Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2019 5:58 AM
18 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,246 Year: 5,283/19,786 Month: 1,405/873 Week: 301/460 Day: 1/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
Author Topic:   SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4586 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 91 of 104 (24444)
11-26-2002 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Adminnemooseus
11-26-2002 9:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Adminnemooseus:
Getting a little obnoxious here SLPx?

Admin (aka Percy) also gave you a warning yesterday, on another of your messages that was posted about the same time.

Now, don't start a forum guidlines debate.

{Adminnemooseus topic watch flag}

Adminnemooseus


++++++++++++++

While you may have found the titles of SLPx threads offensive, what about the content? I thought the blood clotting argument he posted in particular is interesting. I deleted my post in that thread on the assumption the thread would be deleted. Will that thread continue?

cheers,
M


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-26-2002 9:47 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 104 (24446)
11-26-2002 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Fred Williams
11-22-2002 12:51 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 12:51 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 104 (24447)
11-26-2002 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Randy
11-22-2002 5:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Randy:
8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;

I guess that in addition to being a jealous and angry God, we are very fortunate he is not also a forgetful God. Can you imagine if he had not “remembered Noah”? I can just see him wistfully passing the time for a few hundred years, and suddenly going “Doh! Forgot about Noah and crew”. That might have been an embarrassing moment indeed.

FK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Randy, posted 11-22-2002 5:29 PM Randy has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5776 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 94 of 104 (24512)
11-26-2002 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by derwood
11-25-2002 8:56 AM


dear Dr PAge,

You write:
Indeed. It appears that El Retardo is applying some sort of molecular clock, which I believe he earlier had some big problems with.

It is amazing how these imbeciles can so handily and almost boastfully apply and utilize such obvious double standards and simplistic 'science' when it suits their needs.

I also find it funny that ElRetardo is actually trying to play the 'authority' game with me...

Reading through Williams' and Borgers' posts, I am more convinced than ever that creationists suffer from a common mental defect. And I am not just writing that to be clever, I truly believe this. No rational, sane person could write such contradictory, simple-minded gibberish and actually think that they have 'scored' some sort of victory. It boggles the mind.

I say:
THERE IS NO BETTER PROOF AGAINST EVOLUTIONISM THAN DR PAGE's LETTERS. PLEASE KEEP POSTING THEM.

You evolutionists are in bad company.

Dr Page IS the best reason I've ever encountered to become/stay anti-evolutionism.

Best wishes,
Peter

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-26-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by derwood, posted 11-25-2002 8:56 AM derwood has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Mammuthus, posted 11-27-2002 6:53 AM peter borger has responded

    
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4586 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 95 of 104 (24557)
11-27-2002 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by peter borger
11-26-2002 7:48 PM


quote:
{Entire previous message quoted - Deleted - Adminnemooseus}

++++++++++++++++++++

If Page is your "proof" against evolution and your "reason" for your unwillingness to inform youself about it then your scholarship is truly poorer than I could ever have imagined. What next? You will change your field of disciplines and not "believe" in gene expression because you don't like Rudolph Jaenisch? Great criteria....

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-27-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by peter borger, posted 11-26-2002 7:48 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by peter borger, posted 11-27-2002 6:55 PM Mammuthus has responded
 Message 100 by derwood, posted 11-28-2002 5:44 PM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5776 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 96 of 104 (24677)
11-27-2002 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Mammuthus
11-27-2002 6:53 AM


Dear Mammuthus,

You say:

"If Page is your "proof" against evolution and your "reason" for your unwillingness to inform youself about it then your scholarship is truly poorer than I could ever have imagined. What next? You will change your field of disciplines and not "believe" in gene expression because you don't like Rudolph Jaenisch? Great criteria...."

You also say (#309 thread: mol gen evidence for a MPG):

"I was making fun of you...but I see you are incapable of understanding even that...and I thought the Germans were tight asses..guess the Dutch trump them."

I say:

What about you, Mammuthus? How tight is it?

Dr Page is also proof for the MPG. He obviously lost the how-to-be-polite genes.

Best wishes,
Peter

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-27-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Mammuthus, posted 11-27-2002 6:53 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Mammuthus, posted 11-28-2002 5:22 AM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 98 by Mammuthus, posted 11-28-2002 5:22 AM peter borger has responded
 Message 101 by derwood, posted 11-28-2002 5:46 PM peter borger has not yet responded

    
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4586 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 97 of 104 (24749)
11-28-2002 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by peter borger
11-27-2002 6:55 PM


deleted by M due to duplication

[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 11-28-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by peter borger, posted 11-27-2002 6:55 PM peter borger has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4586 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 98 of 104 (24750)
11-28-2002 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by peter borger
11-27-2002 6:55 PM


What about you, Mammuthus? How tight is it?

M: You hitting on me there big boy? Actually very loose..drank some spoiled milk and well..you know what happens next

PB:
Dr Page is also proof for the MPG. He obviously lost the how-to-be-polite genes.

M: But he has extra copies of the actually-support-his-claims-genes
Creationists seem to be homozygous deletion mutants.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by peter borger, posted 11-27-2002 6:55 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by John, posted 11-28-2002 10:46 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded
 Message 103 by peter borger, posted 11-28-2002 8:02 PM Mammuthus has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 104 (24788)
11-28-2002 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Mammuthus
11-28-2002 5:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
What about you, Mammuthus? How tight is it?

M: You hitting on me there big boy? Actually very loose..drank some spoiled milk and well..you know what happens next

PB:
Dr Page is also proof for the MPG. He obviously lost the how-to-be-polite genes.

M: But he has extra copies of the actually-support-his-claims-genes
Creationists seem to be homozygous deletion mutants.


LOL.....

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Mammuthus, posted 11-28-2002 5:22 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 100 of 104 (24832)
11-28-2002 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Mammuthus
11-27-2002 6:53 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mammuthus:
[B]
quote:
{Entire previous message quoted - Deleted - Adminnemooseus}

++++++++++++++++++++

[/quote]

And yet the entire quoted message remains.. How odd...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Mammuthus, posted 11-27-2002 6:53 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-28-2002 7:19 PM derwood has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 101 of 104 (24833)
11-28-2002 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by peter borger
11-27-2002 6:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dr Page is also proof for the MPG. He obviously lost the how-to-be-polite genes.


Indeed.

Apparently, I also lost the "make up numbers when they don't exist to prop up your favorite fantasy" genes.

Must be linkage disequilibrium.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by peter borger, posted 11-27-2002 6:55 PM peter borger has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 102 of 104 (24845)
11-28-2002 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by derwood
11-28-2002 5:44 PM


quote:
And yet the entire quoted message remains.. How odd...

The deletions of the quotations have nothing to do with content. What I am trying to do is cut down on redundant text. What I have done to the quotations, was done because the quotation meerly repeated the content of the entire previous message.

My actions are intended to condense down page lengths and cut down on server storage demands.

Perhaps I should have explained my actions in greater detail, but I really don't want to be eliminating text, only to replace it with a bunch of text of my own creation.

Admittedly, my efforts have been pretty minor and insignificant, and the places I choose to do them are most highly hit and miss.

It is my personal feelings, that the quote content of the various strings has gotten badly out of control, since Admin set the "Quote Reply" function to include nested quotes. How often do you see a message; Then the next message is the previous message quoted, with something added; repeat process for more messages. Soon you have a big chunk of nested quotations taking up much of the page space.

I have previously made some other comments on quotation problems at:
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=20&t=32&m=3#3 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=20&t=32&m=3#3">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=20&t=32&m=3#3 . I would certainly like to see some feedback from others, on this quotation quagmire, at the above cited topic.

Adminnemooseus

------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-28-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by derwood, posted 11-28-2002 5:44 PM derwood has not yet responded

    
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5776 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 103 of 104 (24849)
11-28-2002 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Mammuthus
11-28-2002 5:22 AM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about you, Mammuthus? How tight is it?

M: You hitting on me there big boy? Actually very loose..drank some spoiled milk and well..you know what happens next

PB:
Dr Page is also proof for the MPG. He obviously lost the how-to-be-polite genes.

M: But he has extra copies of the actually-support-his-claims-genes
Creationists seem to be homozygous deletion mutants.

PB: And all in accord with the MPG hypothesis (see letter #1)

Cheers
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Mammuthus, posted 11-28-2002 5:22 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Mammuthus, posted 11-29-2002 6:45 AM peter borger has not yet responded

    
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4586 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 104 of 104 (24907)
11-29-2002 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by peter borger
11-28-2002 8:02 PM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by peter borger, posted 11-28-2002 8:02 PM peter borger has not yet responded

  
Prev123456
7
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019