Search This Blog

Friday, February 13, 2009

Information matters




Tax said - (me)You will have to show us evidence of multi-mutation evolution that adds rather than subtracts from or simply utilizes preexisting information within the DNA.(end me)

(tax)Why does IAMB have to do this? Seelke's article (to which IAMB replied), nowhere states that it's necessary for evolution to 'add information'. It's only about adding functions, and IAMB clearly showed that multi-mutation evolution IS indeed possible and DOES occur.

But if you insist; could you please explain WHY it's necessary for evolution to 'add information' within the DNA to be possible?
Also, could you clearly define the term 'information'?

~~~~~~~

I previously posted three articles concerning bacterial studies. The studies as a group are evidence that evolution has been observed NOT to occur. I already explained why in a previous comment.

1) Multiple thousands of generations of bacteria have failed to evolve into anything other than bacteria.
2) The relatively few mutations that were not deadly to the organisms were usually deleterious in nature and often could not be passed on.
3) Some mutations gave the organism abilities not normally possessed as a result of a loss of an ability or system functionality. This would make the specific organism less viable in a wide variety of conditions but more viable in one specific situation.
4) Mutation mistakes never occurred in tandem. One mutation at a time might survive but multiple mutations that combined to act together were never found.
5) No new systems were produced. The gene pool would either be altered or decreased rather than increased.

Long story short, speciation involving loss of genetic material might be observed in bacterial populations but not evolution. Not macroevolution, in any case. The reason is that we do not see more information introduced into the genes, but degradation of information. So let us talk about why that is important.





Merriam-Webster defines it as:


Main Entry:
in·for·ma·tion           Listen to the pronunciation of information
Pronunciation:
\ˌin-fər-ˈmā-shən\
Function:
noun
Date:
14th century
1: the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
2 a
(1): knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction (2): intelligence , news (3): facts , data b: the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects c (1): a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) representing data (2): something (as a message, experimental data, or a picture) which justifies change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct d: a quantitative measure of the content of information ; specifically : a numerical quantity that measures the uncertainty in the outcome of an experiment to be performed


~

So information is a form of the transmission of intelligence or data. DNA is certainly right smack in the middle of the definition of information. Unbiased observers would therefore conclude that DNA was the product of design and therefore a designer. But the majority of the scientific community is biased and ignore the obvious.

However, DNA is packed full of information and that information tells an organism how to grow and what to grow into among other things. Mutations must be passed along to descendants in the DNA in order for the mutation to become part of the gene pool of organisms.

Thousands of generations of bacteria have failed to add information to the gene pool. Bacteria have not developed legs or arms or eyeballs or necks or wings or nose hairs or...well, they just haven't done anything but kept on being bacteria, occasionally with mistakes.

Mistakes have an impact. If I have a playing card factory and we keep on pumping out fifty-two card decks in perfect order, that is what we want. That is also what usually happens with bacteria, the same thing generation after generation. But suppose there is a glitch in the machinery and my factory begin producing decks with two aces of spades and no aces of hearts. It would sure change the way games like Rummy worked and probably cause fights during poker games. But they would still be cards, just different. No way would such a mistake explain where the factory came from, or the ingredients to make the paper that was made into card stock. No way does a mistake like that shed light on the card design, the inks, the reason for their very existence. Yet when bacteria present the equivalent of a missing card from a deck of cards or two when there ought to be one, evolutionists claim they have evidence that explains the very existence of cards themselves. Nonsense!

Guess what, if one of the aces of spades is missing from a pinochle deck, that will certainly mean a change in function in the game. Let's specifically address three handed pinochle. A run in spades will be far more rare but, if you have one, you are statistically more likely to control trump in your suit that a run will give you in any other suit. (A run is ace king queen jack ten). You will have five out of eleven rather than five out of twelve, and your first two leads cannot be beaten. There will only be two hole cards rather than three, so the bidder's chances of filling a run or a double pinochle or any other meld requirement from the hole cards will be reduced 50%, which will radically alter bidding. Wise players would take fewer bidding chances, the ace and tens of spades will have more value and there will be one less point card available to win. Yes, there would be a big change in many functionalities in the game of three handed pinochle by simply removing one card. But is information added? Is any explanation for the advent of cards produced? No.

Evolutionists may claim that functions are being added in the bacteria population, but actually information is being lost and/or degraded and even that mostly with artificial outside help from the observing scientists. If I removed the silencer from a handgun then I would be "adding" the function of making a big noise but in fact I would be subtracting from the weapon. If I poke a hole in a rowboat I would be "adding" a leak. If I saw off the end of a shotgun I would be "adding" to the rapidity of the shot spread pattern. If I take the lid off of the garbage pail I will "add" to the complexity of the smells identifiable to the human olfactory system.

Maybe you think of your body as a kind of organic factory. Wrong. Your body is made up of billions and billions of organic components. One human cell is far more complex than the biggest factory in your town. There are thousands of operations taking place in your cells every minute. Every system, every operation and every component is an example of information. Where did it come from? Experiments on bacteria show that it doesn't come from natural selection working through mutations.

Funny thing, we have this vast amount of money invested in the SETI project and all of those dishes and sensors are focused on a wide spectrum of emissions from outer space looking for one thing...information. They are looking for a sign of organization in a universe in which energy is being continually converted to entropy. Things are running downhill, getting less organized, falling apart, exploding, getting cold. If we turned SETI towards earth, we would be amazed by the signs of intelligence not just in humanity, but in everything organic! That is, if we (the majority of the scientific community) weren't religious zealots adamantly dedicated to hiding the truth in the name of almighty HUMANISM.



Think about it...if you fly across a dense forest and suddenly see a clearing with rows of plants, you know someone cleared the trees away, prepared the ground and planted the plants. Information. Data. Planning. Organization. Intelligence. We know it when we see it.

Information causes events that fly in the face of the laws of thermodynamics. A tornado will not go through a junkyard and assemble a jet airplane, but it will take partially junked automobiles and tear them to shreds. Information flows from intelligence. Guess what? The passing of time has no intelligence. Minerals and molecules have no intelligence.

Therefore what happens in populations of bacteria fits into the creation model. God created bacteria with a huge amount of information within their genetic makeup, allowing for the organism to adjust to changing and widely varying conditions. There are so many tens of thousands of varieties of bacteria they are beyond counting. In numbers, there are so many bacteria on the planet that the number is too big to really absorb. Something along the line of 1x 10 to the 30th but that would be conservative. Plenty of different kinds to fill every purpose bacteria can fill.

Evolutionists like to say that similar structures indicate lines of evolutionary heritage. I know plenty of people who find shows like "Morphed" to be remarkably hilarious (T Rex becomes a Turkey, hahahahaha)! But in fact God designed many varieties of bacteria with all sorts of choices within the genetic code to fill every need. He designed animals and plants of differing kinds to fill specific roles within the biosphere. More than one kind of animal is useful for food and milk and eggs. More than one kind helps recycle carrion. More than one kind spreads seed around the planet, more than one kind helps spread pollen. The "higher" animals have so many incredibly complex structures that it is entirely laughable to believe that they evolved from a mythical single-cell first living creature. (It is laughable to think that a living thing just happened to happen by itself as well).

In any event, thousands upon thousands of bacteria have proven that macroevolution does NOT happen in bacteria populations. Speciation does, which is simple variation within kind. Macroevolution has not been observed in any variety of plant or animal ever. No new systems or organs have ever been observed. We HAVE observed deletions within the gene pool, extinctions of animals both recent (Dodo and Carrier Pigeon) and not-so-recent (Like the Stegosaurus). Just as mountains are eroded and faces wrinkle with time, so do gene pools get damaged with mutations and some populations become isolated and eliminated. Yet so many kinds of animals exist with so many choices within their DNA that life just keeps on keeping on. Mammoths are gone, but we still have elephants. Dire wolves are gone, wolves remain. There are still all sorts of pigeons and doves, still plenty of flightless birds...because God is a great designer.

When you design aircraft, you design redundancies into the aircraft so that there are alternate systems to replace those that fail and manual controls to replace motorized controls and hydraulics. There are ways to escape multiple problems designed into the craft, designed and then built to specifications that allow the crew to handle a host of possible problems. Pilots are trained with realistic simulators to deal with all varieties of emergencies. Also, many of the design features of aircraft are similar whether made by Airbus or Boeing or Lockheed or whoever. Every single aircraft ever made was built from a blueprint, several blueprints in fact.

God designed life with lots of redundancies not only within kinds but also with more than one kind of animal that can fulfill the same places in the ecosystem. Many animal kinds have a reasonable amount of intelligence to help them make choices about their environment. Many of the design features of life are similar and they all have their DNA blueprint.

As soon as we see airplanes designing and building themselves, we will see life evolving on earth.

Then again, some people think aliens brought life here from another planet? But that is another subject.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

"I previously posted three articles concerning bacterial studies. The studies as a group are evidence that evolution has been observed NOT to occur."

Okay, first, since equivocation is such a no-no (as per your last post), please define "evolution" up front as you see it in this context. Because, as you may or may not know, evolution has been observed to occur in quite a number of experiments. Or we can take it from the context that you're referring to "macroevolution", which is defined at evolution at the species level and above.

Second, because something (supposedly) doesn't occur in three experiments of limited scope doesn't mean that the same thing doesn't occur over a longer period of time and with a larger scope. For example, if we observe one man buying a lottery ticket every day for fifty years and not winning, then yes, that is evidence that a lottery win has been observed NOT to occur - by THIS MAN. I.e. it's only with regard to that very limited example. Which doesn't tell us much about the actual occurrence of lottery wins - which I'm sure you'll agree do take place from time to time.

"1) Multiple thousands of generations of bacteria have failed to evolve into anything other than bacteria."

Please explain how the theory of evolution would predict that bacteria would not just change species, not even genus, family, order, nor class, phylum, kingdom, but a full domain.

To expect that bacteria would evolve into something other than bacteria in any experiment and to also somehow think that a failure to do so is a falsification of the theory of evolution... well, Radar, that is to betray such a profound lack of knowledge and understanding of basic biology as well as the theory of evolution that it discredits just about everything else you wish to say on this subject.

Sorry to be so harsh, Radar, (no, really) but claiming that the theory of evolution would predict that bacteria would evolve into something other than bacteria in an experiment is such an extremely ridiculous claim that neither you nor other YECs (from whom you no doubt got this nonsense) deserve to get away with it.

(The logical fallacy in question in this claim, by the way, is a straw man argument.)

"2) The relatively few mutations that were not deadly to the organisms were usually deleterious in nature and often could not be passed on."

The deleterious mutations die off, fine. The beneficial ones don't. And they multiply. And therefore occur in greater numbers. What is so remarkable about that? Why do you think it is a strike against the theory of evolution if there are deleterious mutations? There is no pre-selection of "good" or "bad" mutations, they are simply tried out in life, and the bad ones die off and the good ones thrive. That's what natural selection is.

"3) Some mutations gave the organism abilities not normally possessed as a result of a loss of an ability or system functionality. This would make the specific organism less viable in a wide variety of conditions but more viable in one specific situation."

Yes, and?

"4) Mutation mistakes never occurred in tandem. One mutation at a time might survive but multiple mutations that combined to act together were never found."

I seem to recall IAMB fairly recently mentioning several examples where this was not the case.

Aside from that, I'd note again that because something did not occur in a limited experiment does not allow one to conclude that it never occurs. Which is the fallacy of composition - you can learn about this particular fallacy by reading your own post right before this one.

"5) No new systems were produced. The gene pool would either be altered or decreased rather than increased."

Please define the meaning of "system" as you intend it in this context.

And how is the gene pool not increased by a change? See for example the nylon-eating bacteria that we've drawn your attention to in the past - how is that not an increase in the gene pool?

I'll get to the rest of this later, but this opening is just utter nonsense - and so fails to set up Radar's claim that information is only lost or degraded.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

And the card factory analogy... if I weren't already quite familiar with the way you think, Radar, I'd put this down as a rather vicious parody of creationist argumentation, but as it is it's just another example of how little you bother to understand what evolution is - even while admitting that YEC will (and is forced to) get on board with vast chunks of it, in the form of microevolution.

1. You seem to be hung up on mutations being entirely bad and that if there are more negative mutations (i.e. that have a negative impact on survival and reproduction) than positive ones, then, well... I guess you're thinking that the negative ones will "win" and the population will die off... is that it?

But what actually happens is that negative mutations result in individuals dying off (which given their rarity is not a big deal), while positive mutations are amplified, simply because of the fact that they are better suited for survival and reproduction.

2. What is the point of having a "central factory" in your analogy? The whole point is that organisms reproduce (i.e. one organism reproduces to form the next, they don't all come out of some clone factory) with slight variations. Do you think that life consists of a central entity that spits out absolutely perfect copies, with no variation because that would violate the "rules"?

"Yet when bacteria present the equivalent of a missing card from a deck of cards or two when there ought to be one, evolutionists claim they have evidence that explains the very existence of cards themselves. Nonsense!"

Could you explain what you mean by this? What are the cards supposed to be in this analogy? What argument are you referring to with "evidence that explains the very existence of cards themselves"?

3. What are the "rules" supposed to be in this analogy, and why do you insist that they don't change and that "mistakes have an impact"? What impact do negative mutations have on a population?

4. "In any event, thousands upon thousands of bacteria have proven that macroevolution does NOT happen in bacteria populations."

That's quite a whopper, Radar. Please revisit your previous post on logic. It's a blatant fallacy of composition, and frankly one that I'd be surprised to see even a twelve-year-old make.

(That's aside from the fact that the underlying premise is wrong.)

"Speciation does, which is simple variation within kind."

Speciation IS macroevolution - evolution at the species level and above. You're confusing macroevolution and microevolution... say, that's a pretty fundamental mistake. Not surprising, sadly, from the guy who has such a cartoonish understanding of evolution that he thinks bacteria should evolve into non-bacteria and grow arms and legs etc.

"Macroevolution has not been observed in any variety of plant or animal ever. No new systems or organs have ever been observed."

You know, Radar, lately it seems you're not even trying any more. Your posts have turned more and more into rambling collections of silly old arguments like the "tornado in a junkyard can't assemble a Jumbo Jet" nonsense.

Together with your incessant whining about conspiracies that prevent you and the likes of you from having your genius appreciated by the world, it doesn't paint a pretty picture for the strength of the YEC position.

But that's not surprising - it is a weak position. There's a reason the wedge strategy failed, after all. There's a reason you can't point to testable predictions that favor YEC over Old Earth Evolution. There's a reason you keep misrepresenting opposing arguments, running away from arguments that don't go your way, and "complaining about the ring and the referee and the height of the ropes or the weigh-in procedures"...

-- creeper

radar said...

Frankly the comments so far reveal an inability to comprehend a very easily presented quandry. Bacterial generations can occur every twenty minutes or so, therefore man has been able to observe more generations of them than the number of generations that would have passed between velociraptor and turkey, as "Morphed" presents.

(PS - That General Electric sponsors the program and their motto is "Imagination at work" is delicious irony.)

Yet macroevolution has not ever been observed.

Speciation, or microevolution, takes place all the time. That's how we select for qualities that make various breeds of dogs, for instance. It is part of the design feature of organisms.

BUT SPECIATION IS LOSS OF INFORMATION, NOT GAIN!

You guys are like a man watching a sandhill being worn away by rainfall and declaring that rainfall must GROW sandhills as well. Guess what, you have been pouring water on sandhills for over a hundred years and the hills always wear away, they never grow.

Another card analogy - keep shuffling cards and playing fifty-two card pickup. Keep throwing them all over the house and then gathering them again. Eventually you will find the deck has become 50 or 51 cards instead of 52. A creationist would say, yep, the cards were designed to be 52 but if one is lost, they are still cards. The games you can play with them are different and more limited.

Evolutionists observe this and think that if we keep throwing cards up into the air a fifty-third card will appear. Or one of the original cards will fall to earth as a number 13 or an Emperor or some other card not originally in the deck.

It doesn't happen, and it won't happen.

You know, you Darwinists have been controlling the schools and spewing out your propaganda for many decades and still less than 4 out of 10 people (from a yahoo news story published saturday) believe in evolution.

Furthermore, we keep finding animals and plants once thought to be long extinct and part of a chain of evolved creatures as we explore more of the world. How can such animals have evolved into something else when they are still the same thing they were when buried in the Flood?

Honest Darwinists would admit that evolution has been tested in bacteria populations and NOT found to have occurred.

radar said...

I highly recommend "Morphed" as a source of constant mirth. Animals just magically decide to develop longer tongues, shorter noses, thumblike knobs, fins, wings, feathers, etc. They do it because they are hungry or cold or hot or constantly being eaten. Evolution-the-word, as used in the series, might as well be replaced with magic. The show would be just as evidential. Look on your NatGeo channel to find it. Walt Disney would be proud!

Anonymous said...

Animals just magically decide to develop longer tongues, shorter noses, thumblike knobs, fins, wings, feathers, etc.

Is this what is suggested by "Morphed"?


lava

Anonymous said...

Radar,

do you think that according to current understanding of biology and the theory of evolution it is expected (or even possible) for bacteria to evolve into non-bacteria in an experiment?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Speciation, or microevolution, takes place all the time. That's how we select for qualities that make various breeds of dogs, for instance. It is part of the design feature of organisms."

Just so there's no "equivocation".

"It is impossible to have a logical discussion with people if there is no agreement on meanings of words, or with those who are dishonest with their terminology. Socrates, in Plato’s Phaedo, stated succinctly, ‘To use words wrongly and indefinitely is not merely an error in itself, it also creates evil in the soul.’"

mac⋅ro⋅ev⋅o⋅lu⋅tion
–noun Biology.

major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.


spe⋅ci⋅a⋅tion

the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.


spe·ci·a·tion
n.
The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary


mi·cro·ev·o·lu·tion

n. Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.
mi'cro·ev'o·lu'tion·ar'y adj.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Another card analogy - keep shuffling cards and playing fifty-two card pickup. Keep throwing them all over the house and then gathering them again. Eventually you will find the deck has become 50 or 51 cards instead of 52. A creationist would say, yep, the cards were designed to be 52 but if one is lost, they are still cards. The games you can play with them are different and more limited."

I don't get what you mean by this analogy. Are you suggesting that microevolution results in the loss of chromosomes?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Animals just magically decide to develop longer tongues, shorter noses, thumblike knobs, fins, wings, feathers, etc. They do it because they are hungry or cold or hot or constantly being eaten."

Is there anyone here who can see how a statement like this is compatible with a person who has the slightest understanding of the theory of evolution? Anyone?

Yet another clear indication that Radar is out of his depth on this subject... or this is some kind of elaborate hoax/parody.

-- creeper

Taxandrian said...

Oh boy!

Radar, do you even know what you are talking about? Or are you just parroting creationist claims hoping that eventually one will stick?
This whole article is so hopelessly confused that I actually don't know where to start. But the most important thing is that you didn't answer my question:

But if you insist; could you please explain WHY it's necessary for evolution to 'add information' within the DNA to be possible?
Also, could you clearly define the term 'information'?


Here's what I'm asking for:

- clearly define 'information' and how it can be quantified
- clearly define what "new" information is and how this can be verified.

Please answer these questions, along with references to experiments, sources or other data to substantiate them. Think carefully. Can you really back up what you're saying?

Taxandrian said...

creeper said:

Yet another clear indication that Radar is out of his depth on this subject... or this is some kind of elaborate hoax/parody.

To be honest: with each and every of Radar's articles, I suspect a little more Poe.

Anonymous said...

"You know, you Darwinists have been controlling the schools and spewing out your propaganda for many decades and still less than 4 out of 10 people (from a yahoo news story published saturday) believe in evolution."

And there is no opposing "propaganda" being "spewed" in the churches every Sunday?

Here's an interesting recent survey that puts it at 48%, and breaks it down by religion. Interesting how certain religious groups really pull down that average, isn't it?

This survey incidentally also puts to the lie your recurring claim that people believe in evolution just so they can live sinful atheistic lives. (Which is complete nonsense, of course.)

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Please answer these questions, along with references to experiments, sources or other data to substantiate them."

If Radar could, perhaps he would. But he can't, so he won't.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Furthermore, we keep finding animals and plants once thought to be long extinct and part of a chain of evolved creatures as we explore more of the world. How can such animals have evolved into something else when they are still the same thing they were when buried in the Flood?"

Again, one of those palm-to-the-face moments where Radar makes it clear he doesn't have a single solitary clue about the subject he is attempting to critique.

Radar, haven't you claimed repeatedly that you studied evolution and found the evidence for it lacking? How is such a claim compatible with the ignorance of the very subject of evolution that you put on display here?

Evolution is not a straight line with a set goal at the end. It branches all over the place, depending on environmental and other factors. For starters, you could read up on allopatric speciation.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Honest Darwinists would admit that evolution has been tested in bacteria populations and NOT found to have occurred."

Honest people of any stripe would acquaint themselves with the subject and verify such a claim before making it. Evolution has been tested in bacteria populations and found to have occurred.

Honest people would go to google and do a search on, say -

bacteria speciation experiments

- and find a number of experiments where evolution was tested in bacteria and found to have occurred.

Honest people who made claims such as the above statement made by Radar would then retract it.

But as Radar will no doubt demonstrate once again by not retracting this claim, he is not an honest person and will instead cling to his erroneous statement in plain view of opposing evidence.

Don't feel bound by that, Radar. You are, of course, free to be an honest man (free will and all that) and retract erroneous statements.

-- creeper

radar said...

WHO is dishonest?

1) The definition of information is contained in this post. How did you miss it?

2) I mentioned the difference between microevolution and macroevolution during the post.

3) I posted three different articles on bacterial studies that considered various aspects of the results as evidence before I made this posting. So I am not making anything out of whole cloth, just concluding after presenting facts.

YES, if bacteria will not turn into anything but bacteria even after 100,000 generations, then why should anyone with brains and common sense think that a T-Rex would turn into a turkey? It is you Darwinists who believe in a fairy tale. It is you who assert that evolution has driven all these supposed changes in the animal world, so you and I both know darned well fruit flies and bacteria were chosen to demonstrate this because they can produce hundreds and thousands of generations quickly.

But you still have bacteria and fruit flies and you always will. Animals have not evolved. Many species died off as a result of the Biblical flood and its aftermath. Many kinds speciated to fit the environment, leaving some available species either buried in the genetic code or lost from it altogether. Some kinds have remained unchanged. What we see today is what has always been in operation: Animal kinds speciate according to environmental pressures or human manipulation as they can within the bounds of information already contained within the genome. Darwinists have found no answer for that information, where it came from and how more of it could be added. So they close ranks and claim it has already been decided. YOU guys be honest for once and either show me where the information comes from or admit you just don't know.

Only by adding information would you get new body structures or organs.

Finally, you are getting wearisome with your charges that I don't "understand" evolution. You know quite well that I understand it. The dogmatic natural selection making changes in populations by means of selecting favorable mutations or gene transfers, etc? Maybe that still buffaloes college freshmen.

But, as I have successfully asserted, without a process that ADDS information you cannot have an eye spot develop, let alone an eye. You cannot see feathers "appear" from no feathers.

The show, "Morphed", talks about how animals "evolved" various organs or major changes to their structure because they were hungry or the conditions changed. Frankly, no explanation that didn't sound magical was included in the presentation. Just a bunch of fact-free propaganda.

No, loss of information doesn't mean losing chromosomes. It means losing specific small portions of the DNA chain that contain the information associated with traits available to the organism. This is commonly and purposely done in animal husbandry. You breed out traits you do not prefer and breed in traits you do, thus in the process culling out some genetic information within the population.

Taxandrian said...

Oh. My. Xenu.

Just when you think it can't get any worse. Not ever since Kent Hovind went to sing the Jailhouse Rock I have seen such a display of ignorance regarding the Theory of Evolution and natural selection.
I cannot bear it anymore. And nor can my monitor, it seems, as it almost exploded when that last comment was displayed.

Radar, it seems you really spilled the beans now. After reading that comment there can be only two options: either you play ignorant or you are genuinely ignorant.

So I call Poe's Law.
Come on Radar, come out now and admit that you really are an atheist evolutionist, and that this blog actually is one giant hoax to make fundie Young Earth Creationists look ridiculous.
Really Radar, you MUST say it. It's too much to bear. And I REALLY HOPE this was all a joke.

Because the alternative is far, far worse. It would mean that Creeper was right all the time: that you really don't have a clue. And that would be quite sad.
I'd much rather admit that I've been had all the time by a hoax than having to believe that you were serious all the time.

So come on Radar, give me some reassurance!

Anonymous said...

"WHO is dishonest?"

Well, you, on account of your refusal to retract your claim that you backed up your claim that up to 11% of the prison population are Christians, for starters.

We could add your dishonest claim that evolution has never been observed in bacteria in experiments when a simple google search will get you a bunch of those. Perhaps this was simple ignorance on your part up to this point, but now that you've been made aware of it, I for one do not accept that you're not capable of doing simple searches on the Internet.

Here is a link with some examples of speciation. It's not the kind of exciting "grow an arm" nonsense that you want to see, but then that is definitely not something one would expect to see on a human timescale according to the theory of evolution.

(And actually, howling that "bacteria are still bacteria" etc. may make you fit in on a YEC discussion board, but it also makes you look like a fool when it comes to demonstrating an understanding of biology.)

"1) The definition of information is contained in this post. How did you miss it?"

It's not a definition that indicates how it can be quantified, which is essential if you want to discuss whether information is added or subtracted, gained or lost.

"2) I mentioned the difference between microevolution and macroevolution during the post."

Neither term appears once in this post. You mention speciation here and there, and it appears from your comments that you think it's microevolution instead of macroevolution. Which is wrong. To help you out, I've provided the correct definitions.

"3) I posted three different articles on bacterial studies that considered various aspects of the results as evidence before I made this posting. So I am not making anything out of whole cloth, just concluding after presenting facts."

Yes, and it's wrong to conclude a universal negative based on limited samples. This is a logical fault that was pointed out to you more than once.

"YES, if bacteria will not turn into anything but bacteria even after 100,000 generations, then why should anyone with brains and common sense think that a T-Rex would turn into a turkey?"

In the same way that bacteria are still bacteria, T-Rexes and turkeys are also still eukaryotes...

"It is you Darwinists who believe in a fairy tale. It is you who assert that evolution has driven all these supposed changes in the animal world, so you and I both know darned well fruit flies and bacteria were chosen to demonstrate this because they can produce hundreds and thousands of generations quickly.

But you still have bacteria and fruit flies and you always will."


Radar, bacteria are not a species, but a domain. They are a profoundly different kind of life from just about everything that you and I see. To change into something other than bacteria, they would have to turn into single-celled organisms or eukaryotes. Bacteria are not just little animals.

To claim that this is not only possible but that it is what one would expect the theory of evolution to predict is to display such an extreme lack of understanding of biology and the theory of evolution that it instantly disqualifies you from any even cursory discussion of either subject and frankly would earn you a well-justified F in any biology class (and I'm not talking college level).

It is not just like insisting that 2 + 2 = 5, but that 2 + 2 = the color purple. That's how completely off the mark it is.

"Animals have not evolved. Many species died off as a result of the Biblical flood and its aftermath."

I thought the Bible said they were all saved in Noah's Ark.

"Many kinds speciated to fit the environment, leaving some available species either buried in the genetic code or lost from it altogether. Some kinds have remained unchanged."

Excuse me, but what makes you think some kinds speciated and some remained unchanged? Could you name some examples?

"What we see today is what has always been in operation: Animal kinds speciate according to environmental pressures or human manipulation as they can within the bounds of information already contained within the genome."

You've stated this hypothesis a few times already. Are "creation scientists" testing this hypothesis with testable predictions, i.e. if the genome is completely front-loaded and contains all the information that will ever be needed, then does it contain not just all the genetic information of the past, but also a whole bunch that we haven't seen yet, i.e. for any and all potential use in the future?

See, that's what "creation scientists" would do if they took their own claims seriously: research them instead of trying to take potshots at the theory of evolution and quoting bible verses.

"Darwinists have found no answer for that information, where it came from and how more of it could be added. So they close ranks and claim it has already been decided. YOU guys be honest for once and either show me where the information comes from or admit you just don't know.

Only by adding information would you get new body structures or organs."


As far as I understand, information is generally added as a result of DNA replication errors.

"Finally, you are getting wearisome with your charges that I don't "understand" evolution. You know quite well that I understand it."

On the contrary, we know that you don't, since some of your statements make it clear that you struggle greatly with understanding some basic concepts both in the area of biology and the theory of evolution. They are quite simply incompatible with a person who understands these subjects, allowing us to deduce that you are not such a person.

"The dogmatic natural selection making changes in populations by means of selecting favorable mutations or gene transfers, etc? Maybe that still buffaloes college freshmen.

But, as I have successfully asserted, without a process that ADDS information you cannot have an eye spot develop, let alone an eye. You cannot see feathers "appear" from no feathers."


You've successfully asserted this, have you? Well, you've made the claim, but you can't pat yourself on the back for any accomplishment beyond that. So far, you've failed to even define the terms of discussion on which you could then try to demonstrate your claim. Answer Taxandrian's question: how will you quantify information so that one can determine whether it is gained or lost?

"The show, "Morphed", talks about how animals "evolved" various organs or major changes to their structure because they were hungry or the conditions changed. Frankly, no explanation that didn't sound magical was included in the presentation. Just a bunch of fact-free propaganda."

I haven't seen the show, so I don't know how it's presented, but I'm guessing your bias is showing here ("sound magical").

What I would like to know is: are you saying that the show actually claimed that animals "magically decide" to evolve? It sounds like your own silly interpretation, but if that specific claim is made in the show, I'd like to know.

"No, loss of information doesn't mean losing chromosomes. It means losing specific small portions of the DNA chain that contain the information associated with traits available to the organism. This is commonly and purposely done in animal husbandry. You breed out traits you do not prefer and breed in traits you do, thus in the process culling out some genetic information within the population."

Two things:

1. What do you mean by "losing specific small portions of the DNA chain"? Chromosomes are "specific small portions of the DNA chain". What, other than chromosomes, are you referring to here? What, other than chromosomes, do you think is getting lost?

2. When a farmer breeds a cow that, for example, provides more milk, and another that, for example, provides more meat, that is an addition to the gene pool, not a loss.

3. You've talked up this whole "loss of information" bit, but really failed completely to explain what you mean by it. That's why it is significant that you failed to answer Taxandrian's question.

Please explain, in your own words, what you think happens when, as a hypothetical example, a farmer breeds a chicken that lays bigger eggs. What is the information that you think is lost?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Taxandrian,

"So come on Radar, give me some reassurance!"

I've tried to get some reassurance from him that he understood basic logic issues (see "fallacy of division"), but instead he called me a jerk and ran away.

Not a parody. He's the real thing.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Two things:" - turned into "Three things:", btw.

-- creeper