Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Southstar's thread

Pages: (13) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >

Southstar Posts: 150 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,06:27    Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,23:27) Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer. If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out. Thanks Marty -------------- "Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,07:06    Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,06:27) [quote=Henry J,Nov. 10 2011,23:27][/quote] Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer. If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out. Thanks Marty Here you are assuming that there is some 'goal' for evolution. Why should a species or population change if it is already satisfied?  i.e. for its environment, it is fit, it has sufficient diversity to resist major changes in the environment, etc. Basically, what you are asking here is "Why are my grandparents still alive?"  Which on the face of it, is pretty silly. On the other hand, you are exactly correct.  Evolution always happens to living things.  The Coelocanths that were discovered off the coast of South Africa, while 'living fossils' are as distinct from fossil coelocanths as modern humans are distinct from Homo habilis. So, on one hand, speciation doesn't need to occur.  On the other evolution always does.   Two subtly different questions. You might take a look at the different types of speciation.  Once you see what PART of a population is speciating, then you will see why the question is meaningless. BTW: One other tact for your creationist buddies to deal with about information is to take cubist's stuff and then add one more question to it.  Provide them with a strand of DNA that codes for a protein and one that is totally random of the same length (Excel is good for creating this).  Then require that the use creationist (ID) principles to determine which is which.  If they can't do that (and, even in theory, they can't, I'm pretty sure it is mathematically impossible), then how can they tell designed from evolved? Note that when I say mathematically impossible, the only tool that IDists have ever said they needed was math.  There are some clues in the sequence itself, but they are very subtle and require pretty good knowledge of DNA... which is using science, not creationism. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,07:33    Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,06:27) [quote=Henry J,Nov. 10 2011,23:27][/quote] Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer. If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out. Thanks Marty In addition to what OgreMkV said there is the question of whether there is an open niche for the population to move into as well as how well they are adapted or specialized for the niche they currently occupy. Your question seems to be a variant of the "why are there still monkeys" question -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Southstar Posts: 150 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,08:56    Quote (afarensis @ Nov. 11 2011,07:33) Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,06:27) Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,23:27) Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer. If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out. Thanks Marty In addition to what OgreMkV said there is the question of whether there is an open niche for the population to move into as well as how well they are adapted or specialized for the niche they currently occupy. Your question seems to be a variant of the "why are there still monkeys" question Okay I get it but supposing we do some tests on generations of Drosophila, cause they're quite easy to breed and we can do a nice time lap test on them. But instead of doing it out in the open we do it in in a lab, where the happy flies have really eveything they need. Esentially what we are doing here is eliminating natural selection. Since we know that mutations happen and they are cumulative. Sooner or later all the build up of cumulative random stuff has got to give way, but after thousands of generations we end up with essentially the same bug. Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug. Am I making any sense? Marty -------------- "Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,09:08    Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,08:56) Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug. Am I making any sense? Marty Define "new bug"! -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,09:18    Quote (afarensis @ Nov. 11 2011,07:33) Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,06:27) Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,23:27) Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer. If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out. Thanks Marty In addition to what OgreMkV said there is the question of whether there is an open niche for the population to move into as well as how well they are adapted or specialized for the niche they currently occupy. Your question seems to be a variant of the "why are there still monkeys" question There's also another misunderstanding presented in Southstar's question - it's basically a rewording of "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys." The answer of course, which is beautifully illustrated by ring species, is that while some members of a given species may gain some beneficial or neutral mutation, many members still do not. If the non-mutated parental stock - the original species-remains competitive in its environment and/or has sufficient flexibility to adapt to some other environment, it will continue to exist along with it's daughter and cousin relatives. Evolution is not all of some parental species morphing into some other species, yet this is what many creationists think evolution is. Similarly, evolution does not require all members of some species to die off/disappear when some portion of that species gain some genetic variation. A third misconception embedded in the question is that evolution implies that newer organisms with more changes and complexity are "better" than older, simpler organisms. This is not what evolution states or implies. Evolution as a theory merely notes that change occurs and how; there's no implication about change being "good" for organisms in general. Further, if one really understands evolution as an explanation of a process, one also understands the concept of adaption. Mutations and genetic drift are considered "beneficial" if a group of organisms can use the change to help them adapt to given environmental conditions and thus produce more offspring than its competition/predation rates. If an organism group without said change can adapt to given environmental changes such that they produce more offspring than their competition/predation rates, guess what? They'll survive too. -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,09:23    Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,08:56) Okay I get it but supposing we do some tests on generations of Drosophila, cause they're quite easy to breed and we can do a nice time lap test on them. But instead of doing it out in the open we do it in in a lab, where the happy flies have really eveything they need. Esentially what we are doing here is eliminating natural selection. Since we know that mutations happen and they are cumulative. Sooner or later all the build up of cumulative random stuff has got to give way, but after thousands of generations we end up with essentially the same bug. Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug. Am I making any sense? Marty Do we? No one has done these experiments for thousands of years.  Yet, we do know that speciation can occur within one generation. We also have Lenski's data of E. coli research over the last 25 years.  http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ Now, look at what happened in Lenski's lab.  One of the defining characteristics of E. coli is that inability to metabolize citrate.  That character is how researchers determine the difference between E. coli and (IIRC) Salmonella. Yet, Lenski, through natural selection and random mutation has discovered a E. coli strain that can utilize citrate.  If this had occurred in non-bacterial species, it would probably be sufficient for it to be declared a new species.  Bacteria... meh. Likewise, it also depends on how you define "something different".  Are dachshunds exactly the same thing as wolfhounds?  No, are the different species?  Honestly, that question is pretty meaningless. Dachshunds and wolfhounds can interbreed and have grandchildren (i.e. the F1s are not sterile), but so can domestic cats and servals, so can lions and tigers, and we 'know' those are different species. Species aren't nearly as static or fixed or separate as most people would think.  So the question is really moot.  Yes, they might still be fruit flies, but the only way to determine if they could interbreed with fruit flies of a 1000 years ago would be to (somehow) get some fruit flies from a 1000 years ago and try it. Which leads me to a really good question to all. Could an organism (say human or dog) successfully interbreed with a member of the same species from a thousand or 6000 years ago? For example Diplodocus has a known time range of almost 4 million years.  Do you think that the later members would be sufficiently different from the earlier members to prevent breeding (which is one definition of species, which IMHO is sorely lacking as evidenced above). Things are not just cut and dried in Biology, no matter how much some people wish or claim that they are. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,09:39    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 11 2011,09:23) Which leads me to a really good question to all. Could an organism (say human or dog) successfully interbreed with a member of the same species from a thousand or 6000 years ago? . I would say that based on ecological research and personal anecdotes, it depends on the given species' sexual behaviors. For example, mallards are well known to have sex with (or attempt to have sex with) nearly all other duck-like waterfowl, including many species of geese. In other words, mallards have very lax sexual boundaries. Green-eyed Tree Frogs, otoh, are notoriously picky about who they mate with. We humans are definitely NOT picky about our sexual partners as species go, and I'm more than willing to lay down my net worth on the bet that we as a species would definitely mate (and produce offspring) with our ancestors from 10,000 years ago. Heck, there's evidence we interbred with Neaderthals...how picky could we really be? Dogs...hmmm...I'm aware of some breeds that will mate with just about any other dog-like animal, so I'm willing to lay a similar bet on them as well. -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Southstar Posts: 150 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,10:09    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 11 2011,09:08) Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,08:56) Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug. Am I making any sense? Marty Define "new bug"! Okay a bug that due to the cumulative passed down mutations is a different genius or family to the original bug. Let's say that cumulative mutation transmits 1% of mutated DNA from one generation to the other, after 50 generations you should get an interesting amount of mutated DNA. The numbers are made up, maybe the mutation rate is smaller but that would just push the number of generations needed higher, eventually whatever the amout of generations you need, genetic mutation alone should create a different genius or family right? Now if we do this with a fruit fly it might take us 1000 (depending on mutation rates) years if we do it with e.coli we might need a couple of years. What it boils down to is that, in the absense of natural selection, do speices evolve randomly. -------------- "Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,10:12    Quote Define "new bug"! Volkswagen's have changed over the years.

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,10:17    Whether something is labelled as a new family or genus depends on whether that would help in keeping track of species relationships or not. It's not an intrinsic property of the species itself.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,10:42    Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 11 2011,10:12) Quote Define "new bug"! Volkswagen's have changed over the years. ba-dum-tish! :P -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,10:48    Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,10:09) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 11 2011,09:08) Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,08:56) Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug. Am I making any sense? Marty Define "new bug"! Okay a bug that due to the cumulative passed down mutations is a different genius or family to the original bug. Let's say that cumulative mutation transmits 1% of mutated DNA from one generation to the other, after 50 generations you should get an interesting amount of mutated DNA. The numbers are made up, maybe the mutation rate is smaller but that would just push the number of generations needed higher, eventually whatever the amout of generations you need, genetic mutation alone should create a different genius or family right? Now if we do this with a fruit fly it might take us 1000 (depending on mutation rates) years if we do it with e.coli we might need a couple of years. What it boils down to is that, in the absense of natural selection, do speices evolve randomly. Again, this is very, very general. Some areas of the genome can barely mutate at all or the organism (and therefore that mutation) will die.  Other areas can have massive amounts of mutations with little or no affect on the organism at all. In terms of speciation, I still think you are thinking too narrowly.  Go back to the clines (ring species).  If you define species in terms of mating, then where do you draw the line? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,10:50    Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 11 2011,10:17) Whether something is labelled as a new family or genus depends on whether that would help in keeping track of species relationships or not. It's not an intrinsic property of the species itself. This! It seems creationists have a hard time grasping the fact that our biological taxonomy system is a tool we use to try to organize the biological world into categories for our convenience. It doesn't cleanly reflect reality. ETA: An interesting article that notes the difficulty in categorizing the natural world. So, which better demonstrates a species change: Great Dane vs Jack Russel Terrier, Plains zebra vs Mountain Zebra, or Siberian Tiger vs lion? If you answer, explain why you chose one over the others. -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,10:55    Yes, Ring species really are worth looking into in some detail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......species Quote Ring species provide important evidence of evolution in that they illustrate what happens over time as populations genetically diverge, and are special because they represent in living populations what normally happens over time between long deceased ancestor populations and living populations, in which the intermediates have become extinct. Richard Dawkins observes that ring species "are only showing us in the spatial dimension something that must always happen in the time dimension." Ring species also present an interesting case of the species problem, for those who seek to divide the living world into discrete species. After all, all that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations - if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection, the ring species' distal populations will be recognized as two distinct species. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Southstar Posts: 150 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,11:24    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 10 2011,13:08) Thirded. Ask them for an exact measurement process.  What definition of information it's supposed to measure and how it applies to genetics. Then, once they avoid doing that like the plague, you can hit them with a few studies that show step-wise evolution of major changes in systems.   My personal favorite is Darwinian Evolution on a Chip. http://www.plosbiology.org/article....0060085 Because it shows the stepwise changes in the RNA sequence from the original product all the way through the final sequence which has a 90-fold improvement over the original. Plus, there is an example of an early negative mutation being a prerequisite mutation for further increasing the effectiveness of the sequence. Then, you can ask them, exactly where the designer stepped in.  Dr. Joyce is still around and they can ask for the original data, including the sequences that were collected throughout the experiment... if they dared. No, it's not a change in species, genus, or family, but only creationists have those requirements anyway. You might read up on evolutionary developmental biology as well.  I predict that the next move will be the whole "How did body plans develop". It's in the creationist playbook. Regarding information our freind has come back with the following: The definition of information is to be found here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries....logical Methods of measuring information can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....om_walk He sites the following research as a base for his further arguments: http://www.tbiomed.com/content....47 I have no idea where he is headed with this stuff... Marty -------------- "Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,11:26    I hope you'll pardon me for jumping into an ongoing discussion.   Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,08:56) Okay I get it but supposing we do some tests on generations of Drosophila, cause they're quite easy to breed and we can do a nice time lap test on them. But instead of doing it out in the open we do it in in a lab, where the happy flies have really eveything they need. Esentially what we are doing here is eliminating natural selection. Actually, no. You'd just be changing the selective pressures, because you've altered the environment. Any genotype/phenotype that gave a fly an advantage in this new lab environment would still be selectable (and selected). You could argue that it's artificial (human-caused) selection instead of natural selection, but that's really just semantics. Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,10:09) What it boils down to is that, in the absense of natural selection, do speices evolve randomly. Yes. It's called genetic drift. Even when there's no selective pressure at all, a certain fraction of new mutations will get fixed in a population over a given period of time. Depends on breeding population size and mutation rate.

Starbuck Posts: 26 Joined: July 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,11:28    Regarding the last link to Kirk K Durston's paper, you might want to point him to this: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....ons.php

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,12:12    Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,11:24) Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 10 2011,13:08) Thirded. Ask them for an exact measurement process.  What definition of information it's supposed to measure and how it applies to genetics. Then, once they avoid doing that like the plague, you can hit them with a few studies that show step-wise evolution of major changes in systems.   My personal favorite is Darwinian Evolution on a Chip. http://www.plosbiology.org/article....0060085 Because it shows the stepwise changes in the RNA sequence from the original product all the way through the final sequence which has a 90-fold improvement over the original. Plus, there is an example of an early negative mutation being a prerequisite mutation for further increasing the effectiveness of the sequence. Then, you can ask them, exactly where the designer stepped in.  Dr. Joyce is still around and they can ask for the original data, including the sequences that were collected throughout the experiment... if they dared. No, it's not a change in species, genus, or family, but only creationists have those requirements anyway. You might read up on evolutionary developmental biology as well.  I predict that the next move will be the whole "How did body plans develop". It's in the creationist playbook. Regarding information our freind has come back with the following: The definition of information is to be found here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries....logical Methods of measuring information can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......om_walk He sites the following research as a base for his further arguments: http://www.tbiomed.com/content....t....47 I have no idea where he is headed with this stuff... Marty So it's basically a non-answer.  About what I suspected.  They are refusing to define the concepts in any way that can actually be challenged. This quote is from the first link Quote There is no consensus about the status of these ideas, and the result has been a growing foundational discussion within biology and the philosophy of biology. Some have hailed the employment of informational concepts as a crucial advance (Williams 1992). Others have seen almost every biological application of informational concepts as a serious error, one that distorts our understanding and contributes to lingering genetic determinism (Francis 2003). There are at least four methods of thinking about information in biological organisms listed in this same article. You're best bet is to reply thus: "So, you have no concrete standards for applying or using information systems in biological systems.  Until you do so, then the entire conversation is a moot point. Information has a variety of very specific definitions and related equations depending on what you are doing.  Until you define exactly what information is being measured, how it is being measured, and how it can be utilized, then there can be no further discussion on this topic." A really fun game you can play on them was given here by Eric.  Ask them which of the following contains more information: A) a 30 minute speech by Winston Churchill or B) 30 minutes of white noise. If they are truly conversant in information theory, then they will answer B.  If they answer A, then they are confusing 'information' with the 'meaning' given by that information.  The two are NOT the same thing and this can be easily shown.  For example, if you type in a snippet of machine code, they can easily break it down into information (it's just hexidecimal letters and numbers), but they must know how to translate that into meaning to understand what it is.  The information content is completely separate from the meaning.  This is the purpose of cryptology, to hide the meaning and still be able to send the information. Anyway, I predict that they will complain that you aren't really interested in hearing about it or that it is too difficult to follow unless you have studied information theory (which none of them have either). I will personally make you a deal... I have, sitting one row of cubes over from me, 10 mathematicians, 3 with Masters degrees, and 1 Ph.D. candidate in math.  I also have access to an even dozen psychometricians (all with Ph.D.s in statistics and/or statistical analysis).  You are free to tell them that you have access to these people as well. All the creationists have to do is type up their mathematical processes and then you post it here and we can take care of the analysis.  I promise you, in over 5 years of dealing with this, not a single creationist has ever taken me up on the offer.   BTW: I just remembered, here's a challenge I put on my blog for the information detailed creationists... http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011.......allenge Edit to add: Here are some good questions that no ID/creationist has ever answered: http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011....signers -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Southstar Posts: 150 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,13:47    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 11 2011,12:12) I will personally make you a deal... I have, sitting one row of cubes over from me, 10 mathematicians, 3 with Masters degrees, and 1 Ph.D. candidate in math.  I also have access to an even dozen psychometricians (all with Ph.D.s in statistics and/or statistical analysis).  You are free to tell them that you have access to these people as well. All the creationists have to do is type up their mathematical processes and then you post it here and we can take care of the analysis.  I promise you, in over 5 years of dealing with this, not a single creationist has ever taken me up on the offer.   Lol okay I've sent the challenge let's see what happens :) Thanks!! Marty -------------- "Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,13:51    Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,09:24) Regarding information our freind has come back with the following: The definition of information is to be found here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries....logical Methods of measuring information can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......om_walk He sites the following research as a base for his further arguments: http://www.tbiomed.com/content....t....47 I have no idea where he is headed with this stuff... Marty As a rhetorical step, ask him what these links have to do with biology, or how he has used these links to calculate the "information" of a species. Links are bullshite. Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 11 2011,11:53 -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,13:58    Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,12:20) Ask him to define 'information' and give examples of it's measurement in biology. ...and give examples of it's measurement in biology. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Cubist Posts: 559 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,16:52    Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,11:24) Regarding information our freind has come back with the following: The definition of information is to be found here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries....logical Groovy. Now ask them to apply this definition to nucleotide sequences -- the ones I provided above will do, or if you'd rather supply your own sequences, that works, too. Quote Methods of measuring information can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......om_walk [after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,16:58    It's the famous "So, why are there still monkey's question!!!1111 Answer:  becasue there are still creationists, silly! -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,19:42    Bravo "cubist." -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,20:56    Durston et al.: Quote For example, if we find that the Ribosomal S12 protein family has a Fit value of 379, we can use the equations presented thus far to predict that there are about 1049 different 121-residue sequences that could fall into the Ribsomal S12 family of proteins, resulting in an evolutionary search target of approximately 10^-106 percent of 121-residue sequence space. Durston has a habit of thinking that what is in the protein databases comprises the universe of functional proteins. To get the sort of number he wants, he'd have to do an exhaustive assay to validate it. Instead, he "predicts" exactly the sort of tiny numbers he wants, and seems to be satisfied that he has demonstrated something. It's conceptually no better than the "cost of search" thing Dembski and Marks came up with a few years ago. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2011,22:25    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 11 2011,20:56) Durston et al.: Quote For example, if we find that the Ribosomal S12 protein family has a Fit value of 379, we can use the equations presented thus far to predict that there are about 1049 different 121-residue sequences that could fall into the Ribsomal S12 family of proteins, resulting in an evolutionary search target of approximately 10^-106 percent of 121-residue sequence space. Durston has a habit of thinking that what is in the protein databases comprises the universe of functional proteins. To get the sort of number he wants, he'd have to do an exhaustive assay to validate it. Instead, he "predicts" exactly the sort of tiny numbers he wants, and seems to be satisfied that he has demonstrated something. It's conceptually no better than the "cost of search" thing Dembski and Marks came up with a few years ago. Luisi has an interesting comment on that.  He says that there are roughly 10^54 possible proteins (not counting a large number that cannot be produced due to energy reasons). Yet life on Earth only uses 10^13 - 10^15 proteins. Doesn't really help anything, but I found that interesting and hadn't considered it before. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Southstar Posts: 150 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,09:38    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 11 2011,22:25) Goodness even Italians are churning out books Take a look at what they threw at me here: http://bostonreview.net/BR35.2....nge.php Marty PS Still waiting for them to give us a definition of information and how to measure it in biology ;) -------------- "Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,09:55    Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 12 2011,09:38) [quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 11 2011,22:25][/quote] Goodness even Italians are churning out books Take a look at what they threw at me here: http://bostonreview.net/BR35.2.....nge.php Marty PS Still waiting for them to give us a definition of information and how to measure it in biology ;) If this is about "WHat Darwin Got Wrong", then you wouldn't get any arguments from anyone.  Darwin worked over 150 years ago.  The level of knowledge we now share and know would boggle his mind, but I doubt he would disagree with any of it. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Starbuck Posts: 26 Joined: July 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,11:28    His thesis is that two distinct traits are coextensive if and only if whatever has one has both. For polar bears, the traits `being white' and `matching the environment' are clearly different traits; grasshoppers have the second but not the first. Since all polar bears have  both, a theory of `selection for` has to decide which of these traits were selected for in polar bears; which, he says the Darwinian account of adaptation can't do. So there must be something wrong with the Darwinian account of adaptation. Except for being succinct, this is just a standard case of free-riding: either being white free-rides on matching the environment or matching the environment free-rides on being white. Which does the adaptationist prefer; and what is his argument for preferring it? <a href="http://wfsc.tamu.edu/faculty/tdewitt/WFSC622/Arnold%20chapter.pdf">Lande and Arnold </a> would certainly argue that that is possible, and indeed, one of the uses that they support for G-matrix multiple regression analysis is to find out on what traits selection was "directly" working versus what traits are changing because of correlational effects. But this use, demands that one know that G is stable through the changes in the population.  And that is not only not known, but known to be unlikely in natural populations. Of course, if one has additional information about the population -- especially the kinds of 'hands on' information that provides useful clues to the biological pathways involved -- then these kinds of G-based analyses can provide some additional insights.  And that, is how I think that e.g., Steve Arnold really uses G-matrices when he uses them to study natural populations.  Much of that field-based understanding of the systems in questions gets hidden in the written work, but it is what makes him confident that his results make sense.

Pages: (13) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard