:mock: non-subscribers.
Problems for evolution — squid recodes its own RNA
- Thread starter Stripe
- Start date
- Status
:mock: non-subscribers.
6days
New member
Only evolutionists don't know.
Jose Fly
New member
It's like asking them what a "transitional fossil" between humans and primates should look like. In both cases they won't answer because they know as soon as they do, we'll run out, find it, and post it here, thereby putting them in a very awkward spot.
Far safer to just ignore the question, wait a while, then lie and say "I already answered".
Did he curse?
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
No one does. Some are just more honest about it.
6days
New member
Yea it is.JoseFly said:
I said I would provide a definition and I did.
Lets review:
Six days "Jose has been provided with definitions before. You can read books on the topic trying to define it so its difficult in a sentence....But how about information is smbollically encoded instructions that expect a specific response...or that will carry out a specifc task. The information is represented by symbols or grammar having meaning. The symbols or grammar also expect some type of action or results.
(My rendition of part of Gitts definition)"
DNA is a code. All known codes including DNA have an intelligent creator. Not everyone will admit codes arw created... but most admit it is a code.
Sir Karl Popper talked about a chicken / egg problem in the code... "Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code."
Richard Dawkins is impressed by the information system but of course he says 'things appear designed--- but they aren't'. He says ".There is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the*Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over."
Jose Fly
New member
"Go read a book" is not a definition.
That doesn't answer the question. Remember, I asked what "genetic information" is and how you think we should measure it. Genetics doesn't operate by "symbols or grammar".
Again, none of that is a definition of "genetic information" or a means of measuring it.
Irrelevant.
Again, what is "genetic information" and how are you measuring it? For example, if we have two genomes, how do we tell which one has more "genetic information"?
6days
New member
Daedalean's_Sun said:
I wish you could find that thread too.
Decrease of information is what mutations do.
John Sanford, geneticist "The overwhelmingly deleterious natureof mutations can be seen by the incredible scarcity of clear cases of information creating mutations. It must be understood that scientists have a very sensitive and extensive network for detecting information creating mutations and most geneticists are diligently keeping their eyes open for them all the time. This has been true for about 100 years. Just not of this observation on network its not sure if even only one mutation out of a million unemployed creates new information (apart from fine tuning)the literature would be overflowing with reports of this happening. Yes I am still not convinced there is a single crystal clear example of a known mutation which an ambiguous Lee created information there certainly are many mutations which have been described as beneficial but most of these beneficial mutations have not created information but rather have destroyed it."
Jose Fly
New member
This is exactly the sort of thing that makes me think there's something fundamentally wrong with creationists.
How can you state the above if you can't say what "genetic information" is, or provide a means of measuring it (e.g., determining which of two genomes has the most "genetic information")?
What in the world is wrong with you?
"Information" is just a buzzword for creationists. They figure it makes them sound intellectual. Few of them have any notion of how to calculate it, or even what it is.
It's significant that those creationists who do know, never use it as an argument for creationism, or against science.
John Sanford, for example seems to be completely unaware of population genetics,which regularly computes the genetic information of mutations.
If creationists redefine "information" to exclude such increases in information, then evolution doesn't need "information" to work.
Rock and a hard place.
It's significant that those creationists who do know, never use it as an argument for creationism, or against science.
John Sanford, for example seems to be completely unaware of population genetics,which regularly computes the genetic information of mutations.
- We have directly observed the evolution of new alleles, with useful new functions.
- We have directly observed the duplication of existing alleles with the mutation of one of them to a new function, leaving the old function intact.
- And we have observed this to increase fitness in populations of living things, which means that useful information about the environment is coded in the mutations and changed allele frequencies.
If creationists redefine "information" to exclude such increases in information, then evolution doesn't need "information" to work.
Rock and a hard place.
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
I wish you could find that thread too.
I distinctly remember it being in a thread where One Eyed Jack was arguing that all animals were vegetarian, If I recall correctly. Perhaps in a Noah's Ark thread?
Or so you keep saying, though a method to measure the quantity of 'information' has yet to be offered, and I'm sure it never will be.
6days
New member
I remember discussing...,you have a good remember'er
I dont recall the details though.
Possibly...or likely not a satisfying answer for you. I think you realize though that I'm not agreeing with a quantity measurement. Large genomes don't necessarily mean more meaningful info.
Perhaps a measurement of sorts is the overall decline of fitness in the human population where there may be a decline of 1 -2% with each generation according to one secular geneticist.
Well, lets consider that belief...
Humans are getting smarter every generation. We know this because the scores necessary for a 100 on IQ tests have been raised every generation.
The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day. When intelligence quotient (IQ) tests are initially standardized using a sample of test-takers, by convention the average of the test results is set to 100 and their standard deviation is set to 15 or 16 IQ points. When IQ tests are revised, they are again standardized using a new sample of test-takers, usually born more recently than the first. Again, the average result is set to 100. However, when the new test subjects take the older tests, in almost every case their average scores are significantly above 100.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
In the 1920s, Johnny Wessmuller dominated swimming events in the olympics. His best times wouldn't qualify him on the women's team today.
So your belief has no foundation whatever. Kimura's prediction that the genetic load would not reduce fitness has been validated by the real world.
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
Remember the "vegan" tiger that came up as his evidence? What was the OP of that thread, do you remember?
Then you are in a bit of a pickle. You have then consequently rendered your claim of a universal decrease in genetic 'information' as being necessarily warrantless.
Sure if you want to say that one genome is subjectively more meaningful to you than another. I gather, this is pretty much what has been at play from the beginning since no one seems to have any concrete idea of what information actually is in real terms outside of mere abstraction, nonetheless how we could possibly measure it. This is partly where the objection lie. You might as well claim that there is always a decrease in the goodness of a genome. It is exactly as testable as the claim you now posit.
So is there only a decline in humans? Fitness, is that how you think we should measure information?
“I’m doing the same thing,” he said, still toying with the dice. “I’m not doing anything different from what nature does. I’m not using anything that was not in the genetic material itself.”
Unfortunately, the assumption that random changes are normal and good is an assumption that is not only exclusive to the evolutionary mindset, it is dangerous in the face of reality.
Imagine if this moron were to use the same rationale on prospective parents. "We will scramble your child's DNA to try and develop a better trait."
Good luck.
What they do not consider is that their tinkering has consequences. When a trait is revealed within an organism by messing with its DNA, the stuff removed cannot be assumed to be of no value. What they certainly achieve is the degradation of the population's genome for the short-term gain of a pretty color.
"If we throw the dice enough, we might be able to let parents have kids with yellow skin."
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
:doh:
Most of the crops you eat have been genetically enhanced through processes such as mutation breeding and artificial selection. This has been going on for the better part of a century now, and it includes crops that are considered "organic."
I'm sure you'll be relieved to learn that bombarding human embryos with radiation is not what is being proposed:
| . | |
Last edited:
Another article worth checking out: What’s so “natural” about “natural crop breeding”?
And therefore... something. :idunno:
- Status