a dog?
Yes, it is called DNA.
I will let someone else elaborate on How DNA works. but it should suffice you to know that a dogs DNA does contain the information on how to be a dog.
that DNA has already been used to manipulate the growth of the dog from the embryo stage to now

Does a snowflake contain information on how to be a snowflake?
Yes, the H2O molecule that snowflakes are made of have both positive and  negative charges.
given the shape of H2O molecules, and charges of these molecules, they will always bond together in a complex but predictable manner. so long a certain criteria is met (temperature, availability of required molecules, etc)

Does a rock contain information on how to be a rock?
Yes
exactly the same answer as above. except that snowflakes are made up of H2O. and rocks are made up of a completely different combination of molecules.
if given v amounts of w molecules. at x temperature and at y pressure they will join together in z manner

Does a pudding contain information on how to be a pudding?
Yes
once again, the same as above:
DNA tells chickens how to lay eggs.
DNA tells cows how to make milk
mathematics tells pudding mixture to cook in predictable manner when baked at a predetermined temperature


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 11:25 PM on September 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 11:25 PM on September 13, 2009 :

Does a snowflake contain information on how to be a snowflake?
Yes, the H2O molecule that snowflakes are made of have both positive and  negative charges.
given the shape of H2O molecules, and charges of these molecules, they will always bond together in a complex but predictable manner. so long a certain criteria is met (temperature, availability of required molecules, etc)


So will DNA.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:34 PM on September 13, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, I did say

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 11:25 PM on September 13, 2009 :

I will let someone else elaborate on How DNA works






-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 02:21 AM on September 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:18 AM on July 26, 2009 :

I'd love to see the ancient vs the modern ones -I'll bet they were virtually identical and clearly identifiable.  



And it would be your extensive knowledge of anatomy and palontology that would guide you, right?


And I'd love to see you ACTUALLY support this claim of yours:

"Molecular genetics does not support evolution."

Last time, all you could do was divert and dodge (brought up Hippos...)..



(Edited by derwood 9/14/2009 at 3:27 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:55 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 02:21 AM on September 14, 2009 :
Well, I did say

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 11:25 PM on September 13, 2009 :

I will let someone else elaborate on How DNA works






If YOU do not know, then perhaps you should withold judgement.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:56 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
Derwood, can a mutation remove or add a single pair of nucleobases?
Sure.
Such a mutation would be called an indel (short for insertion/deletion).  Most indels are pretty short - one or two nucleotides - but some can be millions of bps in length.
Excellent! Thanks!

So, Lester. Imagine a mutation removes a single pair of nucleobases. That would be a loss of information, under your view. Correct?

Now imagine that pair of nucleobases being reinserted. There would be no gain of information, under your view. Correct?

Am i missing something?


(Edited by wisp 10/20/2009 at 03:58 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 03:55 AM on October 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 8:07 PM on July 19, 2009 :
Quote from Apoapsis at 12:37 PM on July 15, 2009 :
How could an insertion mutation not be an example of increased information?
By definition:

Any change in the DNA sequence of a once perfect Created Organism is a loss of information.
- YEC dictionary of TROOOF
Unless a human tinkers with it. Then it can be called "increase of information" safely (it doesn't matter if Nature has produced the very same mutation), because humans are intelligent. Then they'd see it as evidence for intelligent design.

No need to study the reality. Defining it is enough for them.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 04:08 AM on October 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

anti-evolutionist
Ok
my turn to try and answer the question (the original questions)
Yeah, baby!
Does a dog contain information on how to be a dog?
Yes, it is called DNA.
I will let someone else elaborate on How DNA works. but it should suffice you to know that a dogs DNA does contain the information on how to be a dog.
that DNA has already been used to manipulate the growth of the dog from the embryo stage to now
Ok. So far so good.
Does a snowflake contain information on how to be a snowflake?
Yes, the H2O molecule that snowflakes are made of have both positive and  negative charges.
given the shape of H2O molecules, and charges of these molecules, they will always bond together in a complex but predictable manner. so long a certain criteria is met (temperature, availability of required molecules, etc)
So... Seemingly little intelligence is needed to produce information. Right?
Does a rock contain information on how to be a rock?
Yes
exactly the same answer as above. except that snowflakes are made up of H2O. and rocks are made up of a completely different combination of molecules.
if given v amounts of w molecules. at x temperature and at y pressure they will join together in z manner

Excellent!

So can we agree on the fact that no intelligence is needed to produce information?


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 04:25 AM on October 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, anti-evolutionist deserted.

Wanna pick the ball up, Lester?

Do you see information/intent/purpose/intelligence/meaning in a rabbit warren?

Anti-evolutionist thinks a rock has information on how to be a rock. Do you agree with your fellow creationist?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:38 PM on November 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Still nothing...

Well, i'm going to go ahead and compile some beneficial mutations with words, just to amuse myself. Mutations consist of only one letter (added, subtracted or changed).

Reintarnation
   Coming back to life as a hillbilly.

Foreploy
   Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of obtaining sex.

Giraffiti
   Vandalism spray-painted very, very high.

Sarchasm
   The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the recipient who doesn't get it.

Inoculatte
   To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.

Osteopornosis
   A degenerate disease.

Burglesque
   A poorly planned break-in.

Karmageddon
   It's like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's like a serious bummer.

Dopeler effect
   The tendency of stupid ideas to seem brighter when they come at you rapidly.

Intaxication
   Euphoria at getting a refund from the IRS, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:07 PM on November 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I
IN
PIN
PINE
SPINE

Anyways... Hi, creationists.
Can you please tell us how to quantify that "information" stuff you keep talking about?

Our methods can't detect any.

There are lots of "simpler" (?) organisms that have much more genes than we do. I'm sure that doesn't relate to information in a direct correlation.

Please, help us.

Thanks in advance.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:34 AM on November 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Leeeesteeer! =D

Did you feel like you had anything to say about information? Because this is the thread.

Do you agree with what anti-evolutionist said?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:07 AM on November 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I give you a link with the creationist updated response on the issue of information.

Lester sure seems to support this.

http://tinyurl.com/creationistresponse



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:02 PM on November 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, with no creationists left standing i'll have to pick them from other places.

I'm watching Expelled right now.
I thought it would be a very crappy movie. It's not. Just dishonest, and intelligently designed to appeal to the ignorant fool, which is no worse than many journalists i've read.

At 0:39 they talk about information.

Stein interviews molecular biologist Doublas A. Axe.

Axe (talking about the DNA):
This is the material that stores all of our genetic information. (d'oh!) In higher life forms this would be the equivalent of something like a gigabyte of information stored in the molecules that form the individual chromosomes, all packed within the nucleus which is a tiny fraction of the entire cell size.

Gigabytes? Nice! He's talking about something measurable!

William Albert Dembski (mathematician and philosopher): (What)
we are finding is that there's information that's in the cell that cannot be accounted for in therms of this undirected material causes. So there has to be an information source.

John Lennox (matematician): So one of the key questions faced by modern biology is where do you get information from.

Marciej Giertych (population genetist - European Union): What... Eh... Darvins assumed that the increase in information comes from Natural Selection. But Natural Selection reduces genetic information. And we know this by all the genetic population studies that we have.
Stein: And where is the new genetic information gonna come from?
Giertych: Well, that's the big question.


Darwin assumed what??

Anyway, i wonder... How did they measure that information loss? If they can show us, we can easily show them lots of cases when the opposite happens.

Whatever... Doug Axe said that we (higher life forms) had about one gigabyte worth of information in our DNA. Quite an imprecise statement, since it varies so much.

Does it matter to him that we have 3 billion base pairs while the polychaos dubium has 670?

Us: 3.
Amoeba: 670.

670/3=223.33

An onion has 4 to 12 times as much DNA as a human.

Anyway, if we're talking about something measurable, they lose. Gene duplication clearly adds to that information. Yes, Lester. If you repeat a piece of information you get extra information (if by "information" you mean anything measurable -i.e. real-). Grab any txt file, duplicate several segments, then see the new size. That's objective and measurable. And it destroys your silly position.

The corn shows lots of gene duplications due to human selection. So you get an increase of information by any means. Whether it's something objective (more bytes) or subjective (more helpful, i.e. more nutritious and tastier).

You lose, we win. It is that simple.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 03:12 AM on November 21, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Regarding Expelled, you should check out:

Expelled Exposed

and

Ode to Caroline Crocker

and

Creating a martyr


These and other sources show that garbage for what it was - a series of deceptively crafted distortions, embellishments, and outright lies that YECs and Christian ID types gobbled up without question.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:04 PM on November 21, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.