Give your one best shot - against evolution

I will need to see the osseous remains of all of the Biblical patriarchs, and, indeed, an unbroken chain of corpses from Adam to me in order for there to be any merit whatsoever to the bibilical creation myth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
No, it is relevant, because it is not evolution. That is, the type of evolution that lies at the cored of our debate. The type of evolution as understood by the public, marge-scale change over time.

​

Do you agree or disagree that info gain or loss is relevant when debating large-scale evolution, such as scales to feathers, no sonar to sonar, etc?

---

Kimura demonstrated mathematically that naturalk selection adds adaptive information to the genome in 1961. I should have thought that so well-read a creationist as you would have already known this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

Fred Williams writes:

---

Yes, "information is nebulous" is one of the three famous reasons evolutionists give to avoid the information problem that is so devestating for large-scale evolution.

---

​

When Joe says, "'information' is such a nebulous term" he doesn't mean "information is nebulous", but that he's not sure how you're defining it. Can't have a discussion if you don't agree on terminology.

​

--Percy

---

Careful, now - if you want creationists to use proper terminology, and to use the terminology properly, and to use terminology in the manner in which those in the field do, you are just nit-picking and setting up strawmen and red herrings...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Chalk it up to a "loss of information" over this medium! I did understand him to mean information is an encompassing and sometimes difficult to quantify term, that is why I asked him the followup question on new DNA algorithms for sonar.

​

Joe's was one of the 3 common reactions I get on the information problem: since information can mean different things (Shannon information, Gitt information, complex specified information, etc) it's not worth the trouble so it's brushed aside.

​

BTW, my earlier typo "marge-scale" should have read "large-scale".

---

There is no such thing as Gitt information outside of creationism. No surprise that creationist information-mongers prefer Gitt information (information must come from a 'conscious mind'...) over all else.I wonder - what conscious mind put information in tree rings?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
The whole concept of using probabilities to verify an event
for which we don't actually know the conditions or raw
materials or time scales seems a little contrived to me.

---

Indeed. But, it impresses the lay folk, so it is a creationist propagandist staple.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Would you care to share with the world how selection alone, working on pre-existing genes, could possibly produce *new* information?

---

I take it then, that you are NOT as well read as you would have us believe - that, or perhaps you simply ignore/deny anything contrary to your personal opinions on this matter.Natural Selection as the process of accumulating genetic information in adaptive evolution. 1961. Kimura, M."...natural selection is a mechanism by which new genetic information can be created. Indeed, this is the only mechanism known in natural science which can create it."The paper is laden with equations and graphs, which I do not have the formatting skills to reproduce here. The paper is reproduced in "Population Genetics, Molecular Evolution, and the Neutral Theory - selected papers (of Motoo Limura)". 1994.

quote:

---

Also, your continued claim that a tree ring contains a code is truly amazing! I will say it is at the very least quite original!

---

I said that tree rings contain 'code'? Hmm - lets take a look at what I actually wrote, shall we?"I wonder - what conscious mind put information in tree rings?"Emphasis mine. It would do the YEC well to accurately portray his opponant's statements, especially when they are easily accessible.Tree rings, in nearly all circumstances, represent one season's growth. When we cut down a tree or take a core sample, the rings are evident. Are they just a random pattern? Are they unique to individual trees? No. Again, each ring represents one season's growth. Is that [i]information/i? Is it a "code"
In addition, individual tree rings can provide information regarding the growing season. Thicker rings represent 'good' years - lots of water and sunshine; thinner rings, not-so-good years. Individual rings can contain evidence of insect activity, fire, severe weather, etc. Is that considered information or not?It is interesting to note that depending on the creationist, tree rings: definitely do not contain information; do contain information, but only after humans 'decode it' (maybe Fred - information theory 'xpert' - better track down those wrong-headed YECs and set them straight!); do contain information, but not the right kind; etc.So, do tree rings contain information? By most logical standards, yes. Is that information quantifiable? I have no idea. Does it fall under the auspices of so-called "Gitt inforamtion"? Apparently not. Is it in a 'code'? Well, the rings don't have captions, so...Of course, all "Gitt information" is is an argument via favorable (and completely arbitrary and unaccepted by actual information theorists) definitions.Gitt - a creationist - claims that all information must come from a 'conscious mind'. Under such a definition, there is no such thing as 'naturally' occurring instances of information generation.Wonderful how that works.

Just for fun, one can take a look and see what 'evolutionist Dr.Tom Schneider thinks about Fred's arguments: http://www.fred.net/tds/anti/fred.williams/

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
Some of us are looking to you for guidance here, Fred. Or do you just not want to be pinned down?

---

Most likely, he doe snot want to get pinned down. As you might recall, whenever he committed to anything specific on the old OCW board, he was shown to be in error.Easier to maintain the "I'm always right" facade when you refuse to commit to anything for which there are rational standards of evidence for.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
BLAH INFORMATION BLAH GITT BLAH EXPERT

---

Gitt 'information', which I shall call Schitt information, is totally made up creationist nonsense.Williams the electrical engineer creationist calls himself an 'expert' in information despite admitting to contributing nothing to the field nor engaging in any higher-education on the matter and so has latched onto whatever he can to desperately try to prop up his "the bible is 100% accurate" pap.Best bet?Ignore him. I think I will try that from now on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:

​

According to Information Theory, Dolly the Sheep may indeed be the the Lamb of God.

---

LOL! Good one!

quote:

---

Fred:
...(that’s why informed evolutionists try to argue gene duplication/subsequent mutation & selection).

---

Are these the dsame "informed evolutionists" that 'know' functional is the same thing as genic?Williams tactic: In case you haven't noticed, Williams will try to insult via claiming that those that are "informed" would agree with him.In the past, he has used this tactic and it backfired. He is just trying to make people think that he knows more than he really does.It is a tactic, and nothing more. Best bet is to ignore his references to "informed" anything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
...Dr Lee Spetner documents this well in his book ‘Not by Chance’.

---

Is this the same Spetner that believes that all extant animals arose from 365 original kinds and that all birds arose form 365 original bird kinds?Does his book 'Not by Chance' provide any actual documentation supporting these odd beliefs, or is it the usual creationist "attack evolution, explain nothing" pap?

quote:

---

Join a big crowd of evolutionists who are right there with you in the crowd of denial. Brushing aside the problem does not make it go away. Evolution is a fairytale, folks! (that was for Scotty )

---

Yeah - just deny that there is no evidence for one's position. Ignore refutations of your favorite arguments.
Schitt information is the ONLY real definition! Never mind that not a single Information or Communications Theory department uses anything by Gitt in their teaching - must be the conspiracy!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
It makes the organism (bacteria) heterozygous at that locus.

---

Hmmm.... Must be the Shitt information definition....

​

[This message has been edited by SLPx, 07-11-2002]

Fred, you never replied to message 150...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Actually, I found that post "attracive" and planned on responding to it (which still doesn't mean I'll get to it, because I never know when a fire will start here at work). I'm going to tackle Mark's latest, then if I have time that one will be next.

---

Well, lets hope so, as it was made in direct response to one of your 'challenges'.