Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9030 total)
49 online now:
anglagard, AZPaul3, Coragyps (3 members, 46 visitors)
Newest Member: BodhitSLAVa
Post Volume: Total: 884,394 Year: 2,040/14,102 Month: 408/624 Week: 129/163 Day: 22/27 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reproductive Cost problem more devastating than ever
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3695 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 1 of 35 (3872)
02-08-2002 5:16 PM


A couple weeks ago Huxter (Scott Page) posted the article "Positive and Negative Selection on the Human Genome" (Justin C. Fay,* Gerald J. Wyckoff* ,1 and Chung-I Wu*. Genetics 158, 1227-1234. 2001), claiming it refuted 'Haldane's Dilemma'. This claim is false, and I have addressed why here:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/page_refutation.htm

The key point here is that Huxter's citation actually makes the reproductive cost problem *worse* for those who insist on believing the ape/man ancestry fairytale.

Are there any evolutionists here who believe that our ape/man lineage was able to produce 60 offspring per breeding couple? If you have enought sense to recognize this is false, why do you persist in your fairytale?


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by lbhandli, posted 02-08-2002 5:21 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 02-08-2002 6:05 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 5 by derwood, posted 02-09-2002 11:20 AM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 11 by derwood, posted 06-09-2003 10:27 AM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 35 (3873)
02-08-2002 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fred Williams
02-08-2002 5:16 PM


I haven't had time to read through your latest yet, Fred. Will it be appearing in Genetics as a rebuttal? What did the editors say when you submitted this?

Cheers,
Larry


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fred Williams, posted 02-08-2002 5:16 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 4034 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 3 of 35 (3880)
02-08-2002 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fred Williams
02-08-2002 5:16 PM


Glad you're back, Fred, please can you now answer this old post (slight adjustments), where we left it.

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Are you denying the ribosome and its accompanying support structure deciphers the genetic code to produce an amino-acid string?


No, I don’t deny it, I made the point in the first place.

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

The ribosome is not a “transmission”, it is the product of a transmission.
There are countless examples of products of transmission of code that are receivers; in fact, ALL receivers are products of transmission of code! There are NO exceptions! If you can find one, then by golly you will surely get a nobel prize!


“The ribosome is not a “transmission”, it is the product of a transmission.” Good point, I should have chosen my words more carefully.

I’ll try again.

Are there any natural or non-natural examples where the product of a transmission is received by, & decoded by the same transmission product, not involving genetic material?

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Fred said;
A new codon instruction that performs some function intended by the sender. For example, if a new codon arose that caused DNA transcription to jump to some other specific part of the genome to perform a useful function (a ‘JUMP’ codon), that would be new information.

This definition I used does not only apply to codons. It applies to anything that is a code: morse, C++, PowerPC machine language, english language, etc.


I know I’m being pedantic, but this definition doesn’t apply to anything other than codons/DNA.

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

It is not possible to define all aspects of information in short posts to discussion boards on the internet. Information theory requires books to understand, and there are different levels of “information”. That is the reason I chose to focus on a specific aspect of information, a “code”, that is more easily understood by the layman. There is not an information scientist in the world who disputes that a “code” represents complex information.


I don’t need to understand all information theory, I’m just after a definition of new information.

I’ve checked your links, although interesting, don’t answer my question. This conversation can’t really progress unless we have an absolute definition of what new information actually is. The links you provided don’t even define information, except in a contextual way, let alone new information.

Are you really telling me that a single, all encompassing definition of “new information” doesn’t exist? Or even “information”, I understand that there are levels of information, but it is still information. Such a definition may have to be general, but can still be accurate.

After all, life exists as a single cell bacteria to a blue whale, but life can still be defined in a paragraph. Electrons can be accurately described in such a way that is contemporaneous to the Bohr level, & quantum physical level. Why not "new information"?

An absolute definition, that pervades all levels of information would include, how I would recieve new information by Morse code, English text, language, pictures, etc, etc......

Lastly, if I leave my house, open the front gate, & there is a pattern of twigs on the floor that say “EAT”, I then dutifully carry out this instruction by going inside & fixing a sandwich. How is this not message/information?

So, please define new information.

Thanks,

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-08-2002]

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-08-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fred Williams, posted 02-08-2002 5:16 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 35 (3904)
02-09-2002 1:01 AM


Hm... I really need to read my Biology Book some time... Till then, I'll be wishing I could join it for a more intellent converstaion than me asking you to emphesise including definitions of words or something as insignificant for a discussion as that . I'll hup to it!

----------------------
--Always On the Ball--
----=TrueCreation=----
----------------------

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-09-2002]


  
derwood
Member (Idle past 715 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 5 of 35 (3914)
02-09-2002 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fred Williams
02-08-2002 5:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
A couple weeks ago Huxter (Scott Page) posted the article "Positive and Negative Selection on the Human Genome" (Justin C. Fay,* Gerald J. Wyckoff* ,1 and Chung-I Wu*. Genetics 158, 1227-1234. 2001), claiming it refuted 'Haldane's Dilemma'. This claim is false, and I have addressed why here:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/page_refutation.htm

The key point here is that Huxter's citation actually makes the reproductive cost problem *worse* for those who insist on believing the ape/man ancestry fairytale.

Are there any evolutionists here who believe that our ape/man lineage was able to produce 60 offspring per breeding couple? If you have enought sense to recognize this is false, why do you persist in your fairytale?


Fred's stupidity is all that is presented here, and doubtless, Fred will not be back here to defend his claims, so don't waste your time.

I have emailed the authors of the papers - the ones Fred accuses of 'misleading' readers and such - and am waiting to hear back from them before I present my refutation of Williams' ignorance-based verbal vomit.

HINT:
I don't think Williams has ever even seen Haldane's paper, much less understands Haldane's model. He certainly fails to grasp simple concepts and, as always, as the undereducated creationist is wont to do - simply casts aspersions and constructs illusory facades to prop up his imaginary evolution-disproving 'intellect.'

He is a pathetic propagandist, and his unethical tactics should be an embarrassmnent to all real Christians that hold virtue and integrity in esteem.

Scott L. Page, PhD.

[This message has been edited by SLP, 02-09-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fred Williams, posted 02-08-2002 5:16 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 10:41 PM derwood has not yet responded

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 6722 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 6 of 35 (4318)
02-12-2002 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by derwood
02-09-2002 11:20 AM


quote:
Originally posted by SLP:

Fred's stupidity is all that is presented here, and doubtless, Fred will not be back here to defend his claims, so don't waste your time.

I have emailed the authors of the papers - the ones Fred accuses of 'misleading' readers and such - and am waiting to hear back from them before I present my refutation of Williams' ignorance-based verbal vomit.

HINT:
I don't think Williams has ever even seen Haldane's paper, much less understands Haldane's model. He certainly fails to grasp simple concepts and, as always, as the undereducated creationist is wont to do - simply casts aspersions and constructs illusory facades to prop up his imaginary evolution-disproving 'intellect.'

He is a pathetic propagandist, and his unethical tactics should be an embarrassmnent to all real Christians that hold virtue and integrity in esteem.

Scott L. Page, PhD.

[This message has been edited by SLP, 02-09-2002]


yeah and your the typical egotistical evolutionist that no matter what thinks he is right and has the right to judge others and declare himself better for having devoted himself to a theory without enough evidence to suffienctly satisfy anyone that it is true.

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by derwood, posted 02-09-2002 11:20 AM derwood has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by lbhandli, posted 02-12-2002 11:10 PM KingPenguin has responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 35 (4326)
02-12-2002 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by KingPenguin
02-12-2002 10:41 PM


Given Scott and Fred have been having this debate, do you have something substantive to add or not? If not, why don't you save the bandwidth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 10:41 PM KingPenguin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 11:19 PM lbhandli has responded

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 6722 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 8 of 35 (4331)
02-12-2002 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by lbhandli
02-12-2002 11:10 PM


why dont you?

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by lbhandli, posted 02-12-2002 11:10 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by lbhandli, posted 02-12-2002 11:22 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-12-2002 11:31 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 35 (4333)
02-12-2002 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by KingPenguin
02-12-2002 11:19 PM


I have. I believe I was the first to respond to Fred. Now, what is your opinion regarding Haldane's dilemna? Either join the discussion which has a history or don't post to it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 11:19 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3839
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 10 of 35 (4336)
02-12-2002 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by KingPenguin
02-12-2002 11:19 PM


KP - I note that you have just posted to 5 diferent topics in a 6 minute span. This would seem to indicate that you are not putting much thought into your responses.

Moose

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 11:19 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 715 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 11 of 35 (42422)
06-09-2003 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fred Williams
02-08-2002 5:16 PM


needs updated response
quote:
Are there any evolutionists here who believe that our ape/man lineage was able to produce 60 offspring per breeding couple?

Ignoring for now the erroneous conclusions of Williams, in light of Williams' recent embarrassing admission regarding elementary statistics, there is yet another reason to ignore this bilge.

We shall recall that Williams has claimed that a 1 in 32 chance means that 31 trials will need to pass before hitting on "the one."

With such a basic misunderstanding of simple statistics/probability, no wonder Williams thinks that "60 offspring" are required..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fred Williams, posted 02-08-2002 5:16 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by A_Christian, posted 08-06-2003 4:36 PM derwood has not yet responded

  
A_Christian
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 35 (48959)
08-06-2003 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by derwood
06-09-2003 10:27 AM


Re: needs updated response
SLPx:

I've never seen an ape conceive anything but an ape. Some are smart
and some are dumb. Some are pretty and some are pretty ugly; however,
they are ALWAYS a CHIMP off the old block. Hey, no 2 works of art
are ever exactly alike-----are they?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by derwood, posted 06-09-2003 10:27 AM derwood has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2003 5:12 PM A_Christian has not yet responded
 Message 14 by zephyr, posted 08-06-2003 9:45 PM A_Christian has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Mammuthus, posted 08-07-2003 9:54 AM A_Christian has responded

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 35 (48965)
08-06-2003 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by A_Christian
08-06-2003 4:36 PM


Re: needs updated response
I've never seen an ape conceive anything but an ape.

Humans are apes, so what's your point?

Anyway, speciation doesn't happen like that. A little research might behoove you before you present personal incredulity as some kind of logically valid argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by A_Christian, posted 08-06-2003 4:36 PM A_Christian has not yet responded

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 3389 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 14 of 35 (49021)
08-06-2003 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by A_Christian
08-06-2003 4:36 PM


Re: needs updated response
quote:
Hey, no 2 works of art
are ever exactly alike-----are they?
You're right. It's called random mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by A_Christian, posted 08-06-2003 4:36 PM A_Christian has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12715
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 15 of 35 (49030)
08-06-2003 10:53 PM


Thread moved here from the The Great Debate forum.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021