RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 >   
  Topic: The "I Believe In God" Thread, You may know him from "Panda's Thumb"...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
phhht



Posts: 38
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2011,22:33   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:55)
 
Quote

The post was about increase in information, and the only example of information increase was tetraploidy in orchids. So, the logical question is what would happen if tetraploidy occurred in humans?

Yes, it seems that is what you are asking.  Thanks for the clarification.

--------------
Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la.
-- Pierre Simon Laplace, explaining the absence of any mention of God in his work

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2011,12:58   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 04 2011,18:07)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2011,18:34)
Evolutionary increases in information

Just, you know, so IBIG can pretend not to have seen it in two places instead of one.

Wesley...if you wouldn't mind could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?

Probably pre-zygotic reproductive isolation.

Lethality seems more likely, unless that's what you mean.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4491
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2011,13:05   

Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 05 2011,12:58)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 04 2011,18:07)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2011,18:34)
Evolutionary increases in information

Just, you know, so IBIG can pretend not to have seen it in two places instead of one.

Wesley...if you wouldn't mind could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?

Probably pre-zygotic reproductive isolation.

Lethality seems more likely, unless that's what you mean.

Yep.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Acipenser



Posts: 35
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2011,13:46   

Quote (Stanton @ Mar. 04 2011,18:51)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:55)
Quote (Stanton @ Mar. 04 2011,17:48)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2011,18:34)
Evolutionary increases in information

Just, you know, so IBIG can pretend not to have seen it in two places instead of one.

Wesley...if you wouldn't mind could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?

Better yet, IBelieve, why can't you explain how the fact that humans and other animals can not survive polyploidy well, if at all, while plants can is supposed to demonstrate how your FAITH (sic) magically trumps all of science?

The post was about increase in information, and the only example of information increase was tetraploidy in orchids. So, the logical question is what would happen if tetraploidy occurred in humans?

Actually, there have been thousands of documented examples of both naturally occurring and artificially induced polyploid mutations in plants, IBelieve.

Furthermore, you have deliberately ignored the fact that I and others have already stated that humans and animals fail to develop if tetraploid.

And you continue to evade my question of the logic behind your latest gotcha game.

Why is humans not being able to survive tetraploid mutation supposed to demonstrate your FAITH (sic) magically trumping all of science, while also magically proving that GODDIDIT?

Do not be stupidly arrogant enough to presume that we are too stupid to catch on to your inane games, IBelieve.

Available data suggests that several lines of fish developed from polyploid ancestors, e.g., carp, salmon, sturgeon.  Given the very large genomes found in Acipenseridae (4N-16N) these data suggest that the sturgeons evolved from a tetraploid ancestor and currently contain chromosome numbers ranging from 99-500.

Production of tetraploid fish is quite common and produce viable animals.  However, if you want to look at how polyploid and tetraploidy affects human development and viability looking at genetic analysis of miscarriages provides the data to answer the question....lethality.


Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 13: 237–246, 2003.

Occurrence of polyploidy in the fishes
Rosalind A. Leggatt & George K. Iwama

  
phhht



Posts: 38
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2011,13:50   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 05 2011,13:05)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 05 2011,12:58)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 04 2011,18:07)
   
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2011,18:34)
Evolutionary increases in information

Just, you know, so IBIG can pretend not to have seen it in two places instead of one.

Wesley...if you wouldn't mind could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?

Probably pre-zygotic reproductive isolation.

Lethality seems more likely, unless that's what you mean.

Yep.

Apart from the lethality of tetraploidy in humans, it seems to me that the arguments Elsberry made in his post (Evolutionary Increases in Information) for increases in information would still apply.  That is, orchids vs humans is not crucial to the increase in information.

Is that correct?

--------------
Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la.
-- Pierre Simon Laplace, explaining the absence of any mention of God in his work

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2011,14:17   

I'm still trying to figure out why an increase of "information" has any relevance to the validity of the evolutionary theory.  ???

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2011,14:41   

Wesley, reproductive isolation via polyploidy involves populations with different ploidy levels, which requires that polyploidy wasn't lethal in the first place.
/nitpicking  ;)

That's unlikely to happen in humans. But frankly, we know that only empirically because polyploid speciation seems to be rare in mammals. There are various hypotheses on why polyploidy is more frequent in plants, but none is universally accepted, AFAIK.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2011,14:55   

Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 05 2011,14:17)
I'm still trying to figure out why an increase of "information" has any relevance to the validity of the evolutionary theory.  ???

Creationists try to redefine evolution as being an "increase of information," while deliberately obfuscating the definition of "information."

That way, they want to automatically, arbitrarily dismiss handwave away all examples of evolution as not counting because the examples do not match up with the Creationists' vague, mysterious definition of "information" 110%.

Like, what Michael Behe tried to do with his latest, laughable paper.

  
mrg



Posts: 39
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2011,15:00   

Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 05 2011,14:17)
I'm still trying to figure out why an increase of "information" has any relevance to the validity of the evolutionary theory.  ???

That's the purpose of the exercise.  Saying "evolution cannot create new information" is really just saying "I don't believe evolution is possible" -- but saying it in a way that makes it sound, sort of, like a law of physics.  

I have long grown tired of asking creationists how one is supposed to calculate "information".  Occasionally they're clueless enough to try to answer, but usually they just use the question as an occasion to produce more red herrings.

  
phhht



Posts: 38
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2011,16:29   

Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 05 2011,14:17)
I'm still trying to figure out why an increas
e of "information" has any relevance to the validity of the evolutionary theory.
 ???

Here's my take on the "increase in information" question.

Intuitively, we all agree that a "No right turn" sign added to an intersection increases the information available to a driver there.  Such intuitions about imperceptible things - love, for example, or disgust - are a common and useful human way of thinking by analogy with things which are perceptible - sand, for example, or heat.  We think that in some respects information is like sand.  Call this the Information is Sand metaphor.

One valid entailment of the Information is Sand metaphor is that folk information, like a volume of sand, can be added to.  We can perceive an increase in sand (by feeling its weight, say), so we easily believe that such perception is equally available for folk information.  But for folk information, unlike a volume of sand, we can't directly perceive such a change.  All we can do is to appeal to our shared intuitions.

Another entailment of the metaphor is that there cannot be an increase in folk information without the addition of some information by an agent.  I think it is this entailment - that of the necessary agent - which underlies the intuitive argument that evolution alone, without the intervention of some agency, cannot increase information. But the metaphorical entailment from sand to folk information is not valid here, in part because we have no corresponding perception of the weight of folk information.  We can't perceive an increase; we can only intuit one.

--------------
Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la.
-- Pierre Simon Laplace, explaining the absence of any mention of God in his work

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4491
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2011,16:36   

Quote (mrg @ Mar. 05 2011,15:00)
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 05 2011,14:17)
I'm still trying to figure out why an increase of "information" has any relevance to the validity of the evolutionary theory.  ???

That's the purpose of the exercise.  Saying "evolution cannot create new information" is really just saying "I don't believe evolution is possible" -- but saying it in a way that makes it sound, sort of, like a law of physics.  

I have long grown tired of asking creationists how one is supposed to calculate "information".  Occasionally they're clueless enough to try to answer, but usually they just use the question as an occasion to produce more red herrings.

That's part of why I wrote the response about information increase the way I did. I showed that the assertion failed for the two most-used formal definitions of information and an informal one as well. I don't have to wait around for a probably never-arriving definition from a religious antievolutionist. If they want to continue to claim no information increases are possible, they have to pony up their reason why not, not just assert it.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 05 2011,17:49

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
mrg



Posts: 39
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2011,16:46   

I have gone back and forth with creationist information theory (CIT) stuff -- I even did a writeup on it:

http://www.vectorsite.net/taifevo.html

-- but the CIT argument is such obvious bafflegab that I have a hard time keeping a straight face these days.  I'm hoping to find a wittier rejoinder one of these days.

I did come up with one that I really like for the (closely related) creationist SLOT argument:  "Evolution is impossible, because it implies an increase in complexity, and that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics."

"But that would rule out cars, planes, and personal computers, too.   After all, it's not like we can violate the SLOT, either."

"That's silly."

"You started it."

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2011,10:29   

Quote (phhht @ Mar. 04 2011,17:38)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:28)
   
Quote (phhht @ Mar. 04 2011,17:24)
     
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)

...could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?

Poofster,

Your request made no sense to me.   I don't understand what you want an explanation for.

Could you re-state, or elaborate, or something?

Question has to do with the link in Wesley's post, read his link then you will understand the question.

I've read his post.  It's a model of clarity, and I understood it.

You, on the other hand, are a different story. You're unintelligible.

Congratulations phhht.  You've got IBIG responding to your posts.

Since no one has said it out loud, I'll project IBIG's gotcha:

"Since Man is the image of God, and since tetraploidy as a means of evolution-increasing-information doesn't work in Man, therefore Man is not subject to evolution, and cannot be the product of it."

That's what IBIG wants you to realize.

Has any one been turned to the other side by IBIG's argument?

Didn't think so.

  
rossum



Posts: 178
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2011,12:42   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 05 2011,16:36)
That's part of why I wrote the response about information increase the way I did. I showed that the assertion failed for the two most-used formal definitions of information and an informal one as well. I don't have to wait around for a probably never-arriving definition from a religious antievolutionist. If they want to continue to claim no information increases are possible, they have to pony up their reason why not, not just assert it.

ISTM that the ID use of 'information' is a reincarnation of the old Creation Science argument about Biblical 'kinds'.  When ID dropped God and replaced Him with the Designer they had to drop all the Bible references as well.  Hence the replacement of "yes, but that is just evolution within a kind" with "yes, that is evolution but there is no increase in information".

The overall technique is still the same.  Pick something ill-defined.  Refuse to define it when asked.  When faced with an awkward question use the word du jour, still undefined, to refute the opposition's argument.  Since the concept remains terminally fuzzy it can be used to respond to a great many questions.

$0.02

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
mrg



Posts: 39
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2011,14:17   

I think "creationist information theory" is sort of a "one size fits all" creationist ploy, sufficiently vague to be applied in a wide range of ways:  "It slices!  It dices!  It takes out the garbage!  It walks the dog!  Step right up!"

But ... batteries DEFINITELY not included.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2124
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2011,22:18   

Quote (mrg @ Mar. 06 2011,12:17)
I think "creationist information theory" is sort of a "one size fits all" creationist ploy, sufficiently vague to be applied in a wide range of ways:  "It slices!  It dices!  It takes out the garbage!  It walks the dog!  Step right up!"

But ... batteries DEFINITELY not included.

First Tom Waits tune I ever heard, and still my fave.  

And they definitely have the same slick patter, hey?

(Violent Femmes redid it, but not 1/2 as well.)

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
mrg



Posts: 39
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2011,16:41   

Biggie's back to trolling on Panda's Thumb again.  Sigh, is it something we said?

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2011,16:50   

Quote (mrg @ Mar. 08 2011,16:41)
Biggie's back to trolling on Panda's Thumb again.  Sigh, is it something we said?

Yes, it's the implication that it is actually somehow unfair to teach children to cast unreasonable, unnecessary and downright illogical doubt on Biological Evolution.

Because if you can not force children to believe your Lies for Jesus tm under pain of eternal damnation and social ostracism, the Devil wins.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4069
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2011,17:17   

The devil's in the (pathetic level of) details...

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2011,17:33   

So now IBelieve is claiming that, because we don't want a pro-Creationism/anti-Science/anti-education bill passed, we are somehow afraid of teaching critical analysis of Evolution(ary Biology), thus, magically disqualifying Evolution(ary Biology) as a science.

Nevermind that IBelieve has repeatedly tied himself in an angry knot every time any of us point out the obvious weaknesses of Creationism.

Like how "God spoke the laws into existence" is not distinct from "God poofed the universe into existence using magic" or "GODDIDIT"

Or that saying "GODDIDIT" does not explain anything at all (nor does saying "God spoke the laws into existence")

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2011,18:03   

lol "terminally fuzzy"

i tried for weeks to get the tards at UD to tell me how much information is in a peanut butter sandwich.  The ones that did completely ignore the biological material in the sandwich.  talk about complete analogy fail, and they didn't even get it.  

so, um.... ya know these tards don't really care about what "information" is anyway.  they might as well say herp derp herp

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
mrg



Posts: 39
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2011,18:18   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 08 2011,18:03)
The ones that did completely ignore the biological material in the sandwich.

Not to mention the agritech needed to raise the peanuts, the industrial processes needed to produce it (and the jars it came in), the distribution and sale of the peanut butter ... ditto for the bread and butter ...

I am glad that thoughts can't kill, because any time a creationist started talking "information" at me, he'd be history.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2011,18:31   

it's at root an argument against materialism.  yawn


*ETA i shouldn't yawn so quickly.  that sort of thing is what makes tard so damned entertaining

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3305
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2011,08:41   

I've been reading a series of books (Star Carrier by Ian Douglas aka Keith Williams Jr (the bastard) if you must know).

In this series nano-technology is a mature tech with the ability to replicate food, building materials, even complete star fighters given time and raw materials.

This actually makes one wonder, what would the information content of a peanut butter sandwich be?  I mean, to build a peanut butter sandwich from raw material (without the intervening steps of growing wheat and peanuts and cows, etc, etc, etc) you need to have a complete molecular description of the entire sandwhich... so how much information would that take?

We're talking the location of every atom, molecule, and ion in a 15cmx15cmx4cm structure.

If we assume that the entire structure is water at 4C.  That's 900ml, which masses about 900grams.  (Yes, much heavier than a PB sandwhich, but the sandwhich is also much more complex than a glass of water.)

900g divided by 18g = 50 mols of water

50 times 6.02X10^23 = 3 x 10^25 molecules of water

If one byte is required for each molecule... and I can easily see it taking more than that.  You need the location of the molecule in 3 axes.  Hmmm... do you need orientation?  hydrogen bonds with which other molecules?

Anyway, 1 byte for each of 3 x 10^25 molecules.  Well, that results in 300,000,000,000,000 terabytes of information in a PB sandwhich (and I maintain that this is on the very low side).

I'll have to think about compression.  Obviously many of the molecules in a PB sandwich are the same... and many of the molecules actual location may not matter, provided that they are homogeneously mixed and in a specific ratio.  So, the formula for peanut butter is just make 1 x, then 2 y, then 1 z, then 1 x... repeat for v volume of peanut butter requested.  Yes, that's much better.

Joe, that's a really good question.  How do you deal with compression in Intelligent Design?

Good grief what am I saying?  Joe doesn't know dog turds about information, compression, or Intelligent Design.  He's still fuming because he can't find an answer to my simple question.  You know that if he actually had an example of design being detected using Demsbki's... ahh... work, they would all be screaming about it every second of the day.  

Oh well... I think I actually have some work today.  back to the salt mines.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
k.e..



Posts: 2898
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2011,10:32   

HOW MUCH INFORMATION'S IN A PEANUT BUTTER SANDWHICH?

I'LL TELL YOU HOMOS

ABOUT $1.50

BECAUSE THERE'S NO FREE LUNCH d.t.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2011,11:00   

ogre a full account of the information in those particles would also include the full material history of their interactions with other particles since the beginning of time and/or the particle.

what a pile of shit k.e.. got that shit right

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3305
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2011,11:06   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 09 2011,11:00)
ogre a full account of the information in those particles would also include the full material history of their interactions with other particles since the beginning of time and/or the particle.

what a pile of shit k.e.. got that shit right

Not if you are making the particles right then.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Henry J



Posts: 4069
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2011,16:08   

But are the particles real, or virtual?

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1025
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2011,17:35   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 09 2011,11:06)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 09 2011,11:00)
ogre a full account of the information in those particles would also include the full material history of their interactions with other particles since the beginning of time and/or the particle.

what a pile of shit k.e.. got that shit right

Not if you are making the particles right then.

I don't think even that matters.  It's like figuring out the potential energy in the sandwich. You don't have to know where it's been, only what it's doing/where it is right now.  There's a term for that sort of thing which, I'm embarrassed to say, eludes me for the moment.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2011,17:37   

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 09 2011,16:08)
But are the particles real, or virtual?

And more important, are they smooth or chunky?

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
  741 replies since Oct. 31 2010,16:04 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]