Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,255 Year: 5,512/9,624 Month: 537/323 Week: 34/143 Day: 7/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Evolution is science
platypus
Member (Idle past 5870 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 76 of 200 (366976)
11-29-2006 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Brad McFall
11-29-2006 6:53 PM


Re: Re:independent reptiles
Is this a response to my question? Because if it is, you should really drop the technical jumbo and make the point you are making more clear. The chapter included talks about mutations formed by speciation- I don't see the relevance. Are you saying that snakes should appear to be genetically closer to kangaroos than to turtles because of evolution rates after speciation? I'm sorry if I chose bad sample organisms, but my initial point still stands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Brad McFall, posted 11-29-2006 6:53 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Brad McFall, posted 11-29-2006 8:56 PM platypus has not replied
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 11-30-2006 6:43 PM platypus has not replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5870 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 77 of 200 (366981)
11-29-2006 8:31 PM


Definitions of Proof
At this point- although I agree that there are still some problem's with confidence's definition of information- I think we should drop the arguments about the definition of information for a second. Observe this statement by Confidence:
quote:
However, this piece of code remains in the DNA,(it is not considered information) and during the next generations, more and more mutations change the overall semantics of this code, and now after Z many generations this piece of code now codes for a different protein. It has the same length as the previous code for making the original protein. Now the amount of information is the same as before the first mutation. But information has been gained (first lost, then gained).
It is this type of information gaining that I, and other creationists, believe NEVER happened in life.
Unlike a lot of what I observed here, he has developed a scientifically plausible theory that is making testable predictions. Those predictions just happen to be false. This sort of information gaining does happen. Now, I am not a molecular biologist, so I am in no position to describe and defend the sort of examples Confidence is looking for. RAZD has outlined a few, perhaps some people knowledgeable in evolutionary genetics can point to a few others. This is all that needs to be done.
These sort of comments are not helpful (by RAZD):
quote:
Notice that evolution only needs the information to be changed for a mutation to make a difference in the organism, and doesn't care whether it is "more" or "less" by some arbitrary metric. Evolution can easily go from (1) to (2) OR from (2) to (1) and it doesn't matter
This is what evolutionary theory says- it makes no distinction between information gain and loss in evolutionary changes. Or by implication, it claims that both types of change should occur. I believe Confidence is aware of this claim, and he is in fact challenging it by claiming that only information loss is possible. What is needed is not a further description of the claims of evolutionary theory, but rather examples showing that information gain is possible, or that what evolutionary theory says is true.
Just trying to bring peace and understanding---

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 11-30-2006 7:43 PM platypus has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5149 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 78 of 200 (366984)
11-29-2006 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by platypus
11-29-2006 8:15 PM


Re: Re:independent reptiles
I dont think you chose bad examples. You have to visualize how you are going to "scale" the change into longer time frames.
It only seems to me to stand if you dont desist in an idea that anagenesis IS succession in your "macro-information" and that Gould is completely correct that PE had a huge relative frequency in history. I personally doubt this is.
But you want no jumbo words....
So, no, I do NOT think your point can stand if you are challenging how there can be independent trails of information binding reptiles closer togther than between reptiles and mammals (disregarding birds and dinos as you suggested) genotypically. I can paste the earlier chapter where genetics is discussed if you think that will help.
The independence is due to the relation of the Linnean (which YOU brought up) SUBspecies and the micro-evolutionist's "deme" which on Carter's view is due to a fusing and unfusing over ICEAGE time that diverges to create geographic differentiation that can become a speciation event. The geometry of this splitting and branching when succession binds a larger clade system, such as the reptiles, will look like the root of a tree with "bush" the succession and another bush, the mammals another succession but the total disjunction (not divergence as you seemed to have read) will be longer between the snake and kangroo than between the snake and the turtle. This has to be visualized pangraphically and not simply in terms of the phenotypes themselves.
If the view of change IS as Carter draws it up, I do not see how the "weakness" of the hybrid offspring does not indicate a baramin/like kind boundary. This notion of strength however depends on a change in space over time by form. The difficulty then comes in with the notion of "form" but the difference of succession and divergence is not dependent on that shape except insofar as the Earth revolutions and rotations draw in the genomic differences. It is hard to say what those would be but there is no indication that the independence is only phenotypic. I know of no proposal such in the evolutionary literature nor have I seen such a idea in the creationist literature. Only an artist might try to draw that.
Here is a biologically motivated image independent of monophyly that might show you that words can only be "bent" so far to ones own personal definitions.
Edited by Brad McFall, : trouble presenting the double negative
Edited by Brad McFall, : worth 1o0o words added

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by platypus, posted 11-29-2006 8:15 PM platypus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 11-30-2006 7:05 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 79 of 200 (367171)
11-30-2006 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by platypus
11-29-2006 8:15 PM


introductions.
Is this a response to my question? Because if it is, you should ...
Introductions are in order: Brad meet Platypus, Platypus meet Brad.
Brad is one of the stalwarts of this forum and has his own style. There are a couple of threads addressed to this phenomenon. He is also a bit of a herpetologist by interest, especially in snakes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by platypus, posted 11-29-2006 8:15 PM platypus has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 80 of 200 (367180)
11-30-2006 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Brad McFall
11-29-2006 8:56 PM


Re: Re:independent titles
Hey Brad, just a side note: love the book. I just happen to be reading it now. Marston was a coworker with my Dad back at UMich, and I knew him as a (me not him) kid. Played with his kids ... small world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Brad McFall, posted 11-29-2006 8:56 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 81 of 200 (367189)
11-30-2006 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by platypus
11-29-2006 8:31 PM


Re: Definitions of Proof, and their burdens ...
These sort of comments are not helpful (by RAZD):
quote:
Notice that evolution only needs the information to be changed for a mutation to make a difference in the organism, and doesn't care whether it is "more" or "less" by some arbitrary metric. Evolution can easily go from (1) to (2) OR from (2) to (1) and it doesn't matter
Let me complete the thought that I was leaning to ...
What we have here is a distinct enough difference in result based on the predictions of creationism "information loss theory", and evolution "change in species over time" theory to provides us with a test to see which fits the facts better.
The burden of proof lies
  • with the creationist to show that (a) change is linked to information (or vice versa) and (b) information cannot increase (so all changes result in no addition to information), AND
  • with the evolutionist to show that change can go in both directions (so that when the creationists develop their link between change and information that this will also mean that information goes both ways.)
The test is easier for the evolutionist because they only need to validate what their theory states -- evolution is change over time -- and that it is "direction less" (it results from selection and is not directed by any force, function or mechanism). In my opinion the walkingstick insect changes from no wings to wings to no wings to wings does this, whether it is a primary level change, a secondary level change, a third level change, etc. The change oscillates between two different values, so either one or the other MUST increase in "information" IF "information" changes OR "information" is not relative to change in species over time -- at any level -- and it is irrelevant to the issue of evolution.
The test is much more difficult for the creationist, because they have to (1) develop a whole new science based on the measurement of information in biological systems to measure change in information (in the same way that geologists developed a whole new science based on the measurement of radiation in geological systems to determine age), and then (2) they have to run the studies to show the actual results.
Enjoy

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by platypus, posted 11-29-2006 8:31 PM platypus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by platypus, posted 11-30-2006 10:19 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 91 by Confidence, posted 12-01-2006 2:54 PM RAZD has replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5870 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 82 of 200 (367212)
11-30-2006 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by RAZD
11-30-2006 7:43 PM


Re: Definitions of Proof, and their burdens ...
RAZD,
Yes, I agree with all you are saying. In fact, I think we are saying the same thing now that yoou have elaborated on that quote.
Hello Brad, nice to meet you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 11-30-2006 7:43 PM RAZD has not replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5870 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 83 of 200 (367214)
11-30-2006 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by RAZD
11-29-2006 7:39 PM


Re: So which has more information?
This post is just to add an example I have found, to the list of examples all ready provided by RAZD
We catch many fish with nets, and when we do so we provide a strong selective pressure on the fish- something like 90% are caught. The ones that survive are the ones that slip through the net, typically ones that are small in size. The problem is that small fish are typically juveniles, or not yet reproductive. The genes that get selected for are often one's that accelerate growth and reproduction, so that an individual grows and maures very quickly, releasing some eggs before being caught. A different strategy is employed by pink salmon. These fish have actually slowed growth rates, so that their sizes at any one point in time is smaller. They also reach smaller adult sizes, so that for a good portion of their lives they are still able to slip through nets and reproduce.
Evolution: Library: Shrinking Salmon
Two entirely different strategies are employed here, one accelerated growth, one slowed growth. I think that creationists tend to jump to conclusions in proclaiming that an adaptation must be a loss of information. Now, I'm not sure whether an accelerated growth rate confers a loss of information, but it seems logical that both an accelerated and decelerated growth rate cannot both confer a loss of information being opposite trends.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2006 7:39 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2006 6:20 PM platypus has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5637 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 84 of 200 (367219)
11-30-2006 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Confidence
11-29-2006 3:28 PM


Nothing new under the sun
It is this type of information gaining that I, and other creationists, believe NEVER happened in life.
Well, you and other creationists believe in lots of wird stuff. No surprises here. Carry on...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Confidence, posted 11-29-2006 3:28 PM Confidence has not replied

  
Confidence
Member (Idle past 6434 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 85 of 200 (367274)
12-01-2006 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by platypus
11-29-2006 5:43 PM


Re: problems with redefinitions and loose undefined terms
there was probably something more like a snake, a lizard, a turtle, and a crocodile
Yes, that is what we believe.
Why are these four independantly created groups similar on both a physiological AND genetic level?
The answer we use is common design. Why throw a good mechanism of survival out the door when it will work for other kinds?
Also, if there is only one snake kind, how did flying snakes come about?
Since we were not there at the beginning, most of this will be speculation. In the end, flying snakes were the parent snakes of all snakes, and other snakes lost the information or some switching happened.

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’
*
Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by platypus, posted 11-29-2006 5:43 PM platypus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 12-01-2006 1:51 PM Confidence has replied
 Message 87 by DrJones*, posted 12-01-2006 2:17 PM Confidence has not replied
 Message 88 by fallacycop, posted 12-01-2006 2:21 PM Confidence has not replied

  
alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 4405 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 86 of 200 (367276)
12-01-2006 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Confidence
12-01-2006 1:47 PM


Re: problems with redefinitions and loose undefined terms
confidence writes:
. In the end, flying snakes were the parent snakes of all snakes, and other snakes lost the information or some switching happened.
Do you have any proof of this?

Look to this day, For yesterday is already a dream. And tomorrow only a vision. But today We lived, makes every Yesterday a dream of Happiness and every tomorrow A vision of hope. Look well there to This day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Confidence, posted 12-01-2006 1:47 PM Confidence has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Confidence, posted 12-01-2006 2:33 PM alacrity fitzhugh has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2304
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 87 of 200 (367282)
12-01-2006 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Confidence
12-01-2006 1:47 PM


Re: problems with redefinitions and loose undefined terms
Why throw a good mechanism of survival out the door when it will work for other kinds?
So your god is so limited that he can not come up with unique survival mechanisms for each species.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Confidence, posted 12-01-2006 1:47 PM Confidence has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5637 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 88 of 200 (367283)
12-01-2006 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Confidence
12-01-2006 1:47 PM


Re: problems with redefinitions and loose undefined terms
Why throw a good mechanism of survival out the door when it will work for other kinds?
The right question is: Why to throw out a good explanation (Evolution namely) and appeal to a combersome combination of shapeless ad hoc explanation that at the end fail miserably to explain anything at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Confidence, posted 12-01-2006 1:47 PM Confidence has not replied

  
Confidence
Member (Idle past 6434 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 89 of 200 (367288)
12-01-2006 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by alacrity fitzhugh
12-01-2006 1:51 PM


Re: problems with redefinitions and loose undefined terms
Also, the once-perfect environments have deteriorated into harsher ones. Creatures adapted to these new environments, and this adaptation took the form of weeding out some genetic information. This is certainly natural selection”evolutionists don’t have a monopoly on this. In fact, a creationist, Edward Blyth, thought of the concept 25 years before Darwin’s Origin of Species was published. But unlike evolutionists, Blyth regarded it as a conservative process that would remove defective organisms, thus conserving the health of the population as a whole. Only when coupled with hypothetical information-gaining mutations could natural selection be creative.
In the creationists explanation, all kinds come from the original kind. The prediction is that information always is lost, or deteriorates.
For example, the original dog/wolf kind probably had the information for a wide variety of fur lengths. The first animals probably had medium-length fur. In the simplified example illustrated below,3 a single gene pair is shown under each dog as coming in two possible forms. One form of the gene (L) carries instructions for long fur, the other (S) for short fur.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/re1/chapter2.asp
The site goes on to explain the diversity we see today. To tie that in with:
Do you have any proof of this?
The prediction is that there was an original kind snake. The proof is not there, but can be seen on how the snakes multiply and how different kinds of snakes appear. An understanding of how information is rearranged or deleted at the DNA level is also important to discuss if evolutionists or creationists are correct.

Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared”the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’
*
Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 12-01-2006 1:51 PM alacrity fitzhugh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2006 2:38 PM Confidence has not replied
 Message 93 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 12-01-2006 3:11 PM Confidence has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17856
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 90 of 200 (367290)
12-01-2006 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Confidence
12-01-2006 2:33 PM


Re: problems with redefinitions and loose undefined terms
Until we have a clear measure of "information" and an explanation of why evolution would require it to increase (and some idea of how frequently it would do so) the whole exercise seems pointless. And that is completely lacking in all creationist sources - yet they are the ones making the claims.
I have concluded that the whole thing is a creationist con-trick. There is simply no valid argument to be found.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Confidence, posted 12-01-2006 2:33 PM Confidence has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024