Summations Only

Well, the creationist idea of a kind is a clade which is not contained inside another clade.Put another way, a kind is a group of species such that (a) a creationist will admit that they're related (b) the creationist won't admit that anything outside that group is related to anything inside that group.This varies, of course, from creationist to creationist. Determining the limits of kinds is difficult, for two reasons.The first is that while creationists are otherwise happy to lump species together, and will talk with a fine freedom of "the dinosaur kind" or "the beetle kind", they nonetheless want humans to be a different kind from chimps. Now, how do you come up with genetic or morphological criteria that will split humans from chimps but allow you to lump together dinosaurs, or beetles --- or even Felidae?The second problem is this. All the scientific methods that unite a clade that they want to be a kind (e.g. Felidae) would also unite clades they don't want to be a kind (e.g. Carnivora). There is no non-arbitrary place to stop; the creationist who has happily been using molecular phylogeny up to that point just has to exclaim: "Now that's going too far, because I don't believe that!" (And again, what a creationist finds acceptable will vary from case to case.) There is no non-arbitrary point at which one can say "Now I'm going to stop believing the results of the methods which have suited me fine up until now."---Addendum: actually, there is one non-arbitrary place to stop, which is to identify kinds with the Biological Species Concept. The trouble is that that splits kinds up rather fine. The idea of "kinds" was invented to explain how Noah fitted everything onto the Ark, and if you go with the B.S.C. then it's really not that much use.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You have no idea what the theory of evolution is.You are therefore incompetent to discuss it.

You have no idea what the theory of evolution is.You are therefore incompetent to discuss it.I know I already said that in post #37, but it seemed worth saying again. 'Cos of being so profoundly true.

You really are all at sea about the most basic concepts in evolution, aren't you? Then this would be an excellent time to stop trying.

Because I do know, from reading your messages, that you don't know much about evolution, which is what I said. I know this 'cos you keep misstating the theory, so unless this arises from willful dishonesty, it must necessarily arise from ignorance. You need to start again from the beginning, and find out the role of mutation and of natural selection in the theory, otherwise you will continue to make the crass blunders which so far have been the most egregious feature of your posts.Plenty of people have explained it to you on this thread alone. Also there are textbooks available which would assist you. If after consulting these resources you still have difficulty in understanding evolution, I shall see what I can do to help.

Do you really not see how intelligence is a trait that might have a selective advantage?No, possibly you don't.In that case, feel free to be even more stupid than you are now, especially when crossing the road, and see how you get on. Alternatively, you could try to be more intelligent. But you might have to give up being a creationist.We evolutionists think that intelligence is a desirable trait, but then we're biased 'cos it's one that we possess.

This is so far from actual genetics that it's not even clear what it is you're trying to be wrong about. It's as though someone was to pretend to be knowledgeable about sports by saying: "The second baseman was caught leg before wicket, so the goalie was awarded a slam-dunk" ... it's not merely that this is a description of something that never happened, it's not even a description of something.Perhaps you should begin by learning the meaning of the word "trait". A trait is a possible variant of a character: e.g. if the character is eye color, blue eyes would be a trait; if the character is whether or not one has earlobes, then having earlobes is a trait.Now, obviously it make no sense to talk of the order of traits, there's no difference between having blue eyes and earlobes and having earlobes and blue eyes. The idea of "the same traits in a mixed order" doesn't mean anything. Either that, or geneticists know about genetics and you don't. I have followed your advice and concluded that you are spouting ignorant claptrap.

Again, you're not exactly painting a picture. What, in the real world, do you want to correspond to the "arrangement" of the traits?Instead of a hundred traits, let's consider two --- the two I've mentioned. Let t1 = having blue eyes, and t2 = having earlobes.What is the difference between the "arrangement" t1, t2 and the "arrangement" t2, t1? Now you need to learn the meaning of the word "mutate". No. You are pathetically, ludicrously wrong.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Please answer the question. What is the real-world difference corresponding to the different "arrangement"? If one generation has blue eyes and earlobes, and the next generation has earlobes and blue eyes, then what "change" has occurred? We can watch new traits arising, but that of course involves looking at the real world rather than the muddled mess of verbiage in your head, and so you may have overlooked it.

How does a trait have a "location"? What do we see? How can we look at two populations and say: now this population has blue eyes and earlobes, but that population has earlobes and blue eyes?In what way are the "arrangement" and the "location" of these two traits visible? Perhaps this meant something in your first language, but it seems to have lost something in translation. I'm not sure I can. Maybe the best I can do for you is advise you that if you keep quiet people won't notice how ignorant you are. Well, not according to scientists, who know about science, it isn't. If you, a non-scientist who is profoundly ignorant of science, have a different opinion, then I would suggest to you that maybe it is they who are right and you who is wrong.

Not even that. It's simply meaningless, a distinction without a difference.Remember, we're talking here about phenotype, not genotype.

Yes, but that's not what we're talking about. If the gene for eye color swapped places on a chromosome with the gene for earlobes, that would be a neutral mutation. But what can it even mean for two traits to swap places?It may be that intellen is trying to be wrong about the genotype rather than the phenotype, in which case now would be a good time for him to say so.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, if your choice is Shannon entropy, then creating information is easy. Any insertion would do it, since the insertion increases the number of bits in the genome, and since the content of these bits is not completely predictable from their context.So, for example, consider a "toy genome" (real genomes are of course longer) of the form GTACT_ACTCTA, where the _ represents a base that has just been added by insertion, the identity of which I am not going to tell you.Can you deduce with complete certainty what base is represented by the _, based only on the knowledge that it is preceded by GTACT and followed by ACTCTA?Of course not. Therefore, it makes a non-zero contribution to the total Shannon entropy of the genome.See, it is easy. Sentences like this usually betoken a fundamental misunderstanding of either the theory of evolution, the meaning of the word "adaptation", or both --- but you do not make the error explicit, you just take is as read. Perhaps you could explain why in the name of all that is asinine you wrote "adaptation (microevolution)", and then when we've cleared that up we could go on to discuss something else, such as E. coli and nylonase. But this hardly seems worthwhile if you're still confused about really basic concepts.

Thank you for your Gish Gallop. If there is any specific point in it that you feel capable of defending, please start a thread on it, where you will be shown how wrong you are. Otherwise please be informed that you are reciting ignorant trash invented by liars and fools to deceive the gullible.

Well where do I start? You referred us to an article on Shannon entropy. I have a Ph.D. in mathematics, and I (perhaps foolishly) assumed that when you started talking about Shannon entropy, you knew what you were talking about.Apparently you don't. So, tell us --- at what point do you start finding information theory incomprehensible? Maybe I could help you over that hump. But until I have, maybe you should stop talking about information theory.