09 May 06
1 edit
and while Im at it :
If you are claiming this:
"Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information. "
"It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place. " :
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
09 May 06
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnticipation or present reality?
[b]So that the molecules the organism fed on could be accessed in a greater variety of environments
Anticipation or present reality?
so that different food could be accessed.
Cuz not everyone likes vanilla, right?
Nothing determines these "thresholds".
Something kept the hostile environment at bay to allow the thing to com ...[text shortened]... isting species, just fruit flies that became sterile fruit flies, but fruit flies nonetheless.[/b]
You ask me to speculate about the past and then you respond to my speculation with two phrases and a question mark. One phrase is about the future, the other the present. What are you talking about?
Cuz not everyone likes vanilla, right?
Cuz if you add chocolate, you end up with more ice cream. What's with the sarcasm? Accessing more types of food means more total food means more organisms.
Something kept the hostile environment at bay to allow the thing to come to fruition.
Nope. Unless I misunderstand you. Please elaborate.
Read the thread. Nothing in there pointed to an example of a new species evolving out of existing species, just fruit flies that became sterile fruit flies, but fruit flies nonetheless.
This is what I was referring to:
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Here's another source for the same event:
4) SYMPATRIC SPECIATION IN PLANTS: AUTOPOLYPLOIDY
•Doubling of chromosome number in germline cell à tetraploid gametes
•Interbreeding between tetraploid gametes in species à self-fertile tetraploid progeny
•Barrier to gene flow can be established in single generation
•Can result from mitotic nondisjunction or meiotic nondisjunction
•E.g.: evening primroses Oenothera gigas (2N = 28), parental species O. lamarckiana (2N = 14); commercial tobacco, horticultutal strains of snapdragon
http://www.mun.ca/biology/tmiller/courses/b2900/lec6.htm
This is not about fruit flies. How did you not see this part of the thread if you read it?
10 May 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat are you talking about?
[b]Anticipation or present reality?
You ask me to speculate about the past and then you respond to my speculation with two phrases and a question mark. One phrase is about the future, the other the present. What are you talking about?
Cuz not everyone likes vanilla, right?
Cuz if you add chocolate, you end up with more ice cream. W ...[text shortened]...
This is not about fruit flies. How did you not see this part of the thread if you read it?[/b]
Your response prompted my question. Were the changes wrought based (somehow) upon future need, or were they done so for the then-present reality.
Accessing more types of food means more total food means more organisms.
Still lacking impetus, however.
Please elaborate.
The supposed primordial soup was a hostile environment, nothing akin to the delicate balance necessary for life. Something would had to offer some form of shelter (buffer, protection, etc.) in order for life to have gotten its first jump.
de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants.
I see the words "unusual variant" here to be most telling. De Vries can call his aunt an uncle all he wishes; she still has no balls.
I did see this part of the thread but simply assumed you would have known dV was still looking at the same plant, and therefore, not a new "species."
As far as the fruit flies go, I may have mistaken this thread with another 'fruitless' quest that evolutionists herein sent me on. Same result, however.
10 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWere the changes wrought based (somehow) upon future need, or were they done so for the then-present reality.
[b]What are you talking about?
Your response prompted my question. Were the changes wrought based (somehow) upon future need, or were they done so for the then-present reality.
Accessing more types of food means more total food means more organisms.
Still lacking impetus, however.
Please elaborate.
The supposed primordial soup w ith another 'fruitless' quest that evolutionists herein sent me on. Same result, however.[/b]
The changes were wrought by natural genetic variation. There was no intelligence involved which could define a "need" or "want". Chemicals, UV light, etc caused them. The changes that led to reproductive success were propogated to future generations by the obvious method. They did not occur "for" anything; however some led the organism to survive and reproduce, and some did not.
Still lacking impetus, however.
What does that mean? According to Wikipedia, the concept if "impetus" was discarded in the 14th century by scientists. So, the lack of it should not be surprising. What is surprising is that you assume it should still be factored into the answers to your questions somehow.
In the history of science, impetus is an obsolete scientific theory of motion, largely developed by Jean Buridan in the 14th century. It was superseded by the modern theory of inertia developed by Galileo Galilei.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impetus
The supposed primordial soup was a hostile environment, nothing akin to the delicate balance necessary for life.
How so? What was so hostile about it? What did the shelter protect from exactly?
I see the words "unusual variant" here to be most telling. De Vries can call his aunt an uncle all he wishes; she still has no balls.
I did see this part of the thread but simply assumed you would have known dV was still looking at the same plant, and therefore, not a new "species."
But it was a new species. If you think it wasn't, you're ignorant about what a species is.
10 May 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThey did not occur "for" anything; however some led the organism to survive and reproduce, and some did not.
[b]Were the changes wrought based (somehow) upon future need, or were they done so for the then-present reality.
The changes were wrought by natural genetic variation. There was no intelligence involved which could define a "need" or "want". Chemicals, UV light, etc caused them. The changes that led to reproductive success were propogated to fu ...[text shortened]... as a new species. If you think it wasn't, you're ignorant about what a species is.[/b]
Completely off the track, now, but let's refresh, nonetheless. Here is what you offered in the first place:
"So that the molecules the organism fed on could be accessed in a greater variety of environments; or, so that different food could be accessed."
To this, you know my response. Now, however, unless you are responding to something entirely different, you are saying there was no reason for occurence. You were attempting to respond to my query for why we see variety today, and moreover, what would have prompted the variations in the first place. As we'll see later, that's where impetus (despite objections otherwise) is still very much a necessary cause requiring explanation.
What does that mean?
It is now later; my how time flies (but not fruit). I am using impetus in the sense of an impelling force, something that incites or acts as a stimulus. Things don't change for the sake of it, and history backs this up: things like to stay in the same state whenever possible.
How so? What was so hostile about it? What did the shelter protect from exactly?
I know you aren't serious in putting that many question marks to that statment. If we can't get past this stage of conversation, there's no need to go any further.
But it was a new species. If you think it wasn't, you're ignorant about what a species is.
Enlighten me in a separate thread, if you wish. Let's leave this one to allowing evolutionists (or anyone else, for that matter) an opportunity to answer the question about information.
10 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHmmm-hmmm. Frankly, Marshall's argument was conclusively undermined in the IIDB thread. IMO, of course. Surely, you and he see it otherwise, but my initial statement still holds: ID does nothing to prove the bible, a christian god, or any other arbitrary belief about the "designer" you wish to hold.
Let's leave this one to allowing evolutionists (or anyone else, for that matter) an opportunity to answer the question about information.
Marshall's predicatable crowing of "victory over the Infidels" contains brilliant lines such as this:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm
The contempt for religious ideas and religious people, especially Christians, is palpable
Yet, "christians" such as yourself and ever-faithful RBHILL are just chock full-o-respect for those of us who see through your emotional arguments, tedious C&P jobs, and proclamations of higher powers that I'm supposed to worship because you've chosen to do so. Whatever.
For anyone inclined, here is the IIDB thread in which Marshall (author of the website FreakyKBH has cited) participated:
http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=135497
10 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by David C...I'm supposed to worship because you've chosen to do so. Whatever.
mmm-hmmm. Frankly, Marshall's argument was conclusively undermined in the IIDB thread. IMO, of course. Surely, you and he see it otherwise, but my initial statement still holds: ID does nothing to prove the bible, a christian god, or any other arbitrary belief about the "designer" you wish to hold.
Marshall's predicatable crowing of "victory over the Infi eakyKBH has cited) participated:
[b]http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=135497[/b]
If this statement were true, you would be well endorsed in your belligerent sentiments towards "Christians" (even by me). I have a suspicion, however, that this is another one of your wonderful strawmen directed at theists.
10 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by David CJust as others cite http's and suggest they hold certain information while the reality reveals something altogether different, David C cites the same website already offered, but with a twist. He claims the argument has been soundly refuted, but this is clearly not the case.
mmm-hmmm. Frankly, Marshall's argument was conclusively undermined in the IIDB thread. IMO, of course. Surely, you and he see it otherwise, but my initial statement still holds: ID does nothing to prove the bible, a christian god, or any other arbitrary belief about the "designer" you wish to hold.
Marshall's predicatable crowing of "victory over the Infi eakyKBH has cited) participated:
[b]http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=135497[/b]
Any objective and reasonably knowledgeable person who reads the many, many posts will come to a conclusion... albeit in contrast to the conclusion David has arrived upon. Namely, those who have offered their objections to Marshall's argument have been unsuccessful in refuting the argument. Not because I said so; not because Marshall said so; but because the evidence supports that all objections (to date, at least) have been ineffectual.
Bear in mind, this is not a simple 1+1=2 proposition: it requires analytical thought regarding otherwise simple concepts. However, just as the evolutionists have been unable to categorize NS as anything other than "a process," and moreover, just as the same have failed to appreciate the implications of categorizing it thusly, some people are only happy when the indefensible standing of their positions are shrouded in mystery.
11 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLet's leave this one to allowing evolutionists (or anyone else, for that matter) an opportunity to answer the question about information.
They did not occur "for" anything; however some led the organism to survive and reproduce, and some did not.
Completely off the track, now, but let's refresh, nonetheless. Here is what you offered in the first place:
"So that the molecules the organism fed on could be accessed in a greater variety of environments; or, so that different food could ...[text shortened]... ne else, for that matter) an opportunity to answer the question about information.[/b]
No takers, it appears.
11 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo it doesn't. An evolutionary schema that did not evolve humans would be just as much a success as one that did. We are not limited to one outcome. When humans are extinct some other 'intelligent' creature might eveolve. There is no nescesity for humans. There is no nescesity for 'intelligent' creatures
That's indisputable. Having success depend upon a specific hand, however...
12 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI will respond here. However these last couple days I haven't been in the mood to screw around in the Spirituality forum. My response was going to include the request that you repost the question, because I don't remember you ever asking a question about information.
[b]Let's leave this one to allowing evolutionists (or anyone else, for that matter) an opportunity to answer the question about information.
No takers, it appears.[/b]
12 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHActually you never did give us a link to the exact page where such a challenge is made.
Did I need to put a question mark at the end? The first page gives everyone the link that challenges anyone to provide any example of information issuing forth from any source other than a mind.
However I will take up the challenge. Every object in the universe that radiates energy of any kind is 'issuing forth information'. Unless you can show that the mind of God is behind this then the challenge is met. If you can on the other hand show that it is Gods mind at work then why would the writer of the site be seeking to prove that it is Gods mind based on the challenge?