RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < ... 18 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 >  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2011,22:43   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 02 2011,22:32)
Yawn. IBIG is channeling Gish in his latest on Joe's 2LoT thread at PT. It didn't impress me coming from a Berkeley grad twenty years ago, IBIG... what makes you think that it sounds any better, or any less utterly rebutted, when you say it?

Because he has FAITH (sic) when he says it?

  
Robin



Posts: 1422
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2011,09:00   

Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 02 2011,18:42)

Quote
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,04:58)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 19 2011,13:16)
Hey IBIG,

answer this for me:

If God commanded people to start eating babies, what would you do?

There are three possible answers:

1) "No, it would still be immoral." That one's easy, and the best answer, and of course it demolishes the idea that God dictates what is moral.

2) "God would never do that, because God is moral." In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing based on whether God would do a particular thing.

3) "Knives out and start the rotesserie!" This, and only this, preserves the idea that morality comes from God, and only from God.

No, there is a fourth:

4. It is a ridiculous question because it requires a violation of the law of noncontraction, a law which, it is assumed, even applies to god. Put simply: if god is moral and the very north pole of moral compasses, and if eating babies is immoral in a certain context, then god would be literally incapable of commanding the eating of babies in that context.

Oy-vey, sayeth Nakashima.

Bible points that seem to have been overlooked:

1 - God commands Abraham to kill Isaac. Abraham complies (reluctantly).

2 - Abraham defends Sodom and Gommorah with "Shall not the God of the whole earth do justly?"

In which of those two stories is God or Abraham acting morally? (My vote is only for Abe in 2.)

3 - Eating babies is discussed in Jeremiah, in the situation of starvation during the siege of Jerusalem.

4 - What answer does Job get at the end of his book? Fuck off, I'm not like you.

Taken together, and remember, Abraham loses that argument in story 2, it would seem that the Bibble position on morality is that it is whatever God says it is. And if you don't like it, tough.


Then there's the another real kicker - God "feeling" regret for having made man:

Quote
5
   Genesis 6:
5 When the LORD saw how great was man's wickedness on earth, and how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil,
6
   he regretted that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was grieved.


If God regretted something, doesn't that mean he did something he wished he hadn't? So it's within his nature to do that he knows he will later regret? Good to know that such a god is isn't very smart.

--------------
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

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2011,10:54   

Quote (Robin @ Mar. 03 2011,09:00)
[quote=dvunkannon,Mar. 02 2011,18:42][/quote]
Quote
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,04:58)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 19 2011,13:16)
Hey IBIG,

answer this for me:

If God commanded people to start eating babies, what would you do?

There are three possible answers:

1) "No, it would still be immoral." That one's easy, and the best answer, and of course it demolishes the idea that God dictates what is moral.

2) "God would never do that, because God is moral." In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing based on whether God would do a particular thing.

3) "Knives out and start the rotesserie!" This, and only this, preserves the idea that morality comes from God, and only from God.

No, there is a fourth:

4. It is a ridiculous question because it requires a violation of the law of noncontraction, a law which, it is assumed, even applies to god. Put simply: if god is moral and the very north pole of moral compasses, and if eating babies is immoral in a certain context, then god would be literally incapable of commanding the eating of babies in that context.

Oy-vey, sayeth Nakashima.

Bible points that seem to have been overlooked:

1 - God commands Abraham to kill Isaac. Abraham complies (reluctantly).

2 - Abraham defends Sodom and Gommorah with "Shall not the God of the whole earth do justly?"

In which of those two stories is God or Abraham acting morally? (My vote is only for Abe in 2.)

3 - Eating babies is discussed in Jeremiah, in the situation of starvation during the siege of Jerusalem.

4 - What answer does Job get at the end of his book? Fuck off, I'm not like you.

Taken together, and remember, Abraham loses that argument in story 2, it would seem that the Bibble position on morality is that it is whatever God says it is. And if you don't like it, tough.


Then there's the another real kicker - God "feeling" regret for having made man:

Quote
5
   Genesis 6:
5 When the LORD saw how great was man's wickedness on earth, and how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil,
6
   he regretted that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was grieved.


If God regretted something, doesn't that mean he did something he wished he hadn't? So it's within his nature to do that he knows he will later regret? Good to know that such a god is isn't very smart.

If the belief is an omniscient god, then he can't do anything that he doesn't already know he will do.  He's in the ultimate deterministic scenario - basically a robot.  And of course that applies to all of us - no free will since we are actually incapable of choosing anything but that which god knows will happen.  All of this was scripted from the beginning...although they never mention by who.

Similar to the Euthryphro (sp?) dilemma.  Maybe we have El Elyon, Yahweh's dad, telling him what to do?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
phhht



Posts: 38
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2011,15:10   

At the bathroom wall, Poofster asks:

"Does DNA contain information that determines the morphology of an organism?"

Well, yes and no.  DNA can be said to "contain" information.  By that I mean that given a strand of DNA (and the right equipment),  we can
find out the sequence of codons in the strand.  We can even say that certain sequences of codons "code for" certain morphologies in organisms.  Do those sequences "determine the morphology" of an organism?  Depends on what you mean by "determine".

Since they are mindless, DNA and its various processors have no notion of information content or encoding.  They cannot "contain information"
or "decode" in the way that a mind does. But evolution doesn't require that; DNA works its influence on morphology without those abstract descriptive concepts.   It is only we who use them.

"Do crystals contain a type of DNA that contains information that determines the morphology of crystals?"

Exactly to the extent that DNA contains information that determines the morphology of the DNA.

That is, the morphology of a crystal, like the morphology of DNA itself,
is determined by chemistry.   What that has to do with the relation between DNA and the morphology of an organism escapes me entirely.

I know this is a gotcha setup, Poofster, and I'm eager to see how you
get me.  I love those little pieces of passive-aggressive pseudo-reason of yours.

[I]iB doesn't seem to work for me right now; sorry.[\I]

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

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2011,17:08   

Quote (phhht @ Mar. 03 2011,15:10)
At the bathroom wall, Poofster asks:

"Does DNA contain information that determines the morphology of an organism?"

Well, yes and no.  DNA can be said to "contain" information.  By that I mean that given a strand of DNA (and the right equipment),  we can
find out the sequence of codons in the strand.  We can even say that certain sequences of codons "code for" certain morphologies in organisms.  Do those sequences "determine the morphology" of an organism?  Depends on what you mean by "determine".

Since they are mindless, DNA and its various processors have no notion of information content or encoding.  They cannot "contain information"
or "decode" in the way that a mind does. But evolution doesn't require that; DNA works its influence on morphology without those abstract descriptive concepts.   It is only we who use them.

"Do crystals contain a type of DNA that contains information that determines the morphology of crystals?"

Exactly to the extent that DNA contains information that determines the morphology of the DNA.

That is, the morphology of a crystal, like the morphology of DNA itself,
is determined by chemistry.   What that has to do with the relation between DNA and the morphology of an organism escapes me entirely.

I know this is a gotcha setup, Poofster, and I'm eager to see how you
get me.  I love those little pieces of passive-aggressive pseudo-reason of yours.

[I]iB doesn't seem to work for me right now; sorry.[\I]

You'll probably tell me next that crystals also have something comparable to a gene switch:)

Computer programs are nothing more then a string of bits, we can find sequences of bits that "code for" certain functions. Since they are mindless bits they have no notion of information content or encoding.

DNA does contain information about our morphology, and just about everything about us, just as those bits in a computer program contain information that enable a function/functions of a particular software. The individual bits in the software may seem insignificant but when they are strung together in the proper sequences you end up with wonderful software, which allowed me to type and post this very post.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2011,17:40   

IBIG, please define "information"...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
mrg



Posts: 39
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2011,17:50   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 03 2011,17:40)
IBIG, please define "information"...

Oh, he'll do that all day if you like.  

It's really just a Paley argument:   The genome looks like a computer program and a computer program implies a programmer [organisms look like watches and a watch implies a watchmaker].

In this context, what is meant by "information" is that the genome and the program both have "instructions" that have to be arranged in a purposeful and organized fashion.  Just as the gears in a watch have to be arranged in a purposeful and organized fashion -- and actually, if you get into complicated clockwork automatons, the comparison is extremely close.

Of course, this is strictly reasoning by analogy:  the genome looks like a computer program, the eye looks like a camera, a pig looks like a piggy bank.  Or in other words, since humans imitate nature, nature must be imitating humans.

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2011,18:29   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 03 2011,17:08)
   
Quote (phhht @ Mar. 03 2011,15:10)
At the bathroom wall, Poofster quotes IBIG:

"Do crystals contain a type of DNA that contains information that determines the morphology of crystals?"

"..., which allowed me to type and post this very post."

IBIG, glad to see you're back posting on AtBC.

Please help me understand what it is you're asking, exactly.  I don't understand.

Crystals don't 'have' DNA in the sense that biological organisms 'have' DNA.  phhht explained this.

The morphology of crystals is determined by the way elections in the atoms or molecules of the crystal interact with each other, nothing less, nothing more.

But that's not what you're asking, I suspect.

Somehow, I believe, you think you're going to trap Panda's with this clever question.  If I'm wrong, tell me so, and tell me why you asked this question.

Can you do this?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4383
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

    
mrg



Posts: 39
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2011,18:56   

"INTELLIGENT DESIGN:  Combining all the worst features of creationism and computer science."

  
phhht



Posts: 38
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2011,20:05   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 03 2011,17:08)
 
Quote (phhht @ Mar. 03 2011,15:10)
At the bathroom wall, Poofster asks:

"Does DNA contain information that determines the morphology of an organism?"

Well, yes and no.  DNA can be said to "contain" information.  By that I mean that given a strand of DNA (and the right equipment),  we can
find out the sequence of codons in the strand.  We can even say that certain sequences of codons "code for" certain morphologies in organisms.  Do those sequences "determine the morphology" of an organism?  Depends on what you mean by "determine".

Since they are mindless, DNA and its various processors have no notion of information content or encoding.  They cannot "contain information"
or "decode" in the way that a mind does. But evolution doesn't require that; DNA works its influence on morphology without those abstract descriptive concepts.   It is only we who use them.

"Do crystals contain a type of DNA that contains information that determines the morphology of crystals?"

Exactly to the extent that DNA contains information that determines the morphology of the DNA.

That is, the morphology of a crystal, like the morphology of DNA itself,
is determined by chemistry.   What that has to do with the relation between DNA and the morphology of an organism escapes me entirely.

I know this is a gotcha setup, Poofster, and I'm eager to see how you
get me.  I love those little pieces of passive-aggressive pseudo-reason of yours.

[I]iB doesn't seem to work for me right now; sorry.[\I]

You'll probably tell me next that crystals also have something comparable to a gene switch:)

Computer programs are nothing more then a string of bits, we can find sequences of bits that "code for" certain functions. Since they are mindless bits they have no notion of information content or encoding.

DNA does contain information about our morphology, and just about everything about us, just as those bits in a computer program contain information that enable a function/functions of a particular software. The individual bits in the software may seem insignificant but when they are strung together in the proper sequences you end up with wonderful software, which allowed me to type and post this very post.

I can't understand your point (and I'm a computer programmer).  Could you clarify?

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

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2011,07:09   

Quote (phhht @ Mar. 03 2011,20:05)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 03 2011,17:08)
 
Quote (phhht @ Mar. 03 2011,15:10)
At the bathroom wall, Poofster asks:

"Does DNA contain information that determines the morphology of an organism?"

Well, yes and no.  DNA can be said to "contain" information.  By that I mean that given a strand of DNA (and the right equipment),  we can
find out the sequence of codons in the strand.  We can even say that certain sequences of codons "code for" certain morphologies in organisms.  Do those sequences "determine the morphology" of an organism?  Depends on what you mean by "determine".

Since they are mindless, DNA and its various processors have no notion of information content or encoding.  They cannot "contain information"
or "decode" in the way that a mind does. But evolution doesn't require that; DNA works its influence on morphology without those abstract descriptive concepts.   It is only we who use them.

"Do crystals contain a type of DNA that contains information that determines the morphology of crystals?"

Exactly to the extent that DNA contains information that determines the morphology of the DNA.

That is, the morphology of a crystal, like the morphology of DNA itself,
is determined by chemistry.   What that has to do with the relation between DNA and the morphology of an organism escapes me entirely.

I know this is a gotcha setup, Poofster, and I'm eager to see how you
get me.  I love those little pieces of passive-aggressive pseudo-reason of yours.

[I]iB doesn't seem to work for me right now; sorry.[\I]

You'll probably tell me next that crystals also have something comparable to a gene switch:)

Computer programs are nothing more then a string of bits, we can find sequences of bits that "code for" certain functions. Since they are mindless bits they have no notion of information content or encoding.

DNA does contain information about our morphology, and just about everything about us, just as those bits in a computer program contain information that enable a function/functions of a particular software. The individual bits in the software may seem insignificant but when they are strung together in the proper sequences you end up with wonderful software, which allowed me to type and post this very post.

I can't understand your point (and I'm a computer programmer).  Could you clarify?

Read the quote that I responded to and see the similar part inserted in my post:)

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2011,07:44   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,07:09)
Quote (phhht @ Mar. 03 2011,20:05)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 03 2011,17:08)
   
Quote (phhht @ Mar. 03 2011,15:10)
At the bathroom wall, Poofster asks:

"Does DNA contain information that determines the morphology of an organism?"

Well, yes and no.  DNA can be said to "contain" information.  By that I mean that given a strand of DNA (and the right equipment),  we can
find out the sequence of codons in the strand.  We can even say that certain sequences of codons "code for" certain morphologies in organisms.  Do those sequences "determine the morphology" of an organism?  Depends on what you mean by "determine".

Since they are mindless, DNA and its various processors have no notion of information content or encoding.  They cannot "contain information"
or "decode" in the way that a mind does. But evolution doesn't require that; DNA works its influence on morphology without those abstract descriptive concepts.   It is only we who use them.

"Do crystals contain a type of DNA that contains information that determines the morphology of crystals?"

Exactly to the extent that DNA contains information that determines the morphology of the DNA.

That is, the morphology of a crystal, like the morphology of DNA itself,
is determined by chemistry.   What that has to do with the relation between DNA and the morphology of an organism escapes me entirely.

I know this is a gotcha setup, Poofster, and I'm eager to see how you
get me.  I love those little pieces of passive-aggressive pseudo-reason of yours.

[I]iB doesn't seem to work for me right now; sorry.[\I]

You'll probably tell me next that crystals also have something comparable to a gene switch:)

Computer programs are nothing more then a string of bits, we can find sequences of bits that "code for" certain functions. Since they are mindless bits they have no notion of information content or encoding.

DNA does contain information about our morphology, and just about everything about us, just as those bits in a computer program contain information that enable a function/functions of a particular software. The individual bits in the software may seem insignificant but when they are strung together in the proper sequences you end up with wonderful software, which allowed me to type and post this very post.

I can't understand your point (and I'm a computer programmer).  Could you clarify?

Read the quote that I responded to and see the similar part inserted in my post:)

You mean how all this proves that your FAITH (sic) magically trumps all of science and those evil, stupid, devil-worshiping, God-hating scientists?

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2040
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2011,09:16   

Quote (Stanton @ Mar. 04 2011,05:44)
You mean how all this proves that your FAITH (sic) magically trumps all of science and those evil, stupid, devil-worshiping, God-hating scientists?

Funny how IBIG likes to blither about "information", but refuses to accept the "information" in geomagnetic studies, atomic theory, basic physics, basic chemistry, tree ring data, fossils, the geologic column...

Okay, maybe "funny" isn't quite the right word...

Admit it, IBIG, the only "information" you accept is in that musty old book of Bronze Age campfire tales, and nothing, no other "information" of any kind will ever convince you otherwise.

--------------
"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

  
Henry J



Posts: 3964
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2011,12:01   

Quote
I can't understand your point (and I'm a computer programmer).  Could you clarify?

Apparently the answer to that was "no".

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2011,12:14   

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 04 2011,12:01)
Quote
I can't understand your point (and I'm a computer programmer).  Could you clarify?

Apparently the answer to that was "no".

Oh yeah.  Clarifying would make it easy to refute. As long as it's unambiguous, it's easy to say "That's not what I mean." and then divert attention quickly.

IBIG should be proud, he's following the tradition of almost a 100 years of creationist charlatans.

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

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

   
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2040
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2011,17:18   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,15:09)
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?

While you're at it, can humans survive all winter with naked limbs?

Can they breathe underwater?

Biggy, it matters not a tittle what polyploidy in humans results in.

Grow up.

--------------
"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

  
phhht



Posts: 38
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

  
phhht



Posts: 38
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4383
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

If the claim is that evolution cannot increase information anywhere, anytime, anyway, then what I've pointed out shows that is wrong for two formal and one informal definitions of information.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, ever claimed that all evolutionary information increase proceeded by means of polyploidy, which is about the only kind of claim that could possibly be put at risk by the question you asked. Got any other strawmen you wanna knock down this evening?

For everyone who isn't IBIG, it is well-known that humans and most mammalian species with decent population sizes have a small but non-zero proportion that have alternative karyotypes. Sometimes this confers complete sterility upon the bearers of the alternate karyotype, but certain ones may only have reduced fertility when crossing back to the canonical karyotype. In other mammals, it is well known that line breeding where there's a Robertsonian fusion can establish the new karyotype with full fertility between individuals with that karyotype. The pattern of karyotypes in species of South American peccaries, for example, can provide a trait that yields a tree showing the pattern of common ancestry in that group.

In vertebrates, there is a well-known instance of successful speciation via tetraploidy, which involves Hyla chrysoscelis as the parent species and Hyla versicolor as the daughter species. Lesser-known alterations in karyotype in vertebrates include induced triploid lines of fish via blast overpressure.

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

    
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2011,18:11   

Hey IBIG.  Look up Klinefelter's Syndrome.  Then look up XXYY and explain to us how those are not increases in information.

Be sure to include in your response a statement that you understand that 'function' and 'meaning' have nothing at all to do with the amount of information in the system.

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

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4383
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2011,18:11   

I checked out a book on polyploidy that had an interesting observation in the front matter. It went to the effect that for any karyotype with more than eleven chromosomes, the odds were very good that the species had had a polyploid event somewhere in its ancestry.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4383
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2011,18:12   

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?

No, that's the illogical question.

Do try to keep it straight.

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

    
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2011,18:22   

IBIG, while you're not answering questions.  Here's another on that you won't want to answer.

The human chromosome 2 is the result of the fusion of the chimpanzee chromosomes 2p and 2q.  

What is the informational change in this example?  Did information increase, decrease, or stay the same?  Why?

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

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

   
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

  
phhht



Posts: 38
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2011,22:26   

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.

If the claim is that evolution cannot increase information anywhere, anytime, anyway, then what I've pointed out shows that is wrong for two formal and one informal definitions of information.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, ever claimed that all evolutionary information increase proceeded by means of polyploidy, which is about the only kind of claim that could possibly be put at risk by the question you asked. Got any other strawmen you wanna knock down this evening?

For everyone who isn't IBIG, it is well-known that humans and most mammalian species with decent population sizes have a small but non-zero proportion that have alternative karyotypes. Sometimes this confers complete sterility upon the bearers of the alternate karyotype, but certain ones may only have reduced fertility when crossing back to the canonical karyotype. In other mammals, it is well known that line breeding where there's a Robertsonian fusion can establish the new karyotype with full fertility between individuals with that karyotype. The pattern of karyotypes in species of South American peccaries, for example, can provide a trait that yields a tree showing the pattern of common ancestry in that group.

In vertebrates, there is a well-known instance of successful speciation via tetraploidy, which involves Hyla chrysoscelis as the parent species and Hyla versicolor as the daughter species. Lesser-known alterations in karyotype in vertebrates include induced triploid lines of fish via blast overpressure.

OK Poofster, after reading the other posts, maybe I can understand what you were asking.   Here's how I now understand your question.

If tetraploidy occurred in human beings instead of orchids, would that change the effect on the Shannon-Weaver measure of information, the algorithmic measures, or the layman's measure of information, as discussed in Elsberry's post?

Is that a fair restatement of your question?

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

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

Pages: (25) < ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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