Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 9:25 PM
34 online now:
dwise1, edge, jar, JonF (4 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,976 Year: 12,012/19,786 Month: 1,793/2,641 Week: 302/708 Day: 77/52 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Adding information to the genome.
Coyote
Member (Idle past 301 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 7 of 280 (532021)
10-20-2009 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Kaichos Man
10-20-2009 7:06 PM


No new information indeed...
Which do not constitute a nett increase in information. I think I made that clear.

You do realize that this "no new information" is a talking point derived from a fundamentalist religious belief in "the fall" don't you? They believe that from perfect creation there is nowhere to go but down.

Unfortunately, this belief in "the fall" is not supported by science, nor is the absolute mandate that there can be no new information in the genome.

Those unsupported religious beliefs would perhaps be more appropriate for one of the Religion Forums rather than the Science Forum.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-20-2009 7:06 PM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-20-2009 11:22 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 12 by Calypsis4, posted 10-21-2009 6:49 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 10-21-2009 4:30 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Pauline, posted 10-21-2009 8:56 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 301 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 9 of 280 (532045)
10-21-2009 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Kaichos Man
10-20-2009 11:22 PM


Re: No new information indeed...
...if you have the scientific data to support this, the debate is over. Let's see it.

Then the debate is over. Scientists have only to convince other scientists, relying on empirical evidence. That has long since been done.

We don't need to convince creationists who don't rely on empirical evidence in the first place. No amount of empirical evidence will be enough.

Creationists rely, instead, on scripture and "divine" revelation. No amount of scientific evidence will convince a committed creationist of anything outside of scripture and revelation. But that doesn't make it correct. Nor does that detract from what science has learned over the years. (The number of religious beliefs that have been disproved is large, and still growing. Think: global flood, young earth, lightning and other natural disasters caused by angry gods, demons responsible for disease, etc. The list is long but laughable.)

And that's why there are some 38,000 Christian denominations or sects--they don't rely upon empirical evidence to ascertain which, if any, of their beliefs are accurate. When two interpretations or beliefs collide--whamo-splat! You have schism! Another sect or denomination added to the list.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-20-2009 11:22 PM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-21-2009 6:57 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 301 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 33 of 280 (532199)
10-21-2009 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Pauline
10-21-2009 8:56 PM


Re: No new information indeed...
Unfortunately, this belief in "the fall" is not supported by science, nor is the absolute mandate that there can be no new information in the genome.

What about the first and second laws of thermodynamics? They certainly point to a universe who structure is that of conservation and not innovation as required by the evolutionary theory.


You have several blatant errors in those two sentences.

First, while the second law of thermodynamics may apply to the universe as a whole it does not necessarily apply to subsections of the universe--you, for example. Because of your ability to acquire energy from the outside you are able to temporarily reverse the overall entropy of the universe. The earth does the same thing, using energy from the sun. This means, of course, that creationists who use the second law as an argument against evolution are displaying a gross misunderstanding of that law.

Also, evolutionary theory does not require innovation. It explains evolution as descent with modification. That means that subsequent generations can have more, less, or about the same level of whatever "innovation" means. The religious belief in "the fall" does not agree with real world data.

Third: the first law of thermodynamics doesn't enter into the discussion at all.

An aside--I love it when creationists start quoting scientific laws, as if either they understood them or as if those laws actually meant what creationist websites led them to believe. On another website evolutionists were assured that "the second law of thermal documents" showed that evolution couldn't happen. We were also assured that the odds against evolution producing some result or other were 1720 against. Moral: you should understand something about science before you start to lecture scientists on the details, lest you look silly rather than erudite.


Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and the moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to be certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. [quoting 1Ti. 1:7].

St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1:42-43.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Pauline, posted 10-21-2009 8:56 PM Pauline has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 301 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 88 of 280 (533126)
10-29-2009 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Kaichos Man
10-28-2009 10:57 PM


Creationist propaganda about science vs. evolutionary sciences
No other field of science is based on a fundamental theory that is unrepeatable, unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.

Sorry, that is creationist propaganda designed to drive a wedge, in the minds of those who don't know any better, between evolutionary sciences and "other" sciences.

Not surprisingly, it is also false. The new field of genetics could have caused a major revision, or even a falsification, of portions of the theory of evolution but instead it supported the theory to a great degree. Of course there were some changes--that's to be expected in science--but everything turned out to be pointed in the same general direction.

Scientists for some reason don't see evolutionary sciences as "unrepeatable, unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific." Ever wonder why?

Perhaps creationists should not try to dabble in science, eh? Being against science and the scientific method because of their religious beliefs, they tend not to learn enough about it to make meaningful comments.

(I still remember the creationist who, on another website, lectured us on "the second law of thermal documents.")


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-28-2009 10:57 PM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-29-2009 1:08 AM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 301 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 91 of 280 (533139)
10-29-2009 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Kaichos Man
10-29-2009 1:08 AM


Re: Creationist propaganda about science vs. evolutionary sciences
The new field of genetics could have caused a major revision

Motoo Kimura stated that his Neutral Theory showed the "great majority" of evolution at the molecular level was caused by genetic drift and not natural selection. You don't regard this as a major revision?

Kimura studied proteins and genes, and showed that they exhibited little evidence of natural selection, whereas studies of whole organisms showed a great deal of natural selection. Not hardly the same thing at all! And evolution works with whole populations.

No, genetics did not overturn previous theory, nor did Kimura.

Perhaps creationists should not try to dabble in science, eh? Being against science and the scientific method because of their religious beliefs, they tend not to learn enough about it to make meaningful comments.

Which ones in particular? Isaac Newton? John Sanford? Simon Conway Morris?


Those folks who were creationists and who made names for themselves in science did so by following the scientific method, not by following some ancient tribal myths.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-29-2009 1:08 AM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-29-2009 7:50 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 301 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 145 of 280 (534202)
11-05-2009 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Dr Adequate
11-05-2009 4:54 PM


Willfully...
I think "willfully ignorant" would be a better term than any that you used.

But you are correct that creationists must strive to remain ignorant of the facts, because the facts don't corroborate their beliefs. They have no choice because they can't accept those facts.

That has led to the whole field of creation "science," which seeks to shoehorn those beliefs into some semblance of scientific language in order to allow creationists to continue to believe that science corroborates their beliefs when the exact opposite is more often the case.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2009 4:54 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by LucyTheApe, posted 11-06-2009 4:05 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 301 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 181 of 280 (534553)
11-09-2009 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Kaichos Man
11-09-2009 6:05 AM


You just refuse to get it!
"Kimura [standing beside a pond of colored carp]: As between the carp and me, there are many [genetic differences], but the surprising fact is that most of these mutations do nothing to help establish the differences between a human being and a fish. The carp and I both need hemoglobin to do exactly the same job of carrying oxygen around the body. Yet one half of all the chemical units in my hemoglobin molecules are different from the carp's. That unnecessary sort of evolution, and my studies of its rate and pattern, suggest to me that natural selection has had no reason for preferring one variant of the molecule over another. I think chance plays a much greater part in evolution, and natural selection a lesser part, than biologists supposed a few years ago."

So according to Kimura, the evidence for Natural Selection is non-existent in the evolution of hemoglobin.


NO! NO! NO!

Some variants of hemoglobin work, and some don't. Natural selection weeds out those that don't. That doesn't mean that all successful variants have to be the same!

There are often many solutions to a given problem genetic. This is well illustrated in an on-line lecture that I have cited several times:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture)

http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID...

Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-09-2009 6:05 AM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-11-2009 6:57 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 301 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 207 of 280 (535106)
11-12-2009 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Kaichos Man
11-12-2009 8:28 PM


Information is added to the genome
The facts show that evolution adds information to the population genome of evolving species. The facts show that traits exist in new populations that did not exist in ancestral populations.

Decidedly not true. If there were such "facts" (as opposed to guesses, suggestions, hopeful extrapolations and legends disguised with scientific terminology) this forum would not exist.


False!

You would have us believe that no new traits were added to the genome from the Australopithecus level to modern man???!!? That's a ridiculous thing to try to peddle! And it is contradicted by the facts.

Face it, your religious belief in "no new information," based, presumably, on the religious concept of "the fall," just doesn't hold water.

This thread is full of examples of added information, but you just won't accept the evidence. Unfortunately, you have provided an example of "willful ignorance," confirming some comments that I posted in the Peanut Gallery just minutes ago. You also confirm the previous post there by RAZD.

But I guess evidence doesn't matter when you have belief, eh?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-12-2009 8:28 PM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-12-2009 10:23 PM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 301 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 209 of 280 (535117)
11-12-2009 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Kaichos Man
11-12-2009 10:23 PM


Re: Information is added to the genome
Your picture of Lucy and your comment make no sense.

They certainly do not refute my post that information had been added to the genome of that level of critter to get to modern humans.

Would those facts include a list of transitional hominids linking Australopithecus and Homo Sapiens? I'd be very interested to see it.

So would the scientific community in general, actually.


Nonsense. Willful ignorance again.

Just because you refuse to accept scientific findings does not make them go away. But you want transitionals? See below:


Source: http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122/116HominidAges07.jpg


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-12-2009 10:23 PM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019