Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Devolution (from The Fall) and "No New Information"
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 52 (518197)
08-04-2009 2:46 PM


Bump for Smooth Operator
show us that your arguments are not religiously based.

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 52 (518223)
08-04-2009 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Smooth Operator
08-04-2009 4:10 PM


None of those links support the position that genes are unable to produce new information.
Try again.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-04-2009 4:10 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-04-2009 4:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 52 (518355)
08-05-2009 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Smooth Operator
08-04-2009 4:59 PM


If all the articles say that the genome is constantly deteriorating,
They don't say that. They are just examples of neutral and deleterious mutations and cannot be your scientific reason for believing that genes can't add information. They are post hoc apologetics for the a priori belief that genes cannot produce new info. And that belief is religiously based.
If you truly are not religious, then you've been tricked into thinking that this position is a scientific one.
And I've looked at the "reality reviewed" website that your links have linked too. You know, the one that says that everything else is wrong except for itself. That right there should tell you that it probably isn't right. And then when you see all the mental gymnastics that have to be performed to maintain those beliefs in the face of contradicting evidence, you should really question all the other stuff they are presenting (like moon hoaxes and all the anti-semetism).
The people that believe that stuff have their beliefs based on religion and you've been tricked into thinking that they are based on science. They are lying to you so they can control you and you're falling for it.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-04-2009 4:59 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by slevesque, posted 08-05-2009 10:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 21 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-06-2009 11:04 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 52 (518358)
08-05-2009 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Coyote
08-04-2009 5:40 PM


Re: Back to the topic
He gets it from places like this:
http://www.realityreviewed.com/
I got there from a link from one of his links.
They do a good job of convincing laypeople that they're ideas are scientific.
I almost wonder if SO isn't one of the actual promoters of that kind of stuff. He's too well studied to just be an amatuer passerby. I wonder if he isn't testing to see if the "theories" can hold up against debate and also finding out where they fall apart to identify where more work needs to be done to hide the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2009 5:40 PM Coyote has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 52 (518469)
08-06-2009 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by slevesque
08-05-2009 10:51 PM


I just wanted to precise that there is a difference (a very important one) between neutral and nearly-neutral mutations.
Like how?
I'd determine the neutrality of a mutation by whether or not the environment selectively pressures it and since, when you get down to the gnat's ass, its going to be so blurry that you can't really tell if there's pressure on every particular mutation or not then I'd claim that you are unable to tell if mutations really are neutral or not in every case. Maybe in some specific cases, but I don't see where you're going to define this very important difference between neutral and non-neutral. And I don't see how its important at all unless you want to disbelieve in evolution.
In Message 15 you wrote:
There are things in nature which seem to say everything is going downhill.
And there are things in nature that prove that not everything is going downhill.
For the first 18 or so years of our lives we are going uphill. When a snowflake forms or when salt crystals grow. When populations evolve.
Knowing that the DNA code, if left replicating on its own, will break down and go 'downhill',
I don't believe you.
it is rather 'Can natural selection effectively turn that tedency from downhill to uphill?
We can easily see that this is a big YES by taking a trip to the zoo and seeing the variety in the species that has evolved.
But really, for the purpose of this thread, you've already answered it:
quote:
Now, as far as I am concerned, the real question is not 'Can information-adding mutations happen ?(theoretically they can)'.
So yeah, genes can add new information.

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"
He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by slevesque, posted 08-05-2009 10:51 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 08-09-2009 2:36 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 52 (518556)
08-06-2009 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Smooth Operator
08-06-2009 11:04 AM


quote:
They don't say that.
Yes they do.
No, they don't.
Gee, what a great debate we're having here Don't you see whay the rules say not to debate with bare links and instead to qute the related material?
quote:
They are just examples of neutral and deleterious mutations and cannot be your scientific reason for believing that genes can't add information.
But these mutations are accumulating and and they are deteriorating the genome. So we can conclude that no information can be created by mutations.
No, not logically. Me showing you three red tomatoes doesn't prove that green tomatoes don't exist. In the same way, you showing deleterious mutations doesn't prove that genes cannot product new information.
quote:
They are post hoc apologetics for the a priori belief that genes cannot produce new info.
No. I say that mutations do not produce new information, because it has never been observed.
Not true. Besides, in other threads, you said that the examples of new information couldn't be true because genes cannot produce new information and now your saying that because there's no example of it, then genes can't product new information. You're circularly reasoning because your belief does follow from observation of the evidence, you have accepted that genes don't produce new information beforehand and now all you have is apologetics to try to support that position.
quote:
And that belief is religiously based.
What religion are you talking about? Do you have any evidence in what I believe?
It matters not what you actually believe, we can see from your links that the positions you advocate are derived from religious beliefs...the beliefs are based on religion wether you, yourself personally, follow that religion or not.
People have lied to you and tricked you into thinking that their positions are derived from science instead of their religious beliefs, and you've swallowed it...hook, line and sinker.
quote:
If you truly are not religious, then you've been tricked into thinking that this position is a scientific one.
Evidence to the contrarry?
This thread and your failure to provide the scientific evidence that leads to the belief that genes cannot product new information and the fact that we know the only reason people ever come up with that position is to keep the Bible's story of The Fall of mankind inerrant.
quote:
And I've looked at the "reality reviewed" website that your links have linked too. You know, the one that says that everything else is wrong except for itself. That right there should tell you that it probably isn't right. And then when you see all the mental gymnastics that have to be performed to maintain those beliefs in the face of contradicting evidence, you should really question all the other stuff they are presenting (like moon hoaxes and all the anti-semetism).
The people that believe that stuff have their beliefs based on religion and you've been tricked into thinking that they are based on science. They are lying to you so they can control you and you're falling for it.
This is just meaningless. You are attacking the source not the argument.
Yeah, the source is religious belief and you've been tricked into thinking it has been derived from science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-06-2009 11:04 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-06-2009 3:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 52 (518578)
08-06-2009 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Smooth Operator
08-06-2009 3:07 PM


quote:
No, they don't.
What exactly do they say. Tell me what do all three of them say.
Nope, not my problem. They're your sources not mine.
You have to show me where they say that genes cannot product new information.
quote:
No, not logically. Me showing you three red tomatoes doesn't prove that green tomatoes don't exist. In the same way, you showing deleterious mutations doesn't prove that genes cannot product new information.
But gain in information has never been observed. And since all we have observed is loss, so the logical conclusion is that the genome has been deteriorating this whole time.
quote:
Not true.
Evidence?
Since all you can do is gainsaying and handwaving, I'm not going to waste my time finding a bunch of papers for you so and since you're such a fan of bear links, I'll just provide you with that:
CB102: Mutations adding information
If you're truely following the evidence and not just trying to support you preconceived notion, then you can find the information you need there.
Or you can watch this youtube video:
How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part I
Well it's both. They can't produce it becasue they are only matter, and matter has got no ability to think in advance. It has no teleology. And you need that ability to produce information. And of course, it has never been observed that genes gained information on their own.
Oh, so you're already convinces of the contrary and nothing can convince you otherwise. Your whole argument relies on an unaccepted definition of the word "information". Total apologetics to maintain a preconceived belief in the face of contadictory evidence.
It's very important becasue my sources have strictly been scientific. Yes, some do have religious arguments, but I only quote scientifc ones. So my basis for this is scientific.
That's the thing, though... they aren't scientific. They are scientific-looking and you've been tricked into believing they are legitimate. they do that to hide the religious aspects.
Oh, really, how do you know you have not been lied to?
Here we go with the "everything you know is wrong" approach. I'm not paranoid enough to believe in conspiracies.
I showed you evidence in three papaers which talk about degeneration in the genomes. And they do not quote the Bible.
But they do not scientifically and logically support the position that genes cannot produce new information. That belief comes from the idea that mankind must be degenerating, which comes from The Fall, which comes from the Bible.
And how do you know your stance is not religious? Can you prove it?
I'm not taking a stance here. I'm waiting for you to show that your belief that genes cannot product new infomration is based on science and not religion... and I'm still waiting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-06-2009 3:07 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-08-2009 4:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 52 (518690)
08-07-2009 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Coyote
08-06-2009 10:06 PM


Re: Back to the topic (2)
What makes someone choose such a fringe position, and argue it all over the web? I can see where religious belief would foster this, but Smooth Operator denies this. So, where does this belief originate?
I think there's something, for them, to having everyone be wrong and mis-lead and for them to have stumbled upon the actual truth.
Like all that stuff in that "reality reviewed" website I linked you to. Did you get a chance to look at it?
I think its that same mindframe that feed the conspiracy theorists.
I know people who like to believe in that whole Illuminati thing. They way they argue is a lot like the way SO does.
It requires that "everything you know is wrong" and that they have the one true truth. And they try to sound all scientific n'stuff.
Its just like in religion, where they tell you that your fucked unless you but the one thing they are selling.
I don't know why people like it so much. I can see why they fall for it as some of the arguments can be convincing at face value, and I guess it must be exciting to "realize" that everybody else has been fooled and you are now the enlightened one with the real TRVTH.
I guess thats the draw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 08-06-2009 10:06 PM Coyote 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