Creation vs. Evolution

[DavisBJ]

No doubt common descent has consensus on its side. That doesn't add to the small amount of evidence there is for deep time, and doesn't take away from the vast evidence that from the solar system to life on earth it hasn't been very long.

My prior request for the name of a university for an aspiring student was prompted directly by this claim you make. If you have a sincere desire to help a new science student, you will try to direct them to a quality institution that will teach what you know to be true. What world-class institution would you recommend that teaches recent creation and disavows deep time?

Don't work too hard getting the public email of the director.

You mean it was OK for me to through the director, but you won’t?

First, you introduce me to whoever you want me to talk with.

You got something against going thru the guy that has the best understanding of who can deal with your question? Really?

So when Dr. Sternberg was drummed out of his position for not giving the proper obeisance to common descent, you were outraged, right?

I neither know Dr. Sternbarg, nor what might have led to his situation. You asked me which creationists kept their jobs, and I replied “All that I know of.”

I know I've asked you this before, but did you ever give an answer on what good scientific points YEC have?

Right now, I can’t think of any claim from creationists that I am disturbed about. Not that there aren’t very valid issues I can’t give answer to, but usually that is because I am not conversant enough with some fields to defend them. I limit my involvement in many biology-related discussions for that reason, as well as most Shannon information debates. I clearly recall years ago when I first read “Darwin’s Black Box” in which Behe presented irreducible complexity, and I realized I had no good answers to his arguments. But, as it turned out, that was just because of ignorance on my part.

 

[Tyrathca]

In general, yes.

OK, so more protein = more information. I'm going to hold you to that.


I am curious as to when it isn't the case (the qualifier "in general" often implies there are some exceptions) but it shouldn't affect our conclusions. Are you referring instead to Kolmogorov complexity?

According to Shannon, yes

OK so more protein = more protein coding DNA = more information

I've put my neck out there. Go ahead and take a swing.

Batter up! :Clete:


We can show that DNA's information can be increased when applying Shannon information in the crude manner you have suggested. It is quite simple really as you've admitted the underlying principles.

Example 1: Dave the cell has a DNA code A is used to create mRNA to create Protein A. Dave the cell's offspring has a 3 nucleotide insertion mutation in DNA code A thereby adding an additional amino acid into Protein A (Hence forth call DNA code A+ & Protein A+ respectively) Protein A+ is larger (has more amino acids) than Protein A and thus has (according to your statements) more information. We can also then infer that (according to your statements) that DNA Code A+ has more information than DNA code A.

It turns out it isn't too hard to crudely apply shannon information math as you have suggested, there are lots of online calculators which can tell us that for a code with 4 different letters of equal likelihood (a simplification yes but good enough for here) the information for each letter is 2 bits.

Example 2: Ergo if DNA code A is ATGGTTCCACAATAA (Protein A amino sequence: methionine - valine - Proline - Glutamine - STOP) it contains 30 bits (2 bits x 15 letters) Then if the 3 base insertion occurs DNA code A+ might be: ATGGTTCCACAACAATAA (Protein A+ amino sequence: methionine - valine - Proline - Glutamine - Glutamine - STOP) it contains 36 bits (2 bits x 18 letters). That's 6 new bits of information due to a mutation

And now we have an example of a mutation causing increasing Shannon information based on the crude application you have suggested. If I have misrepresented your example please explain how.

I first said it like this:

A simple example: DNA is not a protein, but it is encoded with what proteins are. Somehow, when a protein is needed, the cell gets the encoded information and decodes it to make a protein. Sometimes the protein isn't made right even if the information from the DNA is correct because of errors that enter the transmission of the information from DNA to protein.

Not the prettiest prose, but to say that DNA is the encoded information it will do.

And the transmission of information from DNA to protein is done by transcription (encoding) to mRNA in the nucleus, transmission as mRNA to the ribosome and then translation (decoding) to a protein at the ribosome. Given all this was involving mRNA which has nothing to do with inheritance I advised you against this reasoning but you insisted... and now you have to contend with your reasoning seemingly explaining how DNA can increase information content

 

[DavisBJ]

Blind Faith

Blind Faith

Speaking to 6days, I said:

For example, in my post that you just responded to, I reference your belief in the reality of a talking snake and a talking donkey in the past.

6days responded:

Although I don't know for certain, I don't think it was the donkey or the snake doing the "conversing".

However, several times recently 6days has made statements like this:

…scripture is divinely inspired and inerrant.

And this is the exact wording I find in the Bible:

Numbers 22:28 Then the LORD opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”
…
30 The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?”
(NIV, KJV is similar)​

The Bible clearly states that even though the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, it was the donkey that did the speaking. The donkey’s side of the dialogue is in first person. And (this is a concept I have seen creationist Jason Lisle emphasize), if the LORD was simply using the donkey as some sort of ventriloquist’s dummy, then in reality it was the LORD that was speaking, which would make the Bible wrong in saying the “donkey said”.

Later I said:

And thirdly, the formation of life itself? Again that probably occurred on earth in some localized region that likely has been destroyed by tectonic activity billions of years ago, and would leave almost no trace in the geology in its earliest phases. Lots of studies working on how the jump from raw elements to the first reproducing life form might have happened.

(bolded text in the above quote by 6days):

(I highlighlighted the blind faith words in your comments)

I don’t know what you mean by “blind faith words”. Can you provide a definition of what that means? For example, if you say, “My wife is probably shopping right now,” is that a blind faith statement? Of if you say, “She is likely on the way home right now”, is that a blind faith statement? Or “she might need to buy gas”, blind faith words? Is there something significant in using terms like “probably” and “likely” and “might”, that warrants them having a special designation of “blind faith words”?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Because then God didn't create space-time (i.e. the universe) since matter is a property of space-time. Also god is then bound by the limitations of matter. Finally there is literally no reason to believe is made of matter, at least not matter as we traditionally know it.

No I don't know you, I only know what you write here and what you share here. That is the only metric I can know you buy. If I imply you are stupid it is only because I think what you have written is stupid, do you know better? Maybe, but I presume then you wrote rather unclearly to not show that.

And no your book being in a Phoenix public library does not justify your book. If you are as educated as you say you should know that this is a VERY low benchmark.

Of course. Why would an atheist like me come onto a forum dominated by people who are almost guaranteed to disagree with me if I didn't like the inevitable arguments? Note I don't try to make arguments out of nothing, I don't need to on this forum
I don't think you've said a "bad thing" I'm just trying to show why your argument is so flawed/hollow (as I think you don't realise how little you are actually saying). I assumed no malicious intent on your part.
There is actually, people who know me in real life invariably say I'm a "nice guy" and in general I help people. I come across on the internet as far more hostile, mainly because I disagree with people so much here and it's so impersonal in general.Don't worry I regularly don't come on for days at a time (in fact I'm coming up to a stretch soon where I probably wont be able to come on for a week due to work.

Dear Tyrathca,

Recently, there were four new elements discovered. There could be more that we don't know about yet. So there is no way to know for sure what all of God's Spirit consists. I still believe it is hydrogen and helium, and more. But He created the host of heaven, and that means angels, and they are made of elements. So, they are probably made of matter also, right? Just because you don't want to believe that God is made of matter doesn't make you right. There is just no getting through to you on some things. If you want to test a person's writing, you have to read his book. I don't purport to be Edgar Cacye, but I did my best. You don't have to read it though. It is your loss. Good luck when Armageddon comes. I think I've made most of my posts to you very clear and loaded with good information, that you just dismiss and rant about.

Well you had your chance.

Michael

:think: :rapture: :angel: :cloud9: :angel: :cloud9:

 

[gcthomas]

Values and morals are trancendant realities perceivable by mind. They are more than material, carbon mind. Consciousness is more than mind, personality is more than mind.

Descartes' duality was discarded by most a long time ago - why do you think that there is an immaterial consciousness? Damage parts of the brain, and you can selectively damage functions of the conscious mind - is there any evidence that consciousness is not an operational behaviour of the material brain?

 

[TheDuke]

Years ago on an old MSN forum, a creationist told me that since his reading of the Bible means transitional fossils can't exist, even if he were to somehow be given such a fossil and hold it in his hands, he would have no choice but to conclude it wasn't real and Satan was playing a trick on him.

Goes to show how for some folks, emotional safety and comfort take precedence over just about everything else....even reality.

Goes to show how religion is nothin but make-believe

 

[TheDuke]

I wonder if you actually read that article, or if someone made you aware of that quote, and so you used it. I have the article. I read it. Carefully. If indeed you read it carefully, then extracting that quote while ignoring the point of the full article is a classic demonstration of intellectual dishonesty.

Yes, that seems to be the most likely conclusion. If quote-mining was an olympic discipline, they'd have no equal worldwide :devil:

 

[TheDuke]

It seems atheists believe that violations of these laws may have happened in the past.

Bollocks, and you know it.

Or, we could look at how Newtons laws were confirmed millions of times per day---Then Einsteins theory of relativity showed Newtons laws may be wrong , or inadequate explanations. Therefore, miracles are possible.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Wow, the pure desperation. Science makes progress - therefore miracles.

Ha-ha-ha

 

[TheDuke]

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.

That's precisely what I meant: "reason dictates that there must be a supernatural source of all creation" presumes a conclusion that has not been reached.

it's been done before, ad infinitum
didn't think it would be necessary
you've heard of entropy, yes?
the laws of thermodynamics?
and their implications?

Tell me all about it.

 

[TheDuke]

You have it backwards. If God exists, then miracles can exist. If God does not exist, then nature cannot produce miracles. You are the one that has to explain miracles with only natural processes. Are you sure you want to bring this topic up?

Sure, I'd love to. Bring it on: just one tiny winy little miracle will do. :rapture:

 

[Yorzhik]

Absolutely. I have been begging for the opportunity of having some Christian perform a miracle under conditions that I can verify it is genuine. If I am right, then there are only natural processes, and thus no miracles. Let me know when and where, and enough of an idea of what is going to occur that I can get together the equipment needed to verify it and record it for posterity.

Before we can get on to new miracles, you first have to explain the miracles you claim were performed by nature.

 

[Yorzhik]

OK, so more protein = more information. I'm going to hold you to that.


I am curious as to when it isn't the case (the qualifier "in general" often implies there are some exceptions) but it shouldn't affect our conclusions. Are you referring instead to Kolmogorov complexity?
OK so more protein = more protein coding DNA = more information
Batter up! :Clete:


We can show that DNA's information can be increased when applying Shannon information in the crude manner you have suggested. It is quite simple really as you've admitted the underlying principles.

Example 1: Dave the cell has a DNA code A is used to create mRNA to create Protein A. Dave the cell's offspring has a 3 nucleotide insertion mutation in DNA code A thereby adding an additional amino acid into Protein A (Hence forth call DNA code A+ & Protein A+ respectively) Protein A+ is larger (has more amino acids) than Protein A and thus has (according to your statements) more information. We can also then infer that (according to your statements) that DNA Code A+ has more information than DNA code A.

It turns out it isn't too hard to crudely apply shannon information math as you have suggested, there are lots of online calculators which can tell us that for a code with 4 different letters of equal likelihood (a simplification yes but good enough for here) the information for each letter is 2 bits.

Example 2: Ergo if DNA code A is ATGGTTCCACAATAA (Protein A amino sequence: methionine - valine - Proline - Glutamine - STOP) it contains 30 bits (2 bits x 15 letters) Then if the 3 base insertion occurs DNA code A+ might be: ATGGTTCCACAACAATAA (Protein A+ amino sequence: methionine - valine - Proline - Glutamine - Glutamine - STOP) it contains 36 bits (2 bits x 18 letters). That's 6 new bits of information due to a mutation

And now we have an example of a mutation causing increasing Shannon information based on the crude application you have suggested. If I have misrepresented your example please explain how.

And the transmission of information from DNA to protein is done by transcription (encoding) to mRNA in the nucleus, transmission as mRNA to the ribosome and then translation (decoding) to a protein at the ribosome. Given all this was involving mRNA which has nothing to do with inheritance I advised you against this reasoning but you insisted... and now you have to contend with your reasoning seemingly explaining how DNA can increase information content

Ouch. Shannon would look at this and just shake his head.

You realize what you are saying is that a radio signal that included a lot of noise has more information than the radio signal itself for the same reasons. Why do we even error correct when there is so much additional information we can gain from the noise?

Maybe gcthomas could explain it to you, "Shannon entropy describes the changes from a starting point of a perfect 'message', defining all noise as potentially damaging."

 

[gcthomas]

Maybe gcthomas could explain it to you, "Shannon entropy describes the changes from a starting point of a perfect 'message', defining all noise as potentially damaging."

... although this picture does not apply to DNA. There is no reason, beyond a religious one, to claim that DNA started perfect, so treating mutations as noise is arbitrary and incorrect.

 

[ok doser]

Sure, I'd love to. Bring it on: just one tiny winy little miracle will do. :rapture:

 

[Yorzhik]

My prior request for the name of a university for an aspiring student was prompted directly by this claim you make. If you have a sincere desire to help a new science student, you will try to direct them to a quality institution that will teach what you know to be true. What world-class institution would you recommend that teaches recent creation and disavows deep time?

I answered directly. Consensus is on your side.

You mean it was OK for me to through the director, but you won’t?

So you introduced me to the director with that email? What was his response?

You got something against going thru the guy that has the best understanding of who can deal with your question? Really?

I have no interest in wasting either of our time. If we want to raise this to the level of conversation he will need a reason, someone on the common descent side, that will lend enough weight to my introduction that he will get passed my being YEC.

I neither know Dr. Sternbarg, nor what might have led to his situation. You asked me which creationists kept their jobs, and I replied “All that I know of.”

If there were a scientist that wasn't allowed to work because he was black, you'd be outraged. Especially if as much information about the case was available as is with Dr. Sternberg you would have heard about it and had an opinion on it. But because in your world its OK to drum people out of their position because of their beliefs (even if they don't affect the science done), you ignore injustice.

Right now, I can’t think of any claim from creationists that I am disturbed about. Not that there aren’t very valid issues I can’t give answer to, but usually that is because I am not conversant enough with some fields to defend them. I limit my involvement in many biology-related discussions for that reason, as well as most Shannon information debates. I clearly recall years ago when I first read “Darwin’s Black Box” in which Behe presented irreducible complexity, and I realized I had no good answers to his arguments. But, as it turned out, that was just because of ignorance on my part.

Ok. So you are saying this is a highly controversial subject with no good points on one side of it. Seriously? And you don't know about Sternberg? You do realize that you've turned yourself into a person that, until proven otherwise, has admitted they just plug their ears and yell LALALALALA whenever information they disagree with is brought up.

A person that looks for the truth takes the strong points from both sides. He spends his time looking especially at the people that offer the strongest arguments for both sides (you admit you won't look at Sternberg). That's what I did and it changed me from and OEC to a YEC. I didn't have to change. There are plenty of good scientists who are Christians and my life would be fine either way. But I was interested in the truth.

 

[Caino]

Descartes' duality was discarded by most a long time ago - why do you think that there is an immaterial consciousness? Damage parts of the brain, and you can selectively damage functions of the conscious mind - is there any evidence that consciousness is not an operational behaviour of the material brain?

Damage parts of a cell phone and it can no longer receive and process a signal.

The material mind is the electrochemical platform that personality resets on. It is mind that can perceive spirit influences.

 

[Yorzhik]

... although this picture does not apply to DNA. There is no reason, beyond a religious one, to claim that DNA started perfect, so treating mutations as noise is arbitrary and incorrect.

So unless a radio signal is "perfect" you don't bother about noise? That's what you are saying here. Why do you guys never get embarrassed by the absurd things you say?

This is why laymen don't trust the experts. Even laymen know according to Shannon the message is defined as perfect before it is transmitted.

 

[6days]

**the answer I seek is nothing more than the name of a prominent university with a well-recognized program in biology, or a statement saying “none of them”. Is that is too advanced for you?

Haha... its not "too advanced" Davis. But i think you should apply it too yourself. You are having difficulty admitting that a belief in the Biblical creator has lead to major contributions in our world including science, medicine, education and culture.

Then humor me, what was the name of the university again, and in which post did you provide that name?

That universities teach evolutionism now does not take from the fact that a belief in the Biblical creator has lead to major contributions in our world including science, medicine, education and culture. Is it so difficult for you to unequivocally admit it?

*

The name of a specific University is exactly the topic I am asking about. That question can stand quite independently of other topics.

That universities teach evolutionism now does not take from the fact*that a belief in the Biblical creator has lead to major contributions in our world including science, medicine, education and culture. Is it so difficult for you to admit that withhout trying to dodge.

*

And that discussion led me to ask the question that I did.

And you were answered. I told you that i didn't need to agree with what they teach now, but modern science and many great universities were founded because of Christianity and a belief in the Biblical creator.*

I didn’t ask what someone implied, I asked for what university agreed with you.

I think many, if not most university professors would be able to admit that modern science and many great universities were founded because of Christianity and a belief in the Biblical creator.*
*

But what you didn’t say, even though pointedly asked multiple times, is what university would agree with your claim.

In threads about home schooling, I have said its important that Christian parents teach ToE since that is what they will get in higher grades and in university. *In fact, kids who are home schooled (predominantly Christian) scoring higher in college entrance exams than those who recieved public education and indoctrination. IOW....Christian kids should thorougly know ToE... but they should also understand the evidence against that theory...and the evidence that suppirts the Biblical account.
As several scientists have said, *students need to know and understand ToE....But they don't need to believe it.*

*

Are you suggesting that if evolution is taught at Oxford, it is only condoned by a few professors with an agenda – and that evolution is not presented to the biology students as a standard approved part of the biology curriculum?

I think I detect some equivocation fallacy here. Change in alelle frequency....mutation rates...selection etc are part of emperical science. That is not an agenda....its science.*

If by the word 'evolution', you are referring to the belief in common ancestry, then yes it is often agenda driven and not science. That belief system has actually harmed science with false beliefs about vestigial organs, useless organs, pseudogenes, transitional fossils, morality, etc etc.*

 

[DavisBJ]

Before we can get on to new miracles, you first have to explain the miracles you claim were performed by nature.

No problem. I don't believe any miracles were performed by nature. So now, when and where is that miracle you are going to invite me to?

 

[gcthomas]

So unless a radio signal is "perfect" you don't bother about noise? That's what you are saying here. Why do you guys never get embarrassed by the absurd things you say?

You've set up an Aunt Sally, here.

This is why laymen don't trust the experts. Even laymen know according to Shannon the message is defined as perfect before it is transmitted.

And Shannon's work was about what sort of redundancy was needed to preserve that perfect and complete signal.

Again, you missed answering the question. So you think that DNA was perfect originally and that mutations cannot be beneficial?