I hesitate to ever call anyone a liar, but you, Fred Williams are either a liar or you have a serious short term memory problem. Allow me to demonstrate.
Earlier, you made the following claims in post 54:
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
FK: After all, if loss of diversity in the cheetah population is a loss of information,
FW: Yes, and a new species. Catching on?
FK: I am pretty confident that a kind giving rise to 30 species would involve a pretty hefty creation of new information.
FW: I’m extremely confident it would not, because we have even observed the arrival of new species, all without any new genetic information. In fact, many are likely to be the result of lost genetic information. The cheetah is a great example!
You are clearly claiming here that cheetah speciation occurred due to some loss of information. Of course the fact that you continue to avoid providing a definition of information has not been lost on me. Please give me an example of a new species arising as a result of a loss of information, and tell me how it was determined that information was lost.
In your latest reply to me, post 66, you say:
quote:
FK: So now your claim is that loss of genetic diversity RESULTED in the speciation of cheetahs?
FW: No. I can’t keep repeating myself. Please go back and read what I wrote.
FK: That seems to be a brand new claim.
FW: It seems this way to you because you were unable to follow the discussion.
FK: I don’t know what to say, other than your statements clearly contradict your earlier claims. That is what happens when you make inconsistent arguments.
quote:
FK: Previously, you stated that this loss occurred in the existing cheetah population.
FW: Huh? I stated that the cheetah has less genetic information than its pre-bottleneck parent species. Why is this so hard to understand? This is a simple, straightforward statement.
FK: Perhaps the reason it is not so straightforward is that you are avoiding like the plague my request that you provide a definition of information. You just seem to hand wave away all examples without providing a consistent criteria for measuring information.
quote:
FW: The cheetah is a cat kind. A branch of this cat kind became isolated. This resulted in the CHEETAH. The cheetah has LESS information than its parent, pre-bottleneck cat kind. I already provided a citation from a CHEETAH expert who agrees it is likely the cheetah has lost gene segments.
What the expert said and the way you are trying to use it to bolster your argument is entirely inconsistent. Did the expert say that cheetahs have lost diversity, or that some earlier ancestor lost diversity, leading to cheetahs? The latter is your claim, but is not supported by what your expert said. You are grasping at straws here, and making unsupported claims.
Also, you previously stated that loss of gene segments was a loss of information. On the other hand, you claim that gaining segments would not be a gain. You have yet to satisfactorily explain this dilemma. Let me put this is very simple terms, so that you might be able to understand it. Consider the following example:
The cheetah population, via a point mutation, loses the last surviving allele in the cheetah population. According to Fred Williams’ criteria, this is a loss of information. But let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s say that later, another point mutation restores the function of this allele in a descendent. According to Fred Williams’ criteria, this would not be a gain of information, as the change did not benefit the entire population. Yet we are right back where we started from. But if we apply the Fred Williams’ criteria, there has been a net loss of information. Please address this, or consider your argument trashed.
quote:
FW: Lions and Tigers also share a common cat kind ancestor. Each likely has less information than their common ancestor cat kind. Savvy?
FK: I savvy that you are once again making up things without any scientific evidence of any kind. Please cease this ridiculous practice, or ante up some evidence.
quote:
FW: No, what I wish is that you would follow the discussion. I do not know of a single evolutionist trained in info science who thinks the appearance of a new allele necessarily represents new information. Yet this is what you keep claiming, because you cannot get it through your thick skull. Find me ONE evolutionist who has a background in info science who thinks a new allele always equals new information. If this is true, then DISEASE = new information by this standard. Utter nonsense.
FK: Nice straw man. But what I am proposing is that you give us your definition of information so that we can determine what an increase would look like. After all, according to your definition a new allele resulting in a disease might very well qualify as new information. The problem is that you haven’t provided a definition. The reason is obvious — you would then no longer be able to hold onto your delusions.
quote:
FW: The problem is, your blinders are on so tight you deny that 1+1=2.
FK: No, your blinders are on so tight that you are asserting that 1+1=1. You, sir, are the one claiming that information can’t increase. I certainly recognize when a quantity increases.
quote:
FW: Let me lay it on the line: You have to be a complete moron to believe deterioration = new information. You would give flat-earthers a good name.
FK: That straw man continues to grow. Please don’t attribute arguments to me that I did not make. I understand that you are having trouble with the argument, but your desperation shows as you continue to build up your straw man.
quote:
FW: For over three years now I have asked evolutionists who believe diseases such as sickle cell, cancer, and now HIV, add genetic information to the genome, to find any information scientist from their side to support their claim. No one has ever stepped forward. Why?
That all depends on the metric you are using, now doesn’t it? It is very clear why you won’t commit to a definition. You know that as soon as you do, the game is over. As long as you don’t commit, you can just continue to declare any given example as a decrease, based on your mysterious personal criteria. From the posted comments, everyone here sees right through you. Personally, I believe you are intentionally playing games.
quote:
ark lover: Many species of fresh water fish and many plants are also big problems as well. Why don’t YECs do the experiment of soaking a wide variety of plant seed in salty water for a year and then throwing them out on ground that had been under salt water to see if they grow? I think I know why. Do you?
FW: No, and to be honest I don’t care much. Certain topics interest me, and this ain’t one of them.
Translation: I can’t support this argument. I threw out some Biblical verses as a smoke screen, but when pressed for details I realized I couldn’t provide them.
Please begin supporting your arguments with something other than personal assertion, and stop insulting me whenever you contradict yourself.
FK
™ Version 4.2