|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
I've been trying to research on "genetic entropy" and have so far found that it's apparently a term coined by Sanford. On Wikipedia, it only appears in two articles, one on Sanford himself (including that he's a YEC who testified in court, "during which he denied the principle of common descent" (John C. Sanford - Wikipedia), and the other article being on Mutational meltdown and which includes Sanford's book in the "Further reading" list (which suggests that Sanford's thesis is based at least in part on mutational meltdown):
quote: I found the program on SourceForge, but there is no source code available -- the Windows versions are only executables and even the "Linux source" is nothing but an executable, HTML files, and a JavaScript file. This makes verification of his code impossible. Discussion on one site pointed out that his program is limited to small populations no greater than 1000 individuals. The reason offered for this limit is that the program is so memory-intensive that that's the largest population that a computer could handle, something which is also mentioned in the PDF from the ICC which alphaomegakid linked us to. Being limited to simulating only small populations means that the program is biased towards populations that will experience extinction due to mutational meltdown. Thus, at most the program would serve as verification of mutational meltdown of small populations, but it cannot say anything at all about normal-sized or large populations which by virtue of their population size are not subject to mutational meltdown. Edited by dwise1, : concluding phrase
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
dwise1 writes:
I don't think that is true, in the linux download there is Fortran and C code that can be compiled in folders within the cgi-bin folder. I found the program on SourceForge, but there is no source code available -- the Windows versions are only executables and even the "Linux source" is nothing but an executable, HTML files, and a JavaScript file. This makes verification of his code impossible. Perhaps at one time, but not now. Here are all the files (save one, fmendel.exe, which was also an executable):
quote:C:Linux Distro>dir mendel_v1.4.7 /s
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I only saw the one Linux tarball there, which I opened and extracted files from with WinZIP. I have Ubuntu installed in a virtual machine on my box at home, so I can try to unroll that tarball in a Linux environment and see if I get any different results.
It's been nearly a decade so I'm a bit rusty. It's a *.tar.gz, so I'm pretty sure that I'm to use gunzip on it, but I can't quite remember the options (just that it was usually four of them). Mind if I ask for advice on that from you? Edited by dwise1, : subtitle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Nope, even in Linux there are no source files in that tarball. At least I was able to extract the second executable, fmendel.exe , this time.
At Mendel’s Accountant - Browse Files at SourceForge.net, there are only two files in the Linux distro: the tarball, mendel_v1.4.7.tar.gz , and a release-notes text file. Edited by dwise1, : sub title
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Which is exactly what I did. On 02 Nov 2010 at 1312 PDT. However, the file they had up at that time was 484 KB in size (at least that's what my file manager reports), whereas they now list it as being 1.1 MB in size. When did you and WK download it?
I'll try downloading it yet again tonight. Right now I need to hit the road for a 2 hour drive to an all-day seminar, followed by a 2 hour drive home, so that will be contingent on my condition when I return.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
No, no bar involved. I don't frequent bars, or even occasion them. Rather what with getting up extra early and then sitting through 7 hours of presentations (only a quarter of which applied to me), I wasn't sure that I'd be able to stay awake during the two-hour drive back. Didn't have any problem, though.
Still no luck with that tarball. The -tf option for tar does display the source files, but not extract them. Neither does the -xf option.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Have you actually extracted those source files? -t displayed those files, but -x didn't extract them. Could it do that for you?
I have Ubuntu running under VMWare on my Win7 box, Kosmic Koala. Previously, I had community college classes with RedHat 6 (upwards of 8 years ago) and up until 3 or 4 years ago used to have a Linux box at work running RedHat 7. I was going to wait until firing up my WinXP laptop tomorrow which has WinZIP on it (my Win7 box does not), but I just now took another look. Here is the directory listing from Ubuntu:
quote: On the SourceForge site, the Linux file was listed as having a size of 1.1 MB, but the file I downloaded is a tenth of that size -- and it is a fourth of the size of the "old" file I had previously downloaded. That "new" smaller file did report source files with -t, but allowed none to be extracted.
Whisky-Tango-Foxtrot-Oscar? What does ls -al have to say about the tarball you downloaded? How big is it? Were you ever able to actually extract any source files from it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Now you do realize that evos have a global flood also, don't you? You mean the one that started about 13,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age and that we're still in the middle of? -- though the rising of the sea level stopped about 6,000 years ago. But it's quite different from creationists' flood. No cataclysmic mass destruction of populations and habitats, nor any reshaping of the earth's geology (though it did leave its mark in coastal formations). Just the slow inexorable flooding of low-lying coastal areas, such as the Persian Gulf and the Bering Strait. Absolutely no need to invoke any magic to explain it, unlike the creationists' flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
I've yet to see any creo of any stripe who had any idea what the ToE actually says. I have. A local creationist activist which whom I conducted a long and fruitless email correspondence. Early on, I criticized his use of the standard gross misrepresentation of PuncEq as a bird hatching from an egg that a lizard laid and urged him to learn what PuncEq really teaches. His response was a synopsis of PuncEq that was surprisingly accurate. IOW, he really did know what PuncEq is and what it teaches, and yet he continued to misrepresent it grossly. The problem faced by creationists who actually understand evolution is that that they cannot argue against the ToE itself. If they were to try to represent evolution truthfully and attempt to argue against it, then they could not present anything that sounded at all convincing. Above all else, especially above the truth, "creation science" is about convincing their audience, and themselves. So instead of being truthful about evolution -- or even about anything at all -- , they do not hesitate to misrepresent evolution, to lie, in the myriad ways we observe. I said that they are faced with a problem, but that would only apply to someone possessing even a shread of morality. I cannot speak for other creationists; the one I corresonded with proved to be a pathological liar, and Kent Hovind's repeated attempts to pick a fight with me over my screenname in order to avoid answering a few simple questions about his solar-mass-loss claim are rather telling. I do not doubt that most creationists we encounter are ignorant of what evolution and science are -- the ones who do know the truth are far too cagey to try to mix it up with opponents who know what they are talking about. But many of the claims and arguments that those creationists regurgitate at us were devised by creationists who did know better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
It is not a question of intelligence, but rather of knowledge vs ignorance.
If one intends to argue against some teaching or idea, would it not be in that person's own interest to learn everything he can about that teaching or idea? Or should that person keep himself pig-ignorant about the subject that he is trying to argue against? All too often, we observe creationists keep themselves ignorant about that which they are trying to argue against. All too often, we observe creationists trying to disprove strawmen of their own construction, or constructed by other creationists who do know better. I would hope that you are not arguing in favor of ignorance and dishonesty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
But if you can provide no explanation as to why they did not survive, then i will accept that as your answer For the creationist its not so much that we reject your "evidence", it simply makes no sense that they would not have survided in some fashion It is false for you to claim that we can provide no explanation. We have; you just cannot understand it. Nor are you alone. Most creationists also cannot understand the answers that science provides, because they are scientifically illiterate. As we've been exploring in the thread, Counter-Intuitive Science, so many things in science seem counter-intuitive, especially to those who have not learned science. Too many in the general population are ignorant of science, creationists and non-creationists alike -- I've coined the term "ignorati" to describe them. The more immediate problem that this poses for such discussions as we have here is that, while most non-creationist ignorati don't have any interest in such matters and do not get involved, most of the creationists who get involved in these discussions are the ignorati -- knowledgeable creationists usually know better than to get involved in public discussion or know better than to subscribe to the false claims of "creation science" (don't you dare redefine that term again!). No scientific explanation will make any sense to creationist ignorati. The only explanations that will make sense to them are false ones. For example, read my message Message 50 in that thread. While researching for information on Kent Hovind's solar-mass-loss claim, I found a site where they claimed that the then-impending crashing of the Galileo probe into Jupiter's atmosphere was an Illuminati plot to turn that planet into a star, thus ushering in the Anti-Christ (I shit thee not; that message contains a link back to their page, so you can read their own words yourself). They wrote to NASA asking about the effects of a "huge nuclear device" (the probe's plutonium reactor, which was designed to be safe in case of a crash during launch, hence it was also designed to not be a nuclear device) on Jupiter and whether it would turn that planet into a star. NASA explained to them the truth of the matter, which was that such an event would have no such effect because it's the core temperature that causes a star to burn and Jupiter doesn't have enough mass to bring the core up to the required temperature (which I recall from elementary school as being about 25 million degrees, which is why a fission bomb is needed to trigger a thermonuclear bomb). These people could not understand the answer. But they could understand Kent Hovind's answer, that there isn't any oxygen in the Jovian atmosphere to sustain the burning. To the ignorati, the true answers don't make any sense; only false answers make sense to them. I know that you are vehemently opposed to learning anything, but I'll cast this pearl before you anyway: learn something about biology, evolution, population dynamics, and human evolution so that the answers can start to make sense to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Also compare the three pelvises from other angles.
From my old website:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
DWise1 writes: It is false for you to claim that we can provide no explanation. We have; you just cannot understand it. Nor are you alone. Most creationists also cannot understand the answers that science provides, because they are scientifically illiterate. Once gain you fail to understand, which is not surprising since most of your posts are an attack of a personal nature on creationist and that is mostly what they consist of You sure do a lot of projecting. I have been dealing with creationists for decades, whereas you repeatedly exhibit abject ignorance of them. As an IDist, you are lying in bed with those people; if you're going to sleep with someone, you really should make some effort to learn about them.
many qualified people that DO understand all the "science" disagree with the tenets and conclusions reached by evolutionists Yes, there are. Besides the fact that their disagreement with evolution is not based on the science, but rather on their religious and/or philosophical beliefs. they are very rarely the ones that we see here. Those who do actually understand the science know better than to use the blatantly false claims of "creation science", at least not in a forum where they would have to respond to questions. Even those who do not understand the science but are experienced "debators" know better than to engage in forum discussions; they tend to be little more than bullies who will only engage with opponents who are weaker than they are (the moment they realize that their opponent actually knows something, they immediately try to disengage; I've seen this done personally) and they will pummel their weaker opponents out of public sight. Rather, the creationists that we normally get here are those who are ignorant of science and are ignorant of their own ignorance. All that they can do is to repeat the false claims and arguments that they have learned from other creationists, in many cases effectively acting as proxies for the creationists who know better than to engage directly in public discussion. Clearly, these creationists who are ignorant of science would be ill-prepared to understand scientific explanations, as I stated. The people at Cutting Edge Ministries were given the true explanation of why Jupiter could not be a star and they could not understand it, but they could understand the false bullshit that Kent Hovind fed them instead (not that Hovind knew any different himself). Dawn, you are clearly ignorant of science, among many other things, and you are clearly intent on retaining your ignorance. That is why you are unable to understand the clear answers we are giving you.
DWise1 writes: I know that you are vehemently opposed to learning anything, but I'll cast this pearl before you anyway: learn something about biology, evolution, population dynamics, and human evolution so that the answers can start to make sense to you. As usual you do not understand even the obvious points. Evolution has nothing to do with creation or creationism. ... blah, blah, blah Completely irrelevent bullshit that has nothing to do with what I said. Ignorance is not knowing something. We are all ignorant about many things; it's part of the human condition. We can reduce our ignorance by learning about those things we are ignorant of. Not wanting to reduce our ignorance, even opposing it, is just plain stupid. Ignorance can be cured; stupidity can't. Since you are ignorant of science, I was advising you to learn something about the relevent sciences so that you could understand what we're saying. But you insist on clinging to your ignorance, which by definition is stupidity. Ironically, in your bullshitting you accidentally said something that is very true and that I have been trying to get creationists to realize for decades, but which they vehemently oppose.
Evolution has nothing to do with creation or creationism. Creation is not dependent upon whether evo is true or not. they are two different things and established in a different manner If evo was true it would not affect creationism. Your personal attacks on creationist are worthless because you do not understand simple points of reasoning The title of the website notwithstanding, creation and evolution are not at odds with one another Evolution is an explanation of the nature of things, creation is an explanation of the existence of things If evolution were true it would not affect the validity of the scriptures or that which is contained there. But more specifically it would not affect the tenets of creation/ism ... Incredible! You finally got something right! It is indeed true that there is no actual conflict between evolution and creation. Nor even between evolution and many forms of creationism -- there the only conflict is created by forms of creationism that choose to claim that there is a conflict, such as YEC's "creation science". Nor does evolution invalidate the Bible, no more than it would invalidate Moby Dick or Pliny's histories; again, that conflict only exists in those forms of creationism that teach that evolution invalidates the Bible and disproves God. And whether evolution would affect the tenets of creationism depends heavily on the form of creationism under consideration; most forms are unaffected, but not the more virulent forms.
... because these are not established by the scriptures by but simple logic applied to the existing world And you're back to talking nonsense again. The tenets of creation and of creationism are based directly on religious beliefs. They may be developed through logic, but the premises are firmly grounded in religious belief. Indeed, leading YECs such as Dr. Henry Morris of the ICR, practically the inventor of Flood Geology and co-creator of "creation science", explicitly state and insist that Scripture must always take precedence over the real world, so your statement is pure bullshit. Yet again. Now, Dawn, for a little experiment, if you're man enough. Find a YEC forum, join it, and tell them exactly what you had just told me (starting with "Evolution has nothing to do with creation or creationism."). How do you think that your fellow creationists will receive you? I predict that that they will villify you for "hating God" and will attack you for being an apostate or even as an atheist. "Creation science" insists that evolution is incompatible with creation and with God. That if evolution is true, then the Bible is false and God is either a cosmic Liar or does not exist. Either way, if evolution is true then you must abandon Christianity and become an atheist. Dawn, you are abysmally ignorant of your bed-mates. Clinging to such ignorance is a stupid idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Do you understand what kind of mutations we're talking about? We're talking about the only mutations that could mean anything in evolution. It's apparent that you are talking about a different kind of mutation, ones that are meaningless to evolution.
The only meaningful mutations are those that can be inherited by offspring. Those mutations are purely genetic and not physical; ie, they only constitute changes in the DNA. And they are only in the germ cells, not in the body cells. Changes in the body during embryonic development that are caused by factors other than the inherited DNA (eg, by alcohol, drugs, chemicals, diet) are meaningless, evolutionarily speaking, since they will not be inherited by the next generation. Mutations in body cells resulting from exposure to chemicals or to radiation (eg, skin lesions caused by years of exposure to sunlight) are also meaningless, evolutionarily speaking. Clearly, only mutations in the DNA that will be passed on to the next generation could possibly have any evolutionary meaning. You seem to be fixated, like many creationists, on the wrong kinds of mutations. Of the meaningful kinds of mutations, there are only a few. One such mutation is base substitution, in which a base (A G T or C) is replaced by a different base. If it's part of the gene for creating a protein, then three bases together form a codon which specifies an amino acid in the protein. Some amino acids are specified by more than one codon, so a base substitution could result in no change in the protein. In addition, many amino acids in a given protein are not specified, such that any amino acid could fit there, or only for certain types of amino acids, such that more than one amino acid could be substituted and not change the protein. Only a small number of sites on the protein need to be specific amino acids. For examples of the great diversity of amino acid sequences that a given protein could have, just compare its amino acid sequences across many different species. So with base substitutions, there's a very good chance that most mutations would have little or no effect and a small number would be deleterious. Before you dream up analogies for something, you really should try to learn something about it first. PSThe book is Evolutionary Genetics by John Maynard Smith (Oxford University Press, 1989). On pages 53-54: quote: He then goes on to cover "The balance between mutation and selection" and "Deleterious mutations in natural populations".Hint: it's a textbook that delves into the mathematics of population genetics. Edited by dwise1, : Hadn't cleaned up completely Edited by dwise1, : author name correction and PS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
In the end, the topic has become defined by the most recent messages, namely shadow's persistent misinterpretation of a source against all evidence to the contrary. All I could think while watching that was that he was insisting on straining at imaginary gnats, most of his own manufacture, to deny the real evidence. I cannot say with certainty that he displayed the other side of that analogy which so many other creationists do, that being the swallowing whole of entire camel caravans of false creationist claims.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024