Search This Blog

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Information part three - the LIE

Preface: To have a complete and logical belief system concerning origins, you need to have a narrative that explains the beginning of all time and matter. In other words, where does all the stuff come from? Creationists do have an explanation and a narrative. God created all things and all time. He recorded this in Genesis so that mankind would have a record of the events. In fact, He reveals not only how things came to be but why things came to be. The Young Earth Creationist has an account of beginnings as a guidebook to help understand the evidence available in the world around us. The numerous fulfilled prophecies in the Bible and the millions of lives changed by the Spirit of God in addition to the testimony of Jesus Christ and the prophets within the Bible give us evidence that the Bible is a reliable source of truth and a Creator God's message to mankind. It just so happens that evidence seen in the fossil record and within organisms and in the heavens fit nicely into the Bible narrative.

Those who prefer not to believe that God created have a lot of unexplained problems, but three words represent three massive problems they must deal with: Life, Information and Energy. They do make a very nice acronym, no?

Life: The structure and composition of a living frog and a dead frog are alike. What makes the living frog alive? What exactly is life and where did it come from? Naturalist materialistic scientists have no good answer for this. Pay attention to what they say about it for they do not have an actual explanation. Anything they say will boil down to "by some means."

Van Helmont tried to "prove" that living mice sprung from dirty underwear and wheat left in a bowl for three weeks. Science can be far away from truth. Pasteur once and for all proved that all life comes from life - Omne vivum ex ovo - in 1864. We call this the Law of Biogenesis.

Since evolution depends on chance to advance life forms, what explanation has it for the beginning of life? Particularly since science has "proven" that life could not have come from non-life.

Information: We will talk on this in the post following the quick look at energy.

Energy: Since the entire Universe is a story of energy being converted to entropy, who or what supplied the original energy, much of which is now entropy? Some postulate a Big Bang as a beginning to all things, but an explosion requires energy and matter to occur. To postulate that a big explosion that came from nothing and nowhere and with no cause as the beginning of all things and all life is tantamount to believing in magic.

That a superior being could conceive of and create both everything and nothing and create time is far more logical than the idea that everything just magically sprung into being. That the Universe and all biologicals show evidence of consistency, logic and design is evidence of a Creator, not a chance event.

~~~~~~~

What is Information? I presented the dictionary definition in a previous post and followed up with a sequel. Let us begin part three with another analogy to help those still struggling to grasp the concept.

Suppose we have one of those little notepads and an ink pen. Suppose you would like a shopping list to take to the store and I know a few things that need to be picked up. Well, that notepad and that ink pen are sitting on the kitchen table. According to the way naturalistic materialistic scientists think of things, that list is going to write itself. But it won't. You can wait a thousand years. The ink pen will dry up and the notepad crumble to dust, if they aren't tossed into a trash can first. But that list will not magically appear. If you come to get your list, you will find a blank notepad and an unused pen, which will tell you nothing about what to get at the store.

If I put the notepad and pen on a weigh scale, I will get a reading. For the sake of argument, let's say they weigh 0.7 pounds. Now suppose I write out a shopping list on the note pad:

Tea
Parmesan Cheese
Dog Chewies
Can of WD-40
Bananas

Now you know what to get at the store. Guess what? If I put the notepad and the ink pen back on the weigh scale, it will still weigh 0.7 pounds. I did not add significant weight or mass to the system that is ink pen and note pad. I merely added information. But now the notepad is a message that transmits information. What changed? An intelligent (somewhat, since it was me!) source added information. Information, which has no apparent weight and is cannot be defined as being material, has nevertheless changed the system that is notepad and ink pen and made it considerably more complex.

What happened is that an intelligent being transmitted intelligence and transferred it into the material world. I did not create or destroy any matter and there was no apparent change to the physical composition of pen and notepad. But I used my own energy to input information into this system.

Evolutionists have no explanation for information. They would have you believe that lobbing a bomb into a cornfield would produce a three bedroom house fully equipped with wiring and plumbing. They would have you believe something even more ridiculous, that existence itself just popped up with no cause.

Now, back to the pen and notepad. A great forensic scientist might find a fingerprint on the pen that matches mine and therefore identify me as the writer. Perhaps I left a bit of myself in terms of that print behind, and perhaps a bit of liquid from the ink evaporated into the air, thus changing the system ever so slightly. In any event, my fingerprint is evidence that the information left on the notepad was produced by a person, me.

DNA. The Bible. The remarkable fine-tuning of natural law to allow for our existence and, in fact, logical laws. These are evidences for a Designer.

You naturalistic materialists out there, what is your explanation for the very complex information found in every cell of your body, in every living thing?! Do you have anything that doesn't sound like a fairy tale?

~~~~~~~

LIE - Life, Information and Energy. Naturalistic Materialistic scientists cannot lie their way past these three gigantic obstacles to the fairy tale that is macroevolution and a natural explanation for existence as we now know it.

62 comments:

Anonymous said...

Since evolution depends on chance to advance life forms, what explanation has it for the beginning of life?

We are back here again? Seriously? What effect does a lack of an explanation of an origin of life have on evolution?

lava

Anonymous said...

nice to have you back radar

lava

Anonymous said...

They (evolutionists) would have you believe something even more ridiculous, that existence itself just popped up with no cause.

No. Since when did evolution try and explain the origins and conclude there was no "cause"?

lava

Anonymous said...

I was thinking some more about the quote I posted in the comment above. I have some questions.

When you are talking about "evolutionists'" beliefs, what do you mean? Are you talking about the entire set of beliefs "evolutionists" have about everything? If so, are you trying to say every person who believes in evolution thinks existence just "popped up with no cause"? Or you could mean that a belief in evolution requires a belief that existence "popped up with no cause". Either way, you are wrong.

Also, what do you really mean by "cause" in that quote?

lava

radar said...

My readers, you have been subjected to a non-stop stream of propaganda from the time you could recognize your native tongue. In magazines and newspapers, in textbooks and movies, on television programs and radio broadcasts the drumbeat has gone on - millions of years, evolution, adaption...Humanist tenets presented as scientific fact while the ideas being represented are based on assumptions that have no factual basis.

I suspect many of you have been so thoroughly brainwashed that you cannot even conceive of another point of view. Many of you think evolution (macroevolution, being precise) is proven fact while it is actually a supposition that has failed every test process so far. Many of you believe that the topology of the planet is a result of millions of years of wear and erosion and other changes rather than a catastrophic world-wide flood. You believe and therefore do not explore the issues to see if the beliefs are supported by the facts.

But, back to information. I am waiting for any kind of explanation at all for how it came to be and where it came from...

Anonymous said...

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

Anonymous said...


1) Evolution needs to explain where life came from whether you like it or not, otherwise what is the point? God made a single-cell creature and then split the scene?


Radar, you said you were going to cover this a few posts back. You still haven't.

You keep stating evolution doesn't provide an explanation for the origin of life. I don't think anyone is debating that. I think that has been covered quite a few times in the comments. Why are you so fixated on this point? Why is it important?

lava

highboy said...

Radar you're argument has to do with cosmology not evolution.

chaos_engineer said...

Wow, what a lot of semantic quibbling! Just to allow the discussion to continue, maybe we could agree to re-define "Evolution"? Let's say that it means "Every field of study that implies that the world is more than 6,000 years old, including Astronomy, Geology, Biology, Archeology, History, Mainstream Theology, etc, etc."

Under this definition, "Evolution" does encompass the question of how life started.

Of course, the answer is: "We don't know. It's very hard to research, and it's quite likely that we'll never come up with a good answer. There's circumstantial evidence that it had something to do with self-catalyzing chemical reactions."

But is that a problem? "Evolution" has never claimed to have all the answers.

And I think we have to admit that Creationists don't have all the answers, either. The first unsolved puzzle shows up in Genesis 1:3-5. Who created Darkness? The verses clearly show that God named it, but He didn't create it or see that it was good. By the process of elimination, we can figure out that Darkness was created by one of the Nameless Horrors that lurks in the Spaces Between, but then that just raises more questions than it answers.

Here's another puzzle for Creationists: How did predators come into being after the Fall? I found some links to a research paper:

Pharyngula has a well-formatted version but he makes fun of it. The same text is also available in the original context but it's in an inconvenient format...scroll down to the "P6" section of the PDF.

The author identifies 6 possible answers. He rules out 4 of them, but I think his reasoning is weak in a couple of cases. (This might be an interesting topic for discussion!) Anyway, the point is that even state-of-the-art Creationist research hasn't been able to solve this problem. The solution is obvious if you use an Evolutionary model.

radar said...

Not a fan of long answers in comment threads, however, the main point is that one ought to have a consistent world view. Theistic evolution depends on God to make all the stuff and then make the first life and just let chance take over from there. It turns God into nothing other than a springboard for existence rather than a Creator and Ruler.

A pure naturalistic evolutionist needs to have an explanation for existence and life and not just a story about how little simple life became big complex life. Otherwise you are depending on God to get you started and then saying you don't need Him around anymore nor even admit to His existence. Inconsistent and illogical thinking.

So, you can pretend that science does not have to explain the beginning of all things and the beginning of life in order to sustain the concept of evolution but I disagree.

Creationists have no problems with a beginning to either existence or of life. The same God who created the Universe designed life, and did it so well that we continue to learn from the original Workman. For instance, the military now has an unmanned drone in the works that took aspects from the design of a pterodactyl to be a more effective flying machine within the parameters of its task. The Pterodrone is another example of good science (accomplishing something worthwhile) which is typical of scientific study before the atheistic bent of evolutionist thought began throwing billions of dollars toward proving fairy tales.

I live fairly close to an atomic collider unit that is now being used to hurl matter at antimatter in hopes of finding alternate/parallel universes. Millions of dollars are being spent in the effort. The SETI project eats up multiple millions looking for design in outer space while the men who conceived of it ignore and make excuses for the obvious design found within every living creature.

If and when science quits playing with blocks squeaky toys and focuses all efforts on treating cancers and diseases and making better, more efficient machines (which is being done in part now) then mankind will greatly benefit. Right now science is part real observation and experimentation and part Disneyworld (Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hutchens are among the chief ticket-takers).

That Darkness comment isn't serious, right?

radar said...

Oh, and while recovering I have watched a ton of evolution-tilted shows like "Morphed" that are truly hilarious. The narration always uses the word "adapted" to describe the feature sets of various animals without explaining how such "adaptions" happen (since they are never observed). The usually some cautionary sermon on global warming is added near the end while a forlorn-looking Polar Bear clings to a small iceberg. Hahahahaha!

Evolutionists have never demonstrated adaptions, merely variation within kind as Mendelian genetics would describe.

Polar Bear populations are growing and worldwide temperatures are falling.

Yet, the drumbeat of evolution and global warming keeps on. Propaganda is only effective if it is constant. If you keep telling the same lies over and over they will be believed.

Anonymous said...

Have we moved on since you posted about your dogs? I'll keep it short then.

Theistic evolution depends on God to make all the stuff and then make the first life and just let chance take over from there. It turns God into nothing other than a springboard for existence rather than a Creator and Ruler.


A pure naturalistic evolutionist needs to have an explanation for existence and life and not just a story about how little simple life became big complex life. Otherwise you are depending on God to get you started and then saying you don't need Him around anymore nor even admit to His existence. Inconsistent and illogical thinking.


First, your reasoning for theistic vs. pure evolutionists...seems like the same explanation to me. How does a pure evolutionist depend on God in the beginning- I though pure didn't need God?


An evolutionist (defined as one who believes in evolution) doesn't need an answer to the origins of everything to believe in evolution.



lava

radar said...

Lava,

Since the evolutionist has abandoned God, what explanation does he have for the origin of life and the origin of the Universe? Does he just ignore those issues and move on from some mythical "simple" one-celled life form that magically appeared in a magically formed Universe?

Anonymous said...

Radar,

See Chaos' comment above:

Of course, the answer is: "We don't know. It's very hard to research, and it's quite likely that we'll never come up with a good answer. There's circumstantial evidence that it had something to do with self-catalyzing chemical reactions."

One cannot answer your question about "the evolutionist" because a belief in evolution doesn't require a certain explanation of the origins. Thus, "the evolutionist" doesn't have one single belief about the origin of life.

As one person who believes in evolution, I can say I have no idea. I'd love to know. A God may have created everything. A God may have created that God. God may have set everything in place, including evolution, to the point when the first life was created he knew I would be here typing this comment on this blog right now. There may be some meta type answer out there about us not really existing or about not really being able to comprehend time and there is no beginning. Basically, who knows?


lava

scohen said...

"I live fairly close to an atomic collider unit that is now being used to hurl matter at antimatter in hopes of finding alternate/parallel universes"

Your lack of understanding of physics almost eclipses your lack of understanding of biology. You have grossly misrepresented the work of particle physicists.

You obviously feel particle physics is wasted effort, yet the delicious irony is you're typing this on a machine that requires a tremendous understanding of how electrons flow, which is a direct result of our research into particle physics!

You know, now that I'm thinking about it, your position really irritates me, especially when you see what real advances are directly attributable to particle physics. Your thinking would deny the world *all of this*.

Research is research, and as such, it don't know where it's going to lead until it gets there. The laser didn't have *any* practical use for decades after it was invented, yet now it's core to so many things.

Radar, I beg of you, please stop advocating ignorance. You'll look a lot better if you do.

Also, believe it or not, the Discovery channel is not the pinnacle of information about evolution or pretty much anything else. If you really want to watch decent educational science television, NOVA is pretty much it. I too groan when I watch stuff on Discovery. It's crap.

p.s. Did you just say "atomic collider unit"? I assume you mean Fermilab.

radar said...

"Your lack of understanding of physics almost eclipses your lack of understanding of biology. You have grossly misrepresented the work of particle physicists."

Blah blah blah. This continual habit of commenters resorting to charges of ignorance. It is the kind of thing you say in a debate when you have not figured out what to say yet.

Did I say Fermilab ONLY searches for parallel universes? No. I said it was a waste of money and time and effort to do that particular thing. I think particle physicists in general are continuing the work of Einstein and other great minds before them, getting closer and closer to understanding the awesome work of God.

Feynman said "I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics... In fact, it is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. Some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it, in fact, is that it is unquestionably correct."

Rather than advocating ignorance, as you do by pretending that God cannot be and cannot be considered as a factor in science, I am for seeking the truth wherever it leads.

Neils Bohr said, "Anyone who isn't shocked by quantum physics has not understood it."

I assume you are familiar with the EPR paradox and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? If you can explain how particles all seem to be connected and "communicate" at faster-than-light speeds or can explain how a particle can be a wave then you will have solved the problem of the hidden variable theory and THEN you can tell me how you know so much more about Physics. Better if you quit calling names and just had a dialogue with me, maybe?

I must make a post on this, this comment is getting too long. But there is a reason Richard Feynman said this, because science is getting closer to looking at God's fingerprints on the Universe and the boundaries of man's ability to understand.

Physicists have established a number of a length that cannot be divided any further. They have found forces within atoms they are unable to attribute effectively.

Meanwhile, my premise remains. Evolution has been tested and found to not actually happen. Nothing any of you have said has overturned that statement.

scohen said...

"Since the evolutionist has abandoned God, what explanation does he have for the origin of life and the origin of the Universe?"

Who says someone who accepts evolution has abandoned god? Some people that accept evolution believe in god and some don't. It's not like atheism is a prerequisite for accepting evolution. I'll trod out my old war-horse of 77% of the Jewish population here.

This reminds me of creeper's mustache analogy.

scohen said...

"I am for seeking the truth wherever it leads."

No, you are not. You are for cutting off all "non-operational" science that doesn't have measurable benefit right now.

"I assume you are familiar with the EPR paradox and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?"

Of course I am. They're elementary.

"can explain how a particle can be a wave then you will have solved the problem of the hidden variable theory and THEN you can tell me how you know so much more about Physics."

A particle behaves as a point in macro scale (and in aggregate) and as a wave in quantum scale. Quantum physics is crazy and incredible.

Are you saying that the only way to show that I know more about physics than you do is to do actual high-level physics? That's absolutely insane from someone who thinks that many worlds is anything other than a hypothesis.
Would I need to solve fermat's last theorem before I proved I know math than you? Are you a physicist?

"Physicists have established a number of a length that cannot be divided any further."

I assume you're talking about a planck length. What's your point here? (Incidentally, you are incorrect, you can subdivide space into a smaller unit than a planck length, you just can't learn anything about it.)

"They have found forces within atoms they are unable to attribute effectively."

Which is why they do particle physics! They do this to gain knowledge about how the universe works, whereas you'd limit the experiments based on what is immediately useful --limiting our knowledge. Would you have them attribute the Higgs field to God? Tear down the LHC, God did it!

"Evolution has been tested and found to not actually happen."

If you're talking about the experiments performed on bacteria and on why they didn't evolve into other creatures, then I have to say you are quite mistaken. Evolution would not predict that an organism would evolve from prokaryotic to eukaryotic in twenty years --let alone from a single cell to a multicellular organism. If such a thing did happen, it would instantly disprove the model of evolution. Incidentally, you've been told this before and still bring it up.

Odd that.

"Rather than advocating ignorance, as you do by pretending that God cannot be and cannot be considered as a factor in science, I am for seeking the truth wherever it leads."

Again, when has god ever been useful as an explanation in science?

This question, still unanswered, has been asked of you for three years now. I would think you'd stop bringing it up by now.

radar said...

I think non-operational science is necessary but that far too much resource is pointed in that direction. Shouldn't we be doing 95% research that benefits mankind and 5% Don Quixote at most?

No point arguing Plank length since you are quibbling semantically. It cannot be divided practically or in reality in any way that is meaningful according to current thought and therefore represents a boundary.

Theoretically you can imagine THE PLANCK LENGTH divided in two but practically it apparently cannot be done and be measurable. I have seen a reasonable argument that one can measure an even smaller length involving silicon in crystal form but not individually. The point is that a limit gets reached eventually.

What is the definition of Universe? I would argue that a formula may show the existence of other DIMENSIONS but by definition there is but one Universe within which all things are contained. Fermilab is spending a lot of time finding a thing that does not exist by my reasoning. All matter as we know is contained within the space-time entity we describe as the Universe and cannot be created nor destroyed nor smashed into another dimension.

Thank you for showing us you have understanding of Physics. Thank you for responding with facts. If you could just lose the disparaging tone and be entirely civil we would really be getting somewhere. Only God has all knowledge so that leaves both you and me lacking to some extent. Why can't we disagree without all the rancor?

Why do I harp on Discovery channel and History channel and Animal Planet and the like? Because these are the places the masses turn to for information. Joe Blow is not going to spend 18 hours watching the NASA feed to learn about a space mission, he is going to read a five paragraph summary on MSNBC or a mini-documentary on whatever channels his cable provider makes available. There he gets a constant barrage of propaganda woven in with evidence and film footage. I love the evidence and the film footage and ignore the propaganda and it can then be enjoyable. Sometimes just having the sound off is even better.

Anyway, lets try a respectful conversation.

Point one - if tens of thousands of generations of bacteria do not evolve, how can we believe man evolved since we cannot have had tens of thousands of generations of longer-lived organisms such as man?

Point two - If the Universe contains all matter and energy, how can there be a parallel Universe? We have to change the definition of Universe or change our terminology.

scohen said...

"Shouldn't we be doing 95% research that benefits mankind and 5% Don Quixote at most?"

How can you tell which types of research will bear "beneficial" fruit before you start? Again, lasers had no practical use for decades, yet now they're indispensable. You harp on particle physics, but now we have PET scanners, which use antimatter to locate tumors. You also cited a new predator drone as a benefit to mankind --couldn't it be argued that weapons systems aren't a benefit at all? Isn't it enough to expand humans' knowledge of how the universe, our planet and life works?

"Fermilab is spending a lot of time finding a thing that does not exist by my reasoning."

They are testing hypotheses. What if they find the extra dimensions? Should they check with you first before performing experiments? No offense, but why should your reasoning make any difference to a scientist who knows so much more than you do? Personally, I see nothing wrong with trying to prove/disprove hypotheses using experiments. It might not make intuitive sense that your velocity affects your mass, but through experimentation, we've learned that it does. Your reasoning might not indicate that standing next to a mountain makes your watch tick more slowly, but simple experiments show that it does. Intuitive reasoning fails so readily in the face of reality. Experimentation is how we discover reality.

"Only God has all knowledge so that leaves both you and me lacking to some extent."

If only we could just have God explain quantum physics, then we'd get somewhere! Aside from that happening (not holding my breath there) we quest for knowledge using the tools at our disposal: science.

"History channel and Animal Planet and the like? Because these are the places the masses turn to for information"

That's a crying shame. It's also irrelevant. If they broadcast inaccurate information, you can't use that against science. Also, I watched a web episode of morphed (and it sucked) but it clearly had dates above the fossils, and they were several millions of years apart. Again, if you want to watch a science show that doesn't treat you like you're a moron, NOVA and NOVA Science Now! are on every week. Discover magazine is also not terrible.

"Point one - if tens of thousands of generations of bacteria do not evolve"

They *did* evolve the ability to digest citrate. The bacteria in your leg evolved drug resistance. That too is evolution. What would be unexpected and unsupported by evolutionary theory is if bacteria evolved into a totally different type of life in 20 years. No one credible claims that bacteria can evolve into a different organism so quickly.

"Point two - If the Universe contains all matter and energy, how can there be a parallel Universe? We have to change the definition of Universe or change our terminology."

Yes, it's just semantics. Our universe contains all matter and energy with which we can interact. There might be more matter and energy in other universes, but we can't interact with it. M-brane theory has reasons for this, but at present, it's more of a hypothesis than a theory, and a totally untested one at that.

scohen said...

Oh, and what you term "propoganda" is really "the best explanations for phenomena we currently possess".

An old age for the earth and universe is non-controversial for most people, and the shows you cite are correct for using it. Feel free to watch with the sound off, but to me that's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing.

radar said...

scohen my friend/foe, I think my articles dispute whether being able to metabolize citrate constitutes evolution. But I appreciate your argument about the Universe and it is logical.

As to whether old ages are the best hypothesis? I will try to incorporate that into the next post. Old ages for rock formations are completely illogical and I think I can pretty well prove it to those who are not unwilling to have an open mind. Let's just see...

radar said...

---and if we cannot interact with another universe why does Fermilabs spend millions in a vain attempt to do it?

Anonymous said...

"Blah blah blah. This continual habit of commenters resorting to charges of ignorance. It is the kind of thing you say in a debate when you have not figured out what to say yet."

Don't flatter yourself. It is also the kind of thing you say when faced with a person displaying ignorance.

So remarking on your ignorance is a "habit of commenters", is it? Do you think that scohen, lava, chaos_engineer, myself and others go around various blogs and habitually accuse the blogger of ignorance?

Or do you think it's possible that there is something about your posts that makes us occasionally make remarks along these lines?

Stunning ignorance is one of the prime characteristics of your blog, Kimbal. (Inability to handle questions and responses being another big one.) You recently claimed in several successive posts that the fact that bacteria don't evolve into something other than bacteria amounts to a falsification of the theory of evolution, thus demonstrating awe-inspiring gaps in your basic knowledge of biology and the theory of evolution (and basic reasoning) that would make a high school student blush.

When the errors in your claims were clearly and repeatedly pointed out to you, did you attempt to understand them? Or did you keep trumpeting your ignorant claim?

It wouldn't be so bad if your ignorance was accompanied by a level of humility that most ignorant people would find appropriate, instead of the hubris you display by putting your ignorance on a pedestal as some kind of triumph (e.g. bacteria evolution). If at least you had some awareness of what knowledge you were lacking, you could make some progress and, you know, learn something once in a while.

-- creeper

radar said...

Bad creeper! Accusing me of ignorance while twisting my arguments. I not only said bacteria did not evolve into something else (which would be required within tens of thousands of generations if life does evolve at all) but also said that no two mutations ever survive together, making the natural selection by mutation model void.

You call me ignorant but you have no facts to back it up. I presented the facts and you cannot refute them. So you call me stupid. Nice. Any onlooking reader (there are quite a few that drop in and read but do not comment) can see the paucity of your comments.

scohen said...

"I not only said bacteria did not evolve into something else (which would be required within tens of thousands of generations if life does evolve at all"

Why do you think this? Where does any modern biological theory state that an organism is *required* to evolve within a certain amount of time or a certain number of generations?

To put it in perspective, 10,000 generations of humans would be around 200,000 years. Humans have been on the planet for about 10x that.

And to the best of my knowledge, Fermilab does *not* spend money finding other universes. Other universes and dimensions are at present a theoretical construct in several physical models (string theory, m-brane theory). Fermilab is at present working to find the higgs boson, trying to do it before the LHC comes on line.

scohen said...

"---and if we cannot interact with another universe why does Fermilabs spend millions in a vain attempt to do it?"

We can't interact with another universe's *matter*. String theory stipulates that gravitons (the hypothetical carrier particle for gravitational force) are made up of unbound strings and can pass through branes. This explains why gravity is such a weak force, but also provides a way to communicate and interact with another universe... through gravity. If string theory is correct, it is theoretically possible to create a gravity phone and communicate with other universes, though practical limitations would make this difficult.

Now, string theory is not substantiated by *anything* other than extremely advanced mathematics at present, so while it's intriguing, it's not science.

Actually, when we were having the integral discussion, I considered bringing out the really big guns. One of my work acquaintances is married to Ed Witten's daughter. Yes, the same Ed Witten who won the fields medal *by accident* due to his work in string theory. I figured he'd be unassailable as a mathematical commentator, though I had serious doubts that he'd deign to answer a question about a simple nonsense integral.

radar said...

Maybe your big gun would like to comment on the world population. If you analyze population growth, then it is almost impossible to imagine mankind has been on earth even 10,000 years.

In 1927 we reached the 1 Billion mark in population. In 1999 it was up to 6 Billion. Extrapolate that back for me, please, and explain where you get 200,000 years? How about closer to 5,000?

radar said...

Fermilabs was trying to "lose" a subatomic particle in hopes of proving or at least postulating that said particle had been sent to a parallel universe while colliding matter and anti-matter, according to the documentary. Either the documentary was mistaken or Fermilabs was at that time working on seeking evidence of a parallel universe.

scohen said...

"Maybe your big gun would like to comment on the world population. If you analyze population growth, then it is almost impossible to imagine mankind has been on earth even 10,000 years."

Don't be silly, humanity's growth follows an exponential growth curve, just like every other population ever.
You can't just extrapolate them back and assume linear growth. Modern growth curves are totally unlike ancient growth curves which had to deal with rampant untreated disease, massive infant mortality, a lack of agriculture and many other variables that retard unfettered growth. The rates you see today are basically the result of humans completely removing selective pressure against them.

Again, this is so elementary that I don't feel the need to bother Witten. Besides, I'd rather just talk to him about physics (talk being a euphemism, I'd likely sit agape while he talked).

I can go into more depth about how exponential growth works in populations if you like, but keep in mind that for a *long* time, the growth curve is very flat, then it explodes. That's one reason why humanity's growth is so concerning. It's not sustainable given our resources.

"Either the documentary was mistaken or Fermilabs was at that time working on seeking evidence of a parallel universe."

Or the documentary (care to provide a link?) was just trying to dumb it down enough for general consumption. Again, are we talking about additional dimensions or parallel universes? According to string theory, a particle cannot physically travel to a parallel universe, so if that's what their experiment did (and I really don't think that it did) then it's actually putting string theory to an experimental test. This is a *very* good thing.

If it's talking about extra dimensions, then again, it was trying to put string theory to the test (string theory predicts 11 dimensions) and this is a good thing.

It's worth noting that the extra dimensions that string theory postulates are unbelievably small and 'curled up' from a topology perspective. They are meaningless in everyday life.

Why are you against putting the test to hypotheses? It's an electric bill to Fermilab, they get grants to do these experiments, and the experiments are scientifically valid. I'm confused as to why you care so much.

Anonymous said...

"In 1927 we reached the 1 Billion mark in population. In 1999 it was up to 6 Billion. Extrapolate that back for me, please, and explain where you get 200,000 years? How about closer to 5,000?"

Could you explain the extrapolation you used to arrive at 5,000?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Don't be silly, humanity's growth follows an exponential growth curve, just like every other population ever.
You can't just extrapolate them back and assume linear growth."


If it were a linear progression based on those two data points, mankind would have started up in the year 1912, about two years before the outbreak of World War I.

But seriously, Radar, how do you extrapolate "5,000 years ago" based on the data?

And why do I have a sneaking suspicion that this will get down to "because the Bible says so" real quick?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Bad creeper!"

Bad Radar!

Glad we got that out of our system.

"Accusing me of ignorance while twisting my arguments."

Accusing you of ignorance: oh yes, big-time. An ignorance so gobsmackingly huge that it renders you incapable of comprehending the arguments arrayed against you, even when they are presented to you in the most basic terms imaginable. It was you who posted a (cut-and-pasted) post on various aspects of logic but have repeatedly demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of both the fallacy of division and the fallacy of composition. It was you who failed to comprehend that the theory of evolution does not and could not and would not predict that bacteria would evolve into something other than bacteria, despite this being pointed out to you multiple times.

These are only some of the reasons why I/we accuse you of extreme ignorance of the subjects you are so vehement about.

Twisting your arguments? Go on...

"I not only said bacteria did not evolve into something else (which would be required within tens of thousands of generations if life does evolve at all)"

It's dang dificult to twist your arguments when they're so delightfully twisted to begin with. I mean, how could I possibly top "bacteria evolving into something else would be required within tens of thousands of generations if life does evolve at all"?

Radar/Kimbal, if you really are tired of being accused of being ignorant, how about indulging in at least some basic/perfunctory research into, say, the following subjects:

- the theory of evolution
- bacteria

Ask yourself what the theory of evolution actually does predict, given 10,000 generations of bacteria.

Ask yourself what bacteria actually are - and that "something other than bacteria" are.

I know this is a silly question on my part, given what I just said about the extent of your ignorance. I guess it's a rhetorical question.

Unlike what some posters have claimed, I don't think you're a parody... and that's not a good thing.

"but also said that no two mutations ever survive together, making the natural selection by mutation model void."

Could you explain what you mean by "no two mutations ever survive together"? It seems (stab in the dark here) you have some variant of irreducible complexity in mind, but you're coming at it from a pretty obscure angle.

"You call me ignorant but you have no facts to back it up."

No facts demonstrating your ignorance you mean? Um, you've demonstrated that in abundance, at the very least in your nonstop obtuseness regarding the easily comprehended fallacy of division. This was explained to you on the level where a 10-year-old would get it and yet, cue Radar's brain: nada. So consider your ignorance demonstrated.

Or did you mean facts demonstrating a particular point? Which one? It's not exactly difficult looking things up these days. Which facts do you think are lacking?

"I presented the facts and you cannot refute them."

Which "facts" can I not refute? I know this is squishy territory given that you claimed that bacteria should evolve into non-bacteria within 20 years according to the theory of evolution... but come on, give it a try.

"So you call me stupid."

Link? I don't recall calling you stupid.

"Nice."

1. I didn't call you stupid.

2. You called me a jerk.

Nice.

"Any onlooking reader (there are quite a few that drop in and read but do not comment) can see the paucity of your comments."

Calling all onlooking readers whose minds Radar purports to read: do pipe up and join the conversation. Anything you don't understand, just ask. If you observe paucity in my comments - let me know.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Radar,

I'll keep this short, bold, and numbered for your convenience.

1. Please explain why you think for evolution to be true bacteria must evolve into something else in 10,000 generations.

2. Please explain your population extrapolations and how you arrive at 5,000 years. You will probably need more than the 2 data points provided above.

3. Please explain the quote below
and how you'd set the standard if you controlled all science funding: "Shouldn't we be doing 95% research that benefits mankind and 5% Don Quixote at most?"


lava

scohen said...

"If it were a linear progression based on those two data points, mankind would have started up in the year 1912, about two years before the outbreak of World War I."

Well creeper, you can't prove that it didn't, can you? Ha, I have you there!

Honestly, I should have done some math to figure out how the YEC extrapolation works. I assumed a linear equation (they tend to make mistakes like that a lot), but I was wrong.

The worst math is no math.

Anonymous said...

"Well creeper, you can't prove that it didn't, can you? Ha, I have you there!"

You have indeed caught me with my finger in the sordid pie of "non-operational" science... I'm sick with embarrassment.

"The worst math is no math."

Like I said, Radar's "extrapolation" will soon lead us to "the Bible said so". Either that or continued evasion...

Later,

-- creeper

radar said...

Naturally population growth in humans does not move in linear fashion. Right now the growth resembles an exponential curve, although a cubic curve might be more accurate for the history of humanity as a whole. I will address this in detail later.

Tens of thousands of bacteria generations have not shown any macroevolution at all, let alone a bacteria turning into anything else. No two mutations that are not deleterious have been recorded as having happened in concert during this period. This falsifies the idea that natural selection via mutation has evolved any new systems or organisms ever. Long-lived animals are supposed to have come from single-celled organisms and yet bacteria do not do anything but simply vary within kind and utilize the genetic material already available to them.

This is simple stuff, people, quit pretending and address the issue rather than ad nauseum attacks on my brain. Deal with the evidence.

scohen said...

"Tens of thousands of bacteria generations have not shown any macroevolution at all, let alone a bacteria turning into anything else."

So by your estimation, evolution predicts that bacteria will turn into 'something else' in tens of thousands of generations?

chaos_engineer said...

Tens of thousands of bacteria generations have not shown any macroevolution at all, let alone a bacteria turning into anything else. No two mutations that are not deleterious have been recorded as having happened in concert during this period.

Bacteria reproduce asexually, which slows evolution down a lot. If 100 different bacteria in a generation each get a different beneficial mutation, then the descendents of the bacteria with the "best" mutation will take over the population, and the other 99 mutations will probably die out.

If they reproduced sexually, then some of their descendents could have all 100 mutations.

It's better to look at how much plants and animals can change over even a few hundred generations. Dogs are an especially good example because they've been under a lot of different kinds of selective pressure. Look at the differences between Chihuahuas, Poodles, and Saint Bernards! Sure, they're all "still dogs", but we only know that because scientists and historians researched it for us. Otherwise, a casual observer would think that they're three completely different kinds of animals.

radar said...

By my estimation a million generations of bacteria would remain bacteria. Nothing that has happened thus far indicates bacteria evolve at all.

Yes, Poodles and Bulldogs are present and they are examples of mankind manipulating the gene pool to select for desired features. That doesn't represent evolution at all. Poodles and Bulldogs have less genetic information than the average mutt.

radar said...

You guys just don't want to think critically about the "accepted" dogma of the naturalistic materialistic church of propaganda. No, long ages are not logical based on population charts and rock records, not at all. I know many of you are smart guys but instead of rethinking your position you call me dumb and regurgitate the Darwinist party line over and over.

Not one of you has an answer to where information came from, where life came from or where existence came from. You cannot even address those issues, can you?

I wonder what it will take with you guys to even consider for one minute going against the flow and critically considering all the evidence again?

Anonymous said...

Radar said:

Any onlooking reader (there are quite a few that drop in and read but do not comment) can see the paucity of your comments.

Hate to tell you Radar, but creeper is right all the way.
But then again: that's the major appeal of this blog; to see how someone (you) is being proved wrong time and time again and yet still does not (want to) get it.
So in case you wonder why some people read but do not comment; there's no need to, the others are doing too good a job already!

scohen said...

"By my estimation a million generations of bacteria would remain bacteria. Nothing that has happened thus far indicates bacteria evolve at all."

Nice dodge, but I asked what you think *evolution* would predict.

Please answer the question.

highboy said...

"No, long ages are not logical based on population charts and rock records, not at all. I know many of you are smart guys but instead of rethinking your position you call me dumb and regurgitate the Darwinist party line over and over."

According to an unnamed anonymous poster doing the above is you being proven wrong again and again. He said so, so it must be true.

I haven't seen any actual back and forth with facts in this debate for quite some time, merely radar makes some assertions, opponents call him ignorant, and the process is repeated over and over again.

scohen said...

Tim,
We're not even to the point of discussing facts; Radar still needs to understand what evolution *is* before we can talk about actual facts. Radar also owes me an answer to my question of what he thinks evolution would predict happen to 10,000 generations of bacteria.

And I do believe creeper linked off to a very nice article that skewers the hypothesis radar is proposing.

It's worth noting that unlike Radar, you understand the difference between cosmology and evolution.

Anonymous said...

Wait a minute Creeper. You say that this blog is not parody? But what about this gem...
"Rather than advocating ignorance, as you do by pretending that God cannot be and cannot be considered as a factor in science, I am for seeking the truth wherever it leads."
I mean, how could anyone that's been to this site more than a couple times not Laugh Out Loud at that comment? That was freaking hilarious.
Big Thank you to Scohen and Creeper for the entertaining and enlightening discussion on this one.
P.S. - RE: Radar, my vote is for Purposeful Religious Ignorance (worn as a badge of honor), as opposed to straight stupidity. I think Radar views his utter lack of knowledge in the areas where he is so ridiculously opinionated, as some sort of parallel to his "Faith". How else could he continue to routinely trot out said ignorance for all to see without being so completely and utterly embarrassed each time he does so? IMO that kind of thought process, my friends, takes either a serious religious indoctrination at an early age or some kind of mid-life rock-bottom-hitting "religious rebirth".

- Canucklehead

radar said...

Evolution would predict more than one thing, scohen. Punctuated equilibrium, hopeful monsters, gradualism...there are all sorts of flavors of evolution. But no matter which brand you are smoking, you need bacteria to evolve some new system of some kind within 10,000 generations to begin to consider the possibility that longer-lived organisms might have ever evolved at all.

~

Since you commenters in general apply the evolutionist paradigm to every field of study, then I therefore challenge you to defend your positions. Evolution does not address cosmology directly but it does do so indirectly and philosophically your cosmology had better match your biology or you will be the one with cognitive dissonance.

~

No one of you can address the challenges to your position. So you resort to names and insults. Perhaps this is comforting to you, but it doesn't give any explanation for the presence of information, the formation of life or the complete failure of evolution to be observable.

radar said...

What force holds an atom together?

Electric force? Gravity? Weak force? Strong force?

(Can you find me the guy who named the "Gluon"? Hilarious!)

Can you explain Quantum Mechanics logically? The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Precisely what position do you take concerning Schrodinger's cat?

Not one of you has devised a unified theory that manages to tie Newtonian physics, Relativity and QM into a nice bow. String theory is absolutely not proven nor is it backed by a real understanding of all the questions it seeks to answer. Neils Bohr was not self-satisfied, nor was Einstein nor is any physicist with an honest mind today.

Not one of you can bully me into silence with continual and boring attacks on my knowledge and education. I am confident that you do so because you do not wish to address certain unanswerable questions that may sometimes keep you up at night.

Geocentricism took many years to fall out of favor and long after Copernicus disproved it.

Uniformitarianism has been blown away by the sedimentary rock layers. Evolution should seem ludicrous by now to those who understand how complex life is and that no life exists without DNA, which is a very complex coding mechanism that is irreducibly complex and impossible to imagine simply springing up from nothing. The only reason any significant portion of the general public believe any of it at all is the relentless propaganda hammered into them by the public school system, the news media and the dogmatic high priests of humanist religion, the Neo-Darwinists.

Every day and in every way children, teenagers and adults are inundated with confident assertions about millions of years here and adaption there without a shred of actual proof. Unproven suppositions are passed on as scientific fact.

Throw all the other arguments aside and tell me where information comes from? Without resorting to God (that explanation belongs to me in this discussion, thank you) I challenge you naturalistic atheists to present a reasonable cause for information. Bring it on!

radar said...

""Rather than advocating ignorance, as you do by pretending that God cannot be and cannot be considered as a factor in science, I am for seeking the truth wherever it leads."" (radar said)


I mean, how could anyone that's been to this site more than a couple times not Laugh Out Loud at that comment? That was freaking hilarious." (Canucklehead responded)

~~~~~~

Thank you, Canucklehead, for asserting that a desire to know the truth is hilarious. What is your desire, to conform to the flavor of the month? To swallow the conventional dogma whole without question? Gee, that is incredibly brave and frightfully smart!

I could devote an entire post to this kind of thinking. Once mankind sought to discover truth without limitations, now we only want truth within certain parameters and some things cannot be considered. God becomes HE WHO CANNOT BE NAMED and is kept out of any scientific discussion, unreasonably so.

A good scientist will probably tell you that truth cannot be discovered but only principles that have not yet been falsified.

A great scientist will tell you that truth is available but when attained it cannot be absolutely proven to be truth and must be tested time and time again to be considered correct.

A bad scientist will set aside some possibilities as impossibilities, forbidden ground, and limit himself to a narrow band of answers to his questions.

A typical scientist will follow the grant money and then work like crazy to come up with something new and useful. But the typical scientist learns that boat-rocking means losing funding, being denied tenure and being locked out of offices, kicked off of committees and losing their jobs.

Microbiologists who do not agree with Darwin. Climatologists who do not agree with Gore. Astrophysicists who do not agree with Dawkins. They threaten the High Priests of Humanism and so are shunned and shut out. Yeah, that is real science for ya!

Anonymous said...


Can you explain Quantum Mechanics logically? The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Precisely what position do you take concerning Schrodinger's cat?

Not one of you has devised a unified theory that manages to tie Newtonian physics, Relativity and QM into a nice bow. String theory is absolutely not proven nor is it backed by a real understanding of all the questions it seeks to answer. Neils Bohr was not self-satisfied, nor was Einstein nor is any physicist with an honest mind today.


What does this have to do with what was being said? Does a lack of an understanding of something become a proof of a God?

God becomes HE WHO CANNOT BE NAMED and is kept out of any scientific discussion, unreasonably so.

So let's let Him in. How do we test for his effects? How do we prove his effects? When we can't explain something, should the answer always be "god did it" or "this is so complex that I can't think of anything cause of this other than god so it must be his doing"?


And the biggest question mark of them all...
But no matter which brand you are smoking, you need bacteria to evolve some new system of some kind within 10,000 generations to begin to consider the possibility that longer-lived organisms might have ever evolved at all.

THIS needs an entire post Radar. You can't just state this absolutely.

I am formally requesting an entire post based on this statement.



lava

scohen said...

"But no matter which brand you are smoking, you need bacteria to evolve some new system of some kind within 10,000 generations to begin to consider the possibility that longer-lived organisms might have ever evolved at all"

So, by your logic, evolution would state that bacteria would need to turn into 'something else' in 139 days?

Let's do the math:
Let's say it takes 20 minutes for a bacterium to divide in the lab.

10,000 * 20 (min) / 60 (hours) / 24 (days) = 138.88888

Which leaves us with 138.9 days for bacteria to have 10,000 generations. Do you think that scientists who accept evolution believe that bacteria will change into 'something else' every 140 days?

Let's go with a pessimistic model akin to the inside of your gut, where the bacteria divide every 72 hours.

10000 * 72 (hours) / 24 (hours/day) / 365 (days/year)= 82.2 years

So, do you think that scientists believe that the e.coli in our guts will change into something fundamentally different every 82 years at *worst*?

If you do, with all due respect, how do you expect us to take you seriously?

radar said...

You are hoist on your own petard, scohen. It is your beliefs that are getting skewered here. How can you expect me to take evolutionists seriously when they have run through so many multiple thousands upon thousands of generations of bacteria and fruit flies and not accomplished any evolutionary jumps at all?


If bacteria produce 10,000 generations in 139 days and scientists have been trying to get them to evolve for several years, how many fruitless generations have been produced with no evolution happening? 10,000 generations was me echoing a commenter's number, but in fact there have been hundreds of thousands of generations studied.


How many years of human life would take 10,000 generations? How about 100,000? Your point of view would have us believe homo sapiens was a more primitive creature 100,000 generations ago. Your cohorts teach us that evolution takes many thousands of generations to make small steps or that sometimes giant leaps happen. But in the case of bacteria and fruit flies, no small steps and no giant leaps.

radar said...

I will also address that phyrangula post this weekend. I did go read that. Do evolutionists just deride and revile and make fun of people they disagree with as the default setting? Is that supposed to be intelligent?

scohen said...

Radar,
On physics, you're being dishonest. I have couched every utterance of string theory with 'this is unproven'.

Throw all the other arguments aside and tell me where information comes from? Without resorting to God (that explanation belongs to me in this discussion, thank you) I challenge you naturalistic atheists to present a reasonable cause for information. Bring it on!


When you speak of information, do you have a specific thing in mind? Are you talking about information theory style information or something else?
Because if you're talking about information theory style information, then it springs from randomness. If you're not, then I don't know how to respond.

I hate to respond to a question with another question, but which has more information, a string of all 'a' characters or a random string?

Anonymous said...

Radar says "Thank you, Canucklehead, for asserting that a desire to know the truth is hilarious."
Uh-Oh, yet another "swing and a miss" for dear old Radar.
Dude, what's hilarious is that you, Mr. Radaractive Christian Literalist, continue to assert that you actually have within you some sort of "desire to know the truth". And you just did it again.
You simply must understand how patently disingenuous you are being by making this statement. Your starting point, in all of your "investigations", is that the Bible is true, correct? So that means that anything that arises that contradicts your biblical "truth" must be false, and so you go about attempting to undermine said biblically contradictory information using any means necessary, including reasserting points that have been proven incorrect time and time again (like your constant claims that there is not a "shred of evidence" for evolution). It is painfully clear to the majority of your readers that you are much more interested in DEFENDING your scientifically unsupported version of the "truth", than actually finding out the real truth about that which you are "researching". Maybe you should just start using the word "truthiness" as opposed to "truth" because really, that's a much better description of what you're after. OK so on to some of the other funny stuff you wrote,

You make the claim that I "swallow the conventional dogma whole without question".
Another good one man. Do I have to remind you that you are the religious literalist Radar, not me. How does your statement not completely apply to YOU? Show me some scientific testable evidence that refutes evolution and/or proves god's role in science and I'm on the bandwagon with you man. Until that happens, I'm content with my peer reviewed science, thank you very much.

You again project your own situation on to me with the following statement "Once mankind sought to discover truth without limitations, now we only want truth within certain parameters and some things cannot be considered." Again, this is how YOU operate Radar, not me. You are the one requiring "truth" to fit "certain parameters", i.e. your first requirement is that it jives completely with the bible is it not? I mean, you seem to even be dismissing actual scientific peer reviewed proofs and/or evidence as "certain parameters" which seems to again highlight that ignorance of yours that you are so darn proud of.

- Canucklehead

scohen said...

"It is your beliefs that are getting
skewered here."

Ummm... no.

"How can you expect me to take evolutionists seriously when they have run through so many multiple thousands upon thousands of generations of bacteria and fruit flies and not accomplished any evolutionary jumps at all?"

I'm not sure why an arbitrary number of generations would produce any specific result, evolution doesn't stipulate that it does. It is about selection, pressure and change over time --if there's no pressure and no selection, then there won't be much change. I wouldn't expect you to take a theory that said that bacteria would change into 'something else' in 139 days. That would be silly.

"If bacteria produce 10,000 generations in 139 days and scientists have been trying to get them to evolve for several years, how many fruitless generations have been produced with no evolution happening? "

The ability to digest citrate and nylon *are* evolutionary changes. They were brought about by applying selective pressure to bacteria, and it happened in a relatively short time.


"10,000 generations was me echoing a commenter's number, but in fact there have been hundreds of thousands of generations studied."

Yes, probably about half a million generations. Again, where is it written that something must evolve after a certain number of generations? That is not a core tenet of evolution.

"How many years of human life would take 10,000 generations? How about 100,000?"

I'd guess at least 130,000, unless everyone is ten when they reproduce.

"Your point of view would have us believe homo sapiens was a more primitive creature 100,000 generations ago."

Actually, what *you* are advocating would have us believe that. My point of view believes the exact opposite. The best science indicates that humans in present form have existed for around a quarter million years. The homo genus has been around for two million years, with many of the species living concurrently.


"Your cohorts teach us that evolution takes many thousands of generations to make small steps or that sometimes giant leaps happen. But in the case of bacteria and fruit flies, no small steps and no giant leaps."

So digestion of citrate or nylon isn't a small step? It seems to me that the ability to digest a completely new food source is a pretty large 'small' step.

radar said...

So canucklehead cannot really understand the argument. Have a nice day, I guess.

scohen, information can be measured by amount or by content. I am in information technology and we tend to assign values to amounts of information in bits and bytes although mostly we talk about megabytes, gigabytes and terabytes these days. But nonsense and intelligence can take up the same amount of space.

I absolutely will post on this over the weekend for sure. Lava asked for a post and I think I can bring them together or back-to-back them.

Why is my mention of string theory dishonest? Of course no one has "proved" it, nor have they "proved" quantum mechanics. I am stating that science is finding that the human mind is finding it's limits defined by the world of subatomic particle behavior and subatomic forces.

radar said...

scohen, evolutionists confuse speciation with evolution. If information loss within the genetic makeup of a strain of bacteria allow it to eat citrate that means the abilty to digest citrate was already present within the genetic code and that strain of bacteria was reduced to a species of bacteria that can digest citrate.

Lemski's research notes that there are e coli that do eat citrate found in the population, but they are in the minority. Research appears to suggest that citrate digestion is a result of an information loss or transfer rather than the development of a new system. Since there have been e coli digesting citrate in the wild, his findings are not significant.

scohen said...

"scohen, information can be measured by amount or by content. I am in information technology and we tend to assign values to amounts of information in bits and bytes although mostly we talk about megabytes, gigabytes and terabytes these days. But nonsense and intelligence can take up the same amount of space."

Alright, I'll bite:
Say I have a document here, it's written in english and it's 350kb long in plain text.

How do you quantify how much information is in it?

Then I have another document, which is also 350kb and it is random gibberish. How much information does *it* contain?

Does the second document have more, less or the same amount of information as the first?

By the way, you're a wuss, we measure data in petabytes here ;)

Anonymous said...

Now Radar says, "So canucklehead cannot really understand the argument. Have a nice day, I guess."
Um, what? Come on man. I wrote some good stuff there. I directly refute what you said to me regarding just what's so hilarious. Plus, it's really bad form to respond to a post where I basically say that "you don't get it" with a retort that I didn't get it. I mean, that's grade school level garbage right there Radar.
That said, if you aren't ready to deal with your psychological projection issues, you just aren't ready. Although that doesn't mean that I'm going to stop pointing it out to you.
Again, Radar, how can you possibly contend that you are looking for the truth, when at the same time you also purport to already be in possession of said truth. It just doesn't make sense.

- Canucklehead

scohen said...

"Lemski's research notes that there are e coli that do eat citrate found in the population"

Not in the initial population. This behavior evolved over time with the application of pressure.

"If information loss within the genetic makeup of a strain of bacteria allow it to eat citrate that means the abilty to digest citrate was already present within the genetic code and that strain of bacteria was reduced to a species of bacteria that can digest citrate."

I'm confused at why you think the bacteria are losing information in their genes. Are you saying that they have less DNA after they can digest citrate? Are you saying that the amount of DNA for an organism shrinks over time?

Facts don't seem to bear this out.

"Since there have been e coli digesting citrate in the wild, his findings are not significant."

Can you point to this research? I'm not aware of it.

Also, how do you explain nylon eating bacteria, or bacteria's general increase in resistance to drugs using a creationist model? More information loss? How come losing information seems to reward bacteria and at the same time is harmful to humans?

scohen said...

"But nonsense and intelligence can take up the same amount of space"

So if this is true, how do you differentiate nonsense from intelligence?