Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[The Barbarian]

From Answers in Genesis:

For the most part, creationists use the same classification scheme, but they accept common ancestors only to a point. Where the evolutionist sees branches on a single massive tree of life, the creationist sees an orchard of many shorter trees.

https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/tree-orchard-life/

Limited evolution and common descent with limits. Slowly, slowly, creationists are accommodating themselves to the real world.

Some of them.

 

[Stripe]

From Answers in Genesis:

For the most part, creationists use the same classification scheme, but they accept common ancestors only to a point. Where the evolutionist sees branches on a single massive tree of life, the creationist sees an orchard of many shorter trees.

https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/tree-orchard-life/

Limited evolution and common descent with limits. Slowly, slowly, creationists are accommodating themselves to the real world.

Some of them.

Also from your link:

Evolutionary Common Ancestor:

A greatly simplified detail of an evolutionary tree wrongly linking different created kinds. In the evolutionary worldview these classifications indicate descent from a single common ancestor. In the creation worldview, they indicate a common designer.​

Darwinists are so desperate for justification that they will co-opt the opposition into their appeals to popularity. :chuckle:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Also from your link:

Evolutionary Common Ancestor:

A greatly simplified detail of an evolutionary tree wrongly linking different created kinds. In the evolutionary worldview these classifications indicate descent from a single common ancestor. In the creation worldview, they indicate a common designer.​

Darwinists are so desperate for justification that they will co-opt the opposition into their appeals to popularity. :chuckle:

Indeed, when one can use his opponent's arguments against his opponent, he is far more likely to be the victor in the discussion.

However, Barbarian, in his haste to do such a thing, has failed to consider all aspects of his opponent's arguments, and thus shows his own position to be extremely frail.

The ability to use one's opponent's arguments against his opponent is definitely a double-edged sword.

 

[The Barbarian]

Indeed, when one can use his opponent's arguments against his opponent, he is far more likely to be the victor in the discussion.

However, Barbarian, in his haste to do such a thing, has failed to consider all aspects of his opponent's arguments, and thus shows his own position to be extremely frail.

In this case, I'm commending AiG for their willingness to change their position when it appears to be impossible. It's quite a change from "no common descent" to "limited common descent", and they deserve credit for changing as evidence accumulates.

And let's take look at your assumption. Let's ask YE creationist Kurt Wise, who besides being a YE creationist, also has a doctorate in paleontology, so he actually knows what he's talking about:

Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

He's right; you need to find a way to accept the fact.

The ability to use one's opponent's arguments against his opponent is definitely a double-edged sword.

Be sure you don't cut yourself. lain:

 

[Stripe]

AiG ... change[d] their position ... from "no common descent."

:darwinsm:

You're lying. It's easy to tell; you've written something. "No common descent" would mean no children of parents. Your implication is that AIG once thought living organisms were rocks.

Let's ask YE creationist Kurt Wise.

This again?

How many times has it been that your lies have been exposed?

Hundreds?

There is little doubt in this author’s mind that with the maturity of the creation model will come an explanation of stratomorphic intermediates superior to that of macroevolutionary theory.​

Your sole aim in quoting Wise — whose explanations are limited and sourced from radically different ideas than what you encounter here — is to avoid the challenge to your precious religion.

The sooner you allow your Darwinism to be exposed to challenge, the sooner you will be eligible to join a rational discussion. Until then, you're just a troll.

 

[Yorzhik]

If someone refuses at all costs to listen, then it makes no difference how clearly you explain.
You are using the tools of rational thinking against the evolution equivalents of flat-earthers.

That's pretty rich coming from you, Chair. You are the one that plugged your ears in the "Parallel thinking: Flat Earth and Young Earth Creationists" thread.

I don't think you understand the challenge that Barbarian won't discuss. He keeps claiming that Shannon can measure more information in a signal with noise than a signal without. We agree, but it doesn't matter because that's not the problem Shannon brings to light.

The problem Shannon brings to light is that the message has changed for the better. His claim implies, for example, that a text message can be improved the same way.

Let's say you go to the store and your wife texts you that you need eggs. But the text message get's noise added and the text actually reads "get eggs and milk"... and low and behold, she forgot about milk but actually needs it! Wow, isn't it great that noise was added?

But in real life, and for the exact same reason, it doesn't work that way. The claim "well it DOES work that way in biology" is shown to be wrong not only by Shannon, but also by experiment.

 

[Gary K]

Indeed, when one can use his opponent's arguments against his opponent, he is far more likely to be the victor in the discussion.

However, Barbarian, in his haste to do such a thing, has failed to consider all aspects of his opponent's arguments, and thus shows his own position to be extremely frail.

The ability to use one's opponent's arguments against his opponent is definitely a double-edged sword.

Nah. He was just blindly hoping no one would read the rest of the statement he quoted.

 

[chair]

...

The problem Shannon brings to light is that the message has changed for the better. His claim implies, for example, that a text message can be improved the same way.

Let's say you go to the store and your wife texts you that you need eggs. But the text message get's noise added and the text actually reads "get eggs and milk"... and low and behold, she forgot about milk but actually needs it! Wow, isn't it great that noise was added?

But in real life, and for the exact same reason, it doesn't work that way. The claim "well it DOES work that way in biology" is shown to be wrong not only by Shannon, but also by experiment.

The goal when your wife texts you is to keep that shopping list in its original form. If there was a biological goal to keep the 'text' in its original form, then you'd be right. But there is no such goal. The 'text' undergoes changes that sometimes are helpful under particular circumstances.

The comparison to a shopping list, or to any situation where there is a clear message that must be preserved, is a false comparison.

It is not that complicated.

 

[Gary K]

After reading Barby's posts here I wish TOL had a "No Thanks" button alongside the "Thanks" button.

 

[Gary K]

The goal when your wife texts you is to keep that shopping list in its original form. If there was a biological goal to keep the 'text' in its original form, then you'd be right. But there is no such goal. The 'text' undergoes changes that sometimes are helpful under particular circumstances.

The comparison to a shopping list, or to any situation where there is a clear message that must be preserved, is a false comparison.

It is not that complicated.

That is a demonstrably false statement. His wife sent him a text to get eggs. Her goal was getting eggs, not to keep a message clear. The message getting through was a basic assumption or she would have never sent it in the first place.

That makes your other assertions false as well for when an argument is based upon a false premise it's conclusion is false.

 

[Yorzhik]

Too fast and individuals would devolve faster than they could wait for better-working messages

There is no "devolve."

Ok. But I think that claim is debated by geneticist.

Um, no. One can mathematically determine the optimum mutation rate for specific situations.

Since your examples use computer models. But there is not computer model for common descent that works. I think EVE was the best attempt some years ago that failed like the rest, but if you have a better one I'd like to see it.

As usual, an issue that computer models have to deal with is that Shannon which shows that messages are degraded by noise in the system.

 

[Yorzhik]

The goal when your wife texts you is to keep that shopping list in its original form.

The example was clear that she forgot about milk. The message was improved by the added noise, in this example: "and milk".

If there was a biological goal to keep the 'text' in its original form, then you'd be right. But there is no such goal. The 'text' undergoes changes that sometimes are helpful under particular circumstances.

The comparison to a shopping list, or to any situation where there is a clear message that must be preserved, is a false comparison.

It is not that complicated.

Why must a message be preserved? Almost all messages could be improved in some way.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
There is no "devolve." That's a one-shot joke by an 80s pop group.

Ok. But I think that claim is debated by geneticist.

Could you show us where he says populations "devolve?"

Since your examples use computer models. But there is not computer model for common descent that works.

About ten years ago, I think... (Barbarian checks)

Mathematical and Computer Modelling
Volume 49, Issues 11–12, June 2009, Pages 2109-2115
S.GenieysaN.BessonovbV.Volperta
Mathematical model of evolutionary branching
Abstract

This work is devoted to the study of an evolutionary system where similar individuals are competing for the same resources. Mathematically it is a Fisher equation with an integral term describing this non-local competition. Due to this competition, an initially monomorphic population may split into two distinct sub-populations, hence exhibiting a branching capacity. This framework can be applied to various contexts where recognizers are competing for some signals. The pattern formation capacity of this model is investigated analytically and numerically.

As usual, an issue that computer models have to deal with is that Shannon which shows that messages are degraded by noise in the system.

As Shannon showed, evolution would not work without the noise.

 

[Stripe]

Evolution would not work without the noise.

Noise is not information.

You've been misled, probably by your own self.

 

[Right Divider]

Noise is not information.

He probably thinks that you get twice as much information when you photo-copy a printed page.

 

[The Barbarian]

He probably thinks that you get twice as much information when you photo-copy a printed page.

If you have to make up things and suggest that others believe them, that's not a very good reflection on you, is it?

And the ironic thing is, this one backfired on you. I realize you meant it as an insult, but it turns out that gene duplication does indeed change information in an organism. Suppose you have a message that is "100" and it's duplicated so you have "100100." Is the information in the message the same in both cases?

Gene duplication (or chromosomal duplication or gene amplification) is a major mechanism through which new genetic material is generated during molecular evolution. It can be defined as any duplication of a region of DNA that contains a gene. Gene duplications can arise as products of several types of errors in DNA replication and repair machinery as well as through fortuitous capture by selfish genetic elements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication

"But," you might protest "that's not like an entire page."

O.K. let's take chromosomes. What if we make a third copy of a chromosome? (most organisms have two of each)

One common example is Trisomy-21, in which a human has an extra copy of chromosome 21. It's more commonly called "Down Syndrome."

Aneuploidies (variations in chromosome number) tend to be lethal in vertebrates, but are often adaptive in plants.

PLoS Genet. 2008 Oct; 4(10)
Effects of Aneuploidy on Genome Structure, Expression, and Interphase Organization in Arabidopsis thaliana
Bruno Huettel,# 1 , ¤ David P. Kreil,# 2 Marjori Matzke, 1 , * and Antonius J. M. Matzke

What you don't know,can hurt you:

:chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

Suppose you have a message that is "100" and it's duplicated so you have "100100." Is the information in the message the same in both cases?

Ignoring the fact that you can't duplicate something to make it different: No. It's worse in the second.

When you learn to come to terms with that, let us know.

 

[Alate_One]

Aneuploidies (variations in chromosome number) tend to be lethal in vertebrates, but are often adaptive in plants.

Sorry, botanist intrusion here . . . In fact it's even better than that. Most cultivated plants not only have an extra chromosome or two but entire genomes. Cultivated strawberries are octoploid (have eight copies of their entire genome!).

This is actually a valuable trait as far as humans are concerned. Cells with more DNA in them have larger nuclei, making the cells larger, making the resulting fruits, grains and whole plants larger.

In fact most cultivated plants are polyploids, having many copies of their genomes. Humans sometimes even create polyploids intentionally. Sometimes these are even from different species. The bread most of us eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner is made from a plant (bread wheat) that has a combination of three different species' genomes inside of it, making it hexaploid. So genome duplication is a very good thing as far as we humans are concerned, and it's quite common in nature as well.

 

[Alate_One]

Ignoring the fact that you can't duplicate something to make it different: No. It's worse in the second.

Sure you can . . .
Hybridization and duplication of three very similar grasses gave us . . .

 

[The Barbarian]

Sure you can . . .
Hybridization and duplication of three very similar grasses gave us . . .

Gene duplication and subsequent mutation is one of the most common ways that organisms produce new genes with new information.

Consequences of Hox gene duplication in the vertebrates: an investigation of the zebrafish Hox paralogue group 1 genes
James M. McClintock, Robin Carlson, Devon M. Mann, Victoria E. Prince
https://dev.biologists.org/content/128/13/2471