Search This Blog

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Darwinists and thinking? Often far apart. Again I ask, from whence comes information?

While I am often told that I do not understand Darwinist tenets, I keep on going because I believe in common sense and observable data and Occam's Razor.  Meanwhile Darwinists prefer people who swallow their dogma hook, line and sinker.  For instance, this post about why man his little bodily hair (well, most of us).  Like most of the assertions made by Darwinists it has almost no evidence to support it but is imagination on top of assumptions on top of almost nothing of actual tangible observable fact:

A world of hairless animals at the equator?  Whoa!



Darwin’s Sweatshop: Why Ethiopia Made People Hairless     06/10/2010    

June 10, 2010 — Five scientists think they have figured out why people walk upright and don’t have fur like other mammals.  They had to evolve in Ethiopia, where it is hot.  This led to the loss of body hair, and the evolution of sweat glands and other adaptations to deal with the heat.

    It’s not that the scientists from Caltech, Johns Hopkins and University of Utah actually found evidence for this.  It’s just that they studied rocks from the Turkana Basin, where some important fossils of alleged human ancestors have been found.  According to their analysis of carbonate rocks, the temperature has always been hot and arid in this area – for 4 million years, they claim.  They published their results in PNAS,1 and the story was picked up by Science Daily and PhysOrg.

    Although their paper primarily concerned deducing climate and temperature from the rock record, they considered implications for human thermophysiology:
This temperature record is relevant to the evolutionary origin or maintenance of a unique suite of adaptations that permit humans to remain active under high ambient heat loads.  For example, upright posture in hot, open environments confers thermophysiological advantages to bipedal hominins owing to reduced interception of direct solar radiation and to displacement of the body away from the near-surface environment, which may be excessively hot due to solar heating.  Derived human traits such as very little body hair, high sweating capacity, and high surface area to volume ratio are also advantageous for daytime activity in hot, arid climates, and temperature is a central variable in hypotheses of behaviors such as long-distance scavenging and persistence hunting.  However, the thermoregulatory advantages of these adaptations arise primarily under very hot, sunny conditions.  Our results suggest that such conditions were relevant to human ecology in the Turkana Basin, either directly within or at the spatial or temporal margins of human-preferred habitats....
    Whereas our data are silent on the importance of ambient temperature in shaping human evolution, they comprise a necessary prerequisite for beginning to evaluate temperature-related hypotheses.
[italics in original].
If this is so, then it should also be a necessary prerequisite for beginning to evaluate the null hypothesis, or for evaluating why such conditions failed to generate similar physiological traits in the other mammals living alongside the humans in the same ecological environment.  It would also make one question why the hominids they believe inhabited South Africa, Europe and Asia for millions of years and during long ice ages did not quickly gain all that body hair right back.  The authors seemed to overlook those parts of the evolutionary logic.

    The popular press swallowed it all without question, though.  “The need to stay cool in that cradle of human evolution may relate, at least in part, to why pre-humans learned to walk upright, lost the fur that covered the bodies of their predecessors and became able to sweat more, Johns Hopkins University earth scientist Benjamin Passey said.”  Perhaps they need to consider another uniquely human trait: blushing (see 12/19/2007 commentary).


1.  Passey, Levin, Cerling, Brown, and Eiler, “High-temperature environments of human evolution in East Africa based on bond ordering in paleosol carbonates,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published online before print June 8, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1001824107.
This has the makings of a great cartoon: the Turkana Gymnasium, where all the camels, wildebeests, zebras, giraffes, oryx, lions, cheetahs, and gerbils all strip down to the skin, stand upright, and work up a sweat under the hot sun, dancing to the beat of “Do the Evolution” (08/31/2006).
Next headline on:  Early ManDarwin and EvolutionDumb Ideas

~

How is it then that African animals are not hairless and going forth on two legs?  Why didn't the lion turn into Carl Lewis with big teeth?   Darwinists can assert almost anything and the public swallows it whole.



So it goes.  Carefully watch the comments threads to see how much actual observable evidence is presented...little or none.  Occasionally the threads will devolve into a "well, your God stinks" dialogue in which the Darwinists, totally unaware of exegetical or contextual or historical information relating to the Bible will pull out some Old Tesatment verse that seems to make God look mean or unfair.  Another ploy is to say they have answered a question.  Information, for example.  Not one Darwinist in the entire world has come up with a plausible source for information in the cell.   How did all that information get there?  How could new information be implanted?   Commenters like to say they have answered this but they have not even come close to doing so.  If they think they have an answer, this post's comment thread would be a great place for them to put it! (Hint...on the backs of crystals will not be an acceptable answer).


How does information enter the organism?  Here is your question for the day.  Let me give you a clue:  In the real world, information is intelligence that is transferred into the medium.   Or to be more specific:  This post.
The dialogue from commenters was either "define information" or "here are a bunch of strings of symbols, which one is information?" or a short essay of the premise of what observation might be.  No.  How does information get into the cell?  That is the question.  No one has come close to answering it by any means other than this, that it was input by an intelligent source.

Many great creation scientists came to Christianity BECAUSE of the evidence.  Many lukewarm semi-believers became staunch Christians because of the evidence.  The Institute for Creation Research was formed by Dr. Henry Morris, who became a dedicated Christian after he realized the sedimentary rocks were the signature of a flood (his speciality was hydrology).   Now there are many such institutes dedicated to doing research in the name of Christ and according to Biblical evidences because the rest of the world is stuck like an animal in a trap to Darwinism and they cannot see beyond naturalistic materialistic scenarios.

There are also those who do not necessarily believe in Christ but instead adhere to another deity or even remain agnostic about a deity but who recognize that the cell is intelligently designed.  Hence the Discovery Institute and related organizations that do not promote YEC but frankly just move forward on the evidence without being hindered by the ludicrous Darwinist worldview.

Many scientists saw the paucity of Darwinism but could not stomach a God to whom they would be liable so they turn to aliens who must have seeded life on the planet instead.   Panspermia is something a fair lot of them have suggested from time to time.

I want you readers to think on this....according to Darwinists the eye must have developed independently in ten differing lines of ascending animals.   Yet they do agree that the eye is fantastically complex.  But how does an eye evolve when it is of no use until it is sophisticated enough to give a creature a survival/reproductive advantage?  How would it happen ten different times?

In a Darwinist world, wouldn't there be only a very few kinds of creatures?  The odds against anything evolving at all are stupendous, so one would expect just a few kinds of creatures and plants to have happened by chance to happen.  Anytime you see a Darwinist describe an expectation of life on another planet they will conceptualize a very limited variety of organisms because the wide variety we have on Earth makes no sense from a Darwinian point of view.

Transitional forms are a hoot.  If you knew how Darwinists determine what they consider to be a transitional form you would be rather disappointed.  You see,  they study a few teeth and a jawbone and perhaps some attributes of a skull and from that try to deduce the nature of the animal that it came from.  Over the years they artist's concepts of extinct animals have been widely promulgated and yet it is very much based upon the imagination of the artist.   I once posted a series of artist's conceptions (Darwinist, of course) of the Iguanadon and how it changed over time as they collected more specimens and found evidence that included more about appearance and likely skin and appendage information.   Now the Darwinist picture of an Iguanadon is pretty much like the Acamabaro figurines made by ordinary folks a few hundred or even a couple of thousand years ago.  Hmmm.  So now we go back to the idea that dinosaurs and man coexisted but Darwinists hate to go there for, you see, birds and mammals had to evolve from dinosaurs and not coexist with them!

But anyway, transitional forms are a lie because Darwinists cannot study the organism itself and we do not see bone fossils that have half arms-half wings or two-thirds leg, one-third fin.  Dinosaurs with wishbones and light bird-like skeletal structures are conspicuously absent.  Again I say that ALL fossils found that can be put together to present a creature appear to give us a fully formed type.  Darwinists have no tangible data to use to show us how the bombardier beetle came into existence because they have never found a creature that was developing into one.  God help Michael Behe, who is not a YEC but received widespread castigation for daring to publish "Darwin's Black Box" in which irreducible complexity is mentioned.

Meanwhile we are 150 years into the Darwinist paradigm and not once have we seen one kind of creature become another.  Not once have we observed new information appear in the genome.  All we see is speciation and occasionally (mostly with island populations) we get extinction.   You can be sure that all those bacteria that develop "new traits" have all proven to be information loss or information transfer.  Usually information loss that allows for a new ability also makes the same organism less likely to survive in the wild.

For example, people have bred dogs down to tiny sizes, so that some dogs can be held in one or two hands.  This is cute in the eyes of some (I prefer big dogs myself) but certainly not advantageous if suddenly people released all dogs into the wild.   Tiny dogs will not last long, becoming a meal for a coyote or a raptor bird like a hawk or simply not being able to find enough small edible and catchable things to eat.   The Detroit feral dog population has become a living lab experiment.   Feral dogs naturally join in packs and their distinguishing features begin to disappear.  The dogs become the approximate size of other wild dog species (Dingo, African) and as the various breeds interbreed soon differences in size and coloration begin to become more rare and medium large dogs of two or three colors with similar ear and tail characteristics become the norm.  In real life the edges of speciation are activated by unusual ecological conditions.   All things being equal, animals begin to revert to something more like the original kind.  Why?  Because information loss is a characteristic of speciation.  This is why ring speciation can happen to the point that organisms at one end cannot interbreed with the same kind at the other end or at least not breed easily or produce offspring that are infertile. 

To end this post, another tidbit from the newest member of the links list, Creation Evolution Headlines.

Welcome to the Behe flagellum discussion, now advanced!



Flagellum Replaces Parts on the Fly     06/12/2010    
June 12, 2010 — A new study appears to show that the bacterial flagellum, a molecular rotary motor that has become iconic of the intelligent design movement, can repair parts of its rotor while it is rotating.  The results of the study by Oxford University were published in PNAS,1 and were also the focus of a Commentary in PNAS by Michael D. Manson of Texas A&M University.2  Previous studies had shown that parts of the stationary part (stator) could be replaced while the flagellum was in operation, but the rotor?  “Turnover of a component of the rotor is even more surprising than stator turnover, given that it was previously known that the number of stator complexes can change while the motor is running,”  the Oxford scientists said.  The abstract explained:
Most biological processes are performed by multiprotein complexes.  Traditionally described as static entities, evidence is now emerging that their components can be highly dynamic, exchanging constantly with cellular pools.... It is powered by transmembrane ion flux through a ring of stator complexes that push on a central rotor.  The Escherichia coli motor switches direction stochastically in response to binding of the response regulator CheY to the rotor switch component FliM.  Much is known of the static motor structure, but we are just beginning to understand the dynamics of its individual components.... We show that the ~30 FliM molecules per motor exist in two discrete populations, one tightly associated with the motor and the other undergoing stochastic turnover.... In many ways the bacterial flagellar motor is as an archetype macromolecular assembly, and our results may have further implications for the functional relevance of protein turnover in other large molecular complexes.
“The bacterial flagellar motor is one of the most complex biological nanomachines,” began the first sentence of their paper, edited by Howard Berg (Harvard), one of the pioneers of flagellum research.  Using specialized imaging techniques, the Oxford team was able to identify components of the rotor complex undergoing dynamic turnover in about 30- to 40-second timeframes.  This turnover may be due to maintenance of the motor, or it may have functional significance.  It may be involved, for instance, in switching the rotation from normal counterclockwise runs to the occasional clockwise “tumbling” that bacteria undergo when following a chemical trail.  In E. coli, which have four to eight flagella, it may be involved in synchronization of the flagella – they don’t yet know for sure.  It appears that signaling from the environment is involved in the turnover, because a response regulator in the chemotaxis signal transduction response pathway “is also required for measurable FliM turnover to occur over the time scale of our experiments,” they said.  Though not certain whether it is a trigger or a by-product of the switch from normal mode to tumbling mode, the association is compelling: “This work represents direct evidence for signal-dependent dynamic exchange of switch complex components in functioning flagellar motors, raising the possibility that turnover is involved in the signaling mechanism.”

    Michael Manson commented on the findings in PNAS,2
offering additional interesting details about the flagellum: “The flagellar motor was the first biological rotary device discovered” (Berg, 1973), he pointed out; “Flagella spin at several hundred to >1,000 revolutions per second in different bacteria.”  He described the parts list and something about the torque and operation of the flagellum, and provided a cross-sectional diagram.  “Filament growth decreases with length, and a broken filament can regenerate,” he continued.  “Unfolded flagellin subunits diffuse through the hollow center of the filament and assemble at its distal tip.  Filaments extend several cell lengths and are quite fragile; their dynamic nature is necessary.  Each flagellar motor functions for the lifetime of its cell.”  He described how protons flow through the Mot complexes (parts of the stator) and then couple to the rotor, and how these must be firmly anchored to the cell wall to endure the tremendous torques put on them by the rotor: “The high torque required to turn a flagellum under heavy load requires that Mot complexes attach firmly to the cell wall.”   Even so, “Despite its anchoring, the stator is surprisingly dynamic.”  Other studies show that the Mot protein parts also turnover rapidly – with a half-life of 30 seconds.

    As for the findings of the Oxford team, Manson said, “Parts exchange in the stator and rotor may just be routine maintenance, and the aggregates of 18 FliM molecules could be storage devices rather than assembly intermediates.  The authors are suitably cautious about speculating whether FliM turnover is involved in the switch function of the C ring, emphasizing that the exchange of FliM subunits could be either a cause or effect of motor reversal.”  But as he looked forward to additional exciting findings in this kind of research on flagella and other molecular machines, he paid his respects to this machine in particular: “Further studies of this type will undoubtedly lead to exciting new revelations about the inner workings of the elegant molecular machinery of the flagellar motor.

1.  Delalez et al, “Signal-dependent turnover of the bacterial flagellar switch protein FliM,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Published online before print May 24, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1000284107.
2.  Michael D. Manson, “Dynamic motors for bacterial flagella,” Commentary, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, print June 11, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1006365107.
Altogether now, shout the familiar refrain: “These authors said nothing about evolution!”  If nothing in biology makes sense except in the black-light of ev-illusion, where was Mr. Darwin?  Is that him in bed, sick to his stomach again?  Go make him some intelligently designed chicken soup, and leave him be.  The rest of us are excited about the union of engineering and biology in this clear case of machinery on the molecular scale.  Now we have an example of possible maintenance during operation, and if not that, a functional operation that involves dynamic swapping of parts while a rotor is spinning at more than 60,000 rpm!  The bacterium doesn’t need to go into a drydock; its repair squad can fix parts on the fly.  Imagine what would be required to swap out the blades on an outboard motor while it is spinning.  Furthermore, imagine having the process automated, with feedback from the environment.  How would you even design such a thing?  The flagellum has a constant flow of FliM parts into the system.  Apparently, there is some sort of buffer store where parts can stand ready for use, and then something guides them into position.  Manson’s oversimplified diagram shows a part attaching to a rotor blade, which might provide an attachment point for a FliM molecule to get replaced during a reversal of direction.  However this occurs, it is bound to be exciting and amazing.

    Did you catch that dramatic understatement by Manson?  “Parts exchange in the stator and rotor may just be routine maintenance, and the aggregates of 18... molecules could be storage devices....”  What did he just say?  Maintenance!  Storage devices!  This is bacteria we are talking about.  This is life that lives in dirty water.  That’s like walking by a mud puddle and saying, “The murkiness down there could just be routine automated guidance and control operations with robotic feedback software, and the squiggles could be gigabytes of storage area networks with rapid retrieval, but hey.  Whatever.  Oh, and there’s a maintenance crew that can swap out outboard motor blades on the fly, too.  Stickagum, man?”

    Get the picture here, folks – these are cells that in Darwin’s day were thought to be made of undifferentiated blobs of jelly-like stuff.  For lack of a better word to describe it, they called it by the suggestive pantheistic term, “protoplasm” (first living substance).  Anybody who thinks that way now with what molecular biology has revealed should get 39 lashes with a wet flagellum.  Evolution was missing from these papers because it is bankrupt.  It thrived in another age, another time, when puffed-up, imperialistic, progress-minded Victorians didn’t know better.  This is the information age.  The only theory with the vocabulary, concepts and explanatory resources to deal with observations that are rich in engineering, machinery and control language is intelligent design.
Next headline on:  Cell BiologyPhysicsIntelligent DesignAmazing Facts

Just for fun, did you know that the most complex eyes known to science are that of the (probably) extinct Trilobite and the Mantis Shrimp?  

Shrimps’ eyes could improve next generation of DVDs and CDs


mantis shrimpBritish scientists say that a marine crustacean with the most complex eyes in the animal kingdom could hold the key to the next generation of DVD and CD players.
The amazing eyes of the mantis shrimp found on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, according to a study, can see in 12 primary colors – humans see only three – and can also distinguish between different forms of polarized light, that is the direction of oscillation in light waves.

Special light-sensitive cells in mantis shrimp eyes perform similar functions to those found in the mechanism of a DVD and CD player but the key difference is mantis shrimps are able to do this across the whole spectrum of light, whereas DVD or CD players can only do this with one color.

Researcher Nicholas Roberts, however, said that he believes the “beautifully simple” eye system, comprising cell membranes rolled into tubes, could be mimicked in the lab using liquid crystals.
Details of the mantis shrimp complex vision study can be found in the journal Nature Photonics.
Published in:  on at 12:42 am Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

61 comments:

Anonymous said...

One image says more than a thousand words

Jon Woolf said...

Five scientists think they have figured out why people walk upright and don’t have fur like other mammals.

Most of the current ideas about why humans evolved the way we did are illogical. This is just another case of that. Excessive sweating is maladaptive for a hot-climate animal. There's a missing element -- something we don't even know we don't know.

How does information get into the cell?

Genetic variations.

But anyway, transitional forms are a lie because Darwinists cannot study the organism itself and we do not see bone fossils that have half arms-half wings or two-thirds leg, one-third fin. Dinosaurs with wishbones and light bird-like skeletal structures are conspicuously absent.

[snork] Of ALL the examples you could have picked...

You really must try to keep up with events better, Radar.
The discovery of a furcula (wishbone) in dinosaurs was big news in the palaeontological community ... thirteen years ago.

AmericanVet said...

Wishbone with birdlike bone structures, I said. I could have a wishbone and not fly. Dinosaurs do not have the bone structure that birds do. So find a dinosaur with wishbone AND birdlike bone structure AND wings and then we will talk.

There were dinosaurs with wings and dinosaurs that could fly. But the structure of those critters does not closely resemble that of a bird.

We have mammals that glide and fly but Darwinists do not say birds came from mammals.

we have lizards that run on water but I do not think they will evolve into motorboats.

Jon Woolf said...

"Wishbone with birdlike bone structures, I said. I could have a wishbone and not fly. Dinosaurs do not have the bone structure that birds do."

Hollow bones are now known to be an apomorphy of maniraptoran dinosaurs.

"So find a dinosaur with wishbone AND birdlike bone structure AND wings and then we will talk."

Archaeopteryx.

"There were dinosaurs with wings and dinosaurs that could fly."

No, there weren't. Well, actually there were, but I'm sure not in the way you mean. While pterosaurs are often called "flying dinosaurs," anatomically they are not dinosaurs and they did not evolve from dinosaurs. They are a separate branch of the Archosauria. Only one line of dinosaurs acquired the ability to fly: those that are now known as birds.

AmericanVet said...

Here are the reasons why Archeopteryx cannot be regarded as a transitional form.

1. It has a ‘mosaic’ of characters in common with both groups but shows no true transitional structure such as a part-scale, part-feather.

2. There are no fossil links between it and either reptiles or birds—it stands alone.

3. True birds have been found which are assigned by evolutionists to an earlier time than Archeopteryx.

Archeopteryx is something along the lines of a Platypus. It is a unique creature but it is not a dinosaur nor is it an ancestor to birds nor is it a transitional form.

AmericanVet said...

"No, there weren't. Well, actually there were, but I'm sure not in the way you mean. While pterosaurs are often called "flying dinosaurs," anatomically they are not dinosaurs and they did not evolve from dinosaurs. They are a separate branch of the Archosauria. Only one line of dinosaurs acquired the ability to fly: those that are now known as birds."

The above is the problem with many Darwinists. Jon Woolf is technically correct in describing pterodactyls and similar extinct flying reptilian forms as not really dinosaurs according to the classic definition. But then he matter-of-factly states that one kind of dinosaur became birds, which is not a fact nor is there good evidence for it. The mix of fact and fiction tends to pull people in.

Now I think that Woolf thinks that I am kind of an idiot and also that I think he is an idiot but I do not. Woolf is well-educated and well-"spoken" in written format. He is a smart guy. I am sure he believes the things that he asserts. I believe he is blinded to a few overwhelming problems Darwinism cannot overcome. I believe he has a lot of company there. So I carry on.

Do remember that to disparage is not to argue and to continually repeat old saws in finitum ad nauseum will not make them true.
There is no evidence that dinosaurs and birds are any more related than dinosaurs and mammals or mammal and birds. There are similarities but then if one has the same designer...

highboy said...

I love how the anonymous troll thinks his stupid ridicule makes him/her/it somehow look smarter than they really are. I'd be interested to see him/her/it make an argument of their own.

Jon Woolf said...

Here are the reasons why Archeopteryx cannot be regarded as a transitional form.

Radar, you need to stop relying on creationists for all your information.

1. It has a ‘mosaic’ of characters in common with both groups but shows no true transitional structure such as a part-scale, part-feather.

But it does have forelimbs which are useful both as arms and as wings.

2. There are no fossil links between it and either reptiles or birds—it stands alone.

This simply isn't true. I can give you a list of known fossils that connect dinosaurs to Archaeopteryx. I can also give you a list of known fossils that connect Archaeopteryx to later birds. You won't have heard of these, because your creationist sources never mention them.

True birds have been found which are assigned by evolutionists to an earlier time than Archeopteryx.

Such as? I'm aware of only one claim of a "true bird" that's significantly older than Archaeopteryx: the fossil that Sankar Chatterjee discovered and named "Protoavis." However, its identity is far from certain. Hardly anybody else agrees with Chatterjee's ID of it as a bird. Basing any kind of argument on it is extremely foolish.

Archeopteryx is something along the lines of a Platypus.

This is actually a decent analogy to draw. Archaeopteryx is a 'mosaic' form that falls right around the dividing line between birds and not-quite-birds-yet, just as the platypus and its relative the echidna fall right around the line that divides mammals from not-quite-mammals-yet.

It is a unique creature but it is not a dinosaur nor is it an ancestor to birds nor is it a transitional form.

Actually, it is a dinosaur. Underneath the feathers, Archaeopteryx has every feature necessary to be classified as a dinosaur. If none of the ten known specimens of it had been found with feathers, it would be classified as Dinosauria, Coelurosauria, Maniraptoria, Deinonychosauria, and probably Troodontidae.

It's also a bird ... or it certainly would be if we had a solid, generally-agreed-on definition for "birds". Modern birds are certainly easy enough to define, but when you add fossils to the mix, there just isn't any easy way to distinguish bird from not-bird.

This difficulty in classifying Archaeopteryx, of course, is exactly what you would expect from a transitional form. Taxonomy is labels put on Nature by humans after the fact, and Nature isn't always as neat as we'd like her to be.

Anonymous said...

@highboy:

I love it how you accuse someone of trolling and then go and feed him.
Are you trying to run Radar's blog into the ground by posting flame-bait?

With friends like these...

LOL!

highboy said...

"I love it how you accuse someone of trolling and then go and feed him.
Are you trying to run Radar's blog into the ground by posting flame-bait?"

Are you saying you're gay? What is "flame-bait?" Who is "him?" Are you only capable of coherency when posting an image? Once again: try making an argument of your own if you want to be taken seriously.

Anonymous said...

highboy, apparently you are not aware of all Internet traditions... way to feed the troll.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Radar, you need to stop relying on creationists for all your information. "

You're not kidding. Radar simply cut-and-pasted that little list and pretended it was his own. Just google "It has a ‘mosaic’ of characters in common with both groups".

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Do remember that to disparage is not to argue and to continually repeat old saws in finitum ad nauseum will not make them true."

Pot, kettle, and what was the other thing? Radar, do yourself a favor and, with this above quote of yours in mind, go back and look through your post above.

-- creeper

radar said...

Incredible. Not one response to the question, just a lot of "sound and fury signifying nothing."

So do Darwinists therefore concede the point. You have no idea how information gets into the cell nor how designed processes are designed. Your failure to respond is in itself a response.

Jon Woolf said...

You have no idea how information gets into the cell nor how designed processes are designed.

Bearing false witness again, I see.

highboy said...

"highboy, apparently you are not aware of all Internet traditions... way to feed the troll."

Good point.

radar said...

Information - n.

1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.
2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See synonyms at knowledge.
3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information.
4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers.
5. Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data.
6. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.
7. Law. A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment.


The answers from Darwinists so far are to question what information is, claim I am lying, try to get me to sort out information from nonsense in a string of gobbledygook and...nothing else. Is this really the best you have got?

radar said...

"You're not kidding. Radar simply cut-and-pasted that little list and pretended it was his own. Just google "It has a ‘mosaic’ of characters in common with both groups"."

You actually google comments? Wow. I don't attribute comments when I grab a slice of information from the internet whereas I do so in posts. I don't google Woolf to see where he gets his talking points and I am not going to start. It is about whether something is true or not.

Archeopteryx has been abandoned as a transitional form by those who understand the concept. It simply makes one gap into at least two. There is no way it fits into any continuum of either birds or dinosaurs. It really is (was) a rather unique specimen. We have such things today. I used the Duckbill Platypus as an example but there are others.

Jon Woolf said...

Is this really the best you have got?

Nah. It's just the best I thought you could understand.

Archeopteryx has been abandoned as a transitional form by those who understand the concept... There is no way it fits into any continuum of either birds or dinosaurs.

Nope, try again. This time, please try to come up with a substantive response.

You quoted an article that claimed Archaeopteryx was neither dinosaur nor bird. Words mean things, Radar. There are specific formal definitions for "dinosaur" and "bird." In what specific ways does Archaeopteryx fail to meet those definitions? Again, you have a chance here to demonstrate your own knowledge of the subject. You couldn't do that with Diarthrognathus -- can you do it with Archaeopteryx?

Anonymous said...

"Incredible. Not one response to the question, just a lot of "sound and fury signifying nothing."

Wow. Why does lying come so easily to you? It makes you a very poor ambassador for your faith.

1. Jon provided a response just a few comments before yours.

2. You've asked this question in recent months and received quite a few answers, none of which you dealt with in any substantive way. And then you came back and LIED by saying that nobody responded. And you're doing it again now.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Information - n.

1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.
2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See synonyms at knowledge.
3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information.
4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers.
5. Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data.
6. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.
7. Law. A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment.

The answers from Darwinists so far are to question what information is, claim I am lying, try to get me to sort out information from nonsense in a string of gobbledygook and...nothing else. Is this really the best you have got?"


The discussion re. information failed in large part because you, Radar, were unable to provide a definition of information (despite much prompting by several commenters) that is suitable for the discussion at hand. Apparently you didn't understand why that would be important.

And apparently you STILL don't understand the point of needing such a definition, judging by the fact that you simply paste the dictionary definitions here.

Let me try to make it clear to you this way:

You're asking how information enters the information. Please select a definition of information from the list that you provided that you think is IN the organism.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"It simply makes one gap into at least two."

Hilarious. Arguments like this sound like something out of Alice in Wonderland.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"You actually google comments? Wow."

Hardly ever, but this didn't seem like your usual tone, so I got suspicious. Pretty lazy of you, I must say.

"I don't attribute comments when I grab a slice of information from the internet whereas I do so in posts. I don't google Woolf to see where he gets his talking points and I am not going to start. It is about whether something is true or not."

It's also about whether you understand something or not. When you don't understand the arguments and can't even put them into your own words (which come to think of it is what you do on most of your blog), how can you judge the pros and cons of an argument? Time and time again you paste endless articles and in your commentary inbetween demonstrate very poor understanding of them.

Even with something as simple as this, you could have put it in your own words. It could contribute to your understanding of the subject matter.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

You're asking how information enters the information. Please select a definition of information from the list that you provided that you think is IN the organism.

should read

You're asking how information enters the ORGANISM. Please select a definition of information from the list that you provided that you think is IN the organism.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

highboy said:

"Once again: try making an argument of your own if you want to be taken seriously."

If you care about being taken seriously on the internet it's best to stay away from it.

Anonymous said...

"Just for fun, did you know that the most complex eyes known to science are that of the (probably) extinct Trilobite and the Mantis Shrimp?"

How does that fit into your mythology? Shouldn't man, being created in God's image, have the best eyes?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Well, Radar, are you going to pick a definition of information from your list that you think is in the organism?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

As usual, Radar's leaving a lot on the table as he races off to the next distraction.

Come on, Radar, is your worldview supportable or isn't it?

-- creeper

radar said...

Information = IT. It was an entire post that very effectively defined information. I even linked it for you again.

The information in the cell could best be defined as "instructions." A little bit of the first five definitions could probably be squeezed out of the actual information in a cell.

Why didn't God make us with massive teeth and long claws and lightning speed and wings and the ability to breath both air and water and...God gave us the best intellect. God gave us a spirit. I suppose the more fantastic physical attributes we had the more trouble we would get into. But God is purposeful.

A better question is, if things evolved upwards, why would a bottom-dwelling sea creature have the best eye? And is it the best? Some raptors have more focused visual-cranial connections that allow them to make calculations at the level of NASA.
The Archer Fish has eyes that calculate the variable involved in looking at something through both water and air and then shoots water at the exactly correct speed and spot in order to hit the target. We could go on...

radar said...

It is the Darwinist who believes that man is the top of the evolutionary heap. Thus he also must, if dedicated and true to his belief system, believe that some races are superior to others and that man must control breeding in order to make the species more viable as time goes on. Abortion and euthanasia and Eugenics are all tools in the Darwinist toolbelt.

The Mantis Shrimp eye (and the Trilobite, for that matter) is a problem for you, not me. God designed organisms to fill a niche in the ecosystem we call Earth. All life has contingencies and redundancies built in to the cell. DNA works with the cell to produce copies of the mother with genetic input from the father. This creates a hard wall between kinds because the mother always lays the framework for the child.

Darwinists once claimed that we all evolved from simple life born in water. Now we know most of the simplest life forms still exist and many in the same way found in the fossil record. Once you understand how well designed the cell actually is you know that it did not happen by chance and you understand that the rock layers were a result of the flood. Then everything makes sense. Polystrates and paraconformities and etc. are simply part of the sedimentary results of the flood and the aftermath.

So I count 28 posts, no answer for information but a lot of squirming so far.

radar said...

I put a new search bar on top of the blog. Notice that if you put in, for instance, "information = it" you will get several results and all of them boil down to Darwinists answering the question with questions and running away from the question.

It is simple. Do you have a notepad and paper? Good. You have a medium and a method to transmit information.

Write something on the paper in your language. Good. Now you have produced information. Is there more paper? Is there more ink? No. The mass of the paper and the pen remain the same. Information is weightless and massless. It is the intelligent transmission of intelligence. You have now transmitted information.

The cell contains an enormous amount of information. That information is held within the medium of orgnanic materials. Simple molecules linked together in patterns that form codes that cause replication, repair, behaviors...we still cannot be sure how much information is actually being transmitted because we are learning more and more about organisms at the nano level.

What we do know is that lightning hitting muck is not going to design anything. Thus, Darwinists will always fail to answer the question because the answer is that information flows from intelligence.

radar said...

A few examples...

Information Matters part two
Feb 15, 2009
Feb 15, 2009
"If we received a single intelligent signal containing information from space then we would conclude that there is intelligent life out there. Each cell in the human body contains more information than in all thirty volumes of the ...
http://radaractive.blogspot.com/
clipped from Google - 6/2010

Information matters
Feb 13, 2009
Feb 13, 2009
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. ...
http://radaractive.blogspot.com/
clipped from Google - 6/2010

Information part three - the LIE
Mar 14, 2009
Mar 14, 2009
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? ...
http://radaractive.blogspot.com/
clipped from Google - 6/2010

Information = IT
Apr 12, 2009
Apr 12, 2009
Information is one of the three topics this blog is currently discussing, along with the beginning of life and the process of evolution. Other issues may be addressed later on but let us deal with that which is at hand thoroughly rather ...
http://radaractive.blogspot.com/

Jon Woolf said...

Radar, as usual with creationists, your analysis of "information" is hopelessly simplistic and self-serving. Here's one example of why -- one of many.

Consider an anemometer, aka a wind gauge. It is a machine. It is not intelligent. Yet it produces useful information, namely a record of wind velocities over time. The same is true of river flow gauges, rain gauges, seismometers, stress gauges, and many other measuring machines.

It is the Darwinist who believes that man is the top of the evolutionary heap.

Wrong.

Thus he also must, if dedicated and true to his belief system, believe that some races are superior to others and that man must control breeding in order to make the species more viable as time goes on.

Also wrong.

A better question is, if things evolved upwards,

They don't. Remember, tapeworms and troglobites are also products of evolution. There is no up or down in the evolutionary process, only "more fit" and "less fit."

radar said...

"Consider an anemometer, aka a wind gauge. It is a machine. It is not intelligent. Yet it produces useful information, namely a record of wind velocities over time. The same is true of river flow gauges, rain gauges, seismometers, stress gauges, and many other measuring machines"

Uhm, yeah. A machine is a device that is made that converts processes or events into data that we can use as information. Someone had to design the machine and calibrate it so it would automatically react to changing circumstances in ways that we can understand. For instance the flagellum of ecoli bacteria. They are machines. We do not expect them to talk to us but their very existence indicates a purpose and design. You have just made a great argument against yourself here.

Jon Woolf said...

You have just made a great argument against yourself here.

Other way round.

A machine is a device that is made that converts processes or events into data that we can use as information.

Completely by accident, you actually got this right. "Data" and "information" are not the same thing. Information is data that's in a useful format.

The next question to ask yourself is "useful to what, and how?" If no intelligent hand uses the data, then does that data still contain any information?

radar said...

This is not about "if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it", this is about a purposefully designed machine by intelligence doing what it is designed to do.

Wind guage...primitive. Made by man, no big deal but it took intelligence and purpose.

E coli flagellum...exquisitely complex and wonderful. Beyond the mind of man to completely understand to this day (it repairs on the run) and obviously designed.

Jon Woolf said...

Beyond the mind of man to completely understand to this day (it repairs on the run) and obviously designed.

Sorry, Radar, it doesn't work that way. You're trying to prove that the cell was designed, and "it's obvious" isn't an acceptable answer. It's also "obvious" that 1+1=2 ... and yet, that isn't always true.

If no intelligent hand uses a set of data, then does that data still contain any information?

Anonymous said...

"It is the Darwinist who believes that man is the top of the evolutionary heap."

See, this is where discussion is hampered by the fact that you don't bother to acquaint yourself with the actual theory of evolution, causing you to make stuff up out of thin air. "Darwinists" believe nothing of the kind. "Man the top of the evolutionary heap"? You're clearly projecting your own beliefs here.

"Thus he also must, if dedicated and true to his belief system, believe that some races are superior to others and that man must control breeding in order to make the species more viable as time goes on. Abortion and euthanasia and Eugenics are all tools in the Darwinist toolbelt."

And this is where your own propaganda gets in your way. Because YEC doesn't have a leg to stand on scientifically, you keep having to pretend that it's all about worldview, which then causes you to think that the theory of evolution represents a worldview, complete with moral imperatives.

The theory of evolution is a description of what happened, not a prescription of the way things ought to be.

For what I would think is a fairly foolproof example, consider the theory of gravity. Does it make you think that we should put everything from high shelves and put them on the floor? Obviously not. The theory simply describes what happens, not what ought to happen.

"The Mantis Shrimp eye (and the Trilobite, for that matter) is a problem for you, not me."

How so? This seems to stem from your misconception that "Darwinists" say man is the "top of the evolutionary heap". Neither the Mantis Shrimp eye nor the trilobite are in the slightest bit problematic for the theory of evolution.

"God designed organisms to fill a niche in the ecosystem we call Earth. All life has contingencies and redundancies built in to the cell. DNA works with the cell to produce copies of the mother with genetic input from the father. This creates a hard wall between kinds because the mother always lays the framework for the child."

And yet we can observe genetic variation and evolution through natural selection.

"Darwinists once claimed that we all evolved from simple life born in water. Now we know most of the simplest life forms still exist and many in the same way found in the fossil record."

This seems to be a variation of what that well-known scientist Larry King once said: "If evolution is true, how come there are still monkeys?" Is that what you're getting at?

Again, do read up on the theory of evolution sometime. It is not directed, not teleological, and not everything evolves at the same rate.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Once you understand how well designed the cell actually is you know that it did not happen by chance"

Again, you just "know"? It's just "obvious"? Added information and complexity through evolution/natural selection has been demonstrated, so design is hardly a foregone conclusion.

"and you understand that the rock layers were a result of the flood. Then everything makes sense."

Say what? This is a complete non sequitur. Once you understand how well designed the cell is, you understand that the rock layers were a result of the flood? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

"Polystrates and paraconformities and etc. are simply part of the sedimentary results of the flood and the aftermath."

Are there any polystrates that actually span layers covering millions of years according to current dating methods? So far you haven't presented a single one.

Polystrates are evidence of relatively rapid burial/sedimentation, but that in turn is not evidence of a global flood.

And there are no paraconformities that are not explained by either twisting or partial erosion.

"So I count 28 posts, no answer for information but a lot of squirming so far. "

No answer for where information came from? Nonsense. You simply failed to engage in the discussion. Perhaps you didn't understand, for example, what scohen was getting at.

-- creeper

radar said...

All this propaganda at once!

No, many paraconformities have not been explained and cannot be explained so they are ignored by the ruling class.

A polystrate that measured some 80 feet was found in England in the 1800's thrust through layers of coal that was estimated to encompass was supposed to be millions of years. There is no explanation for polystrates that does not include catastrophism.

So if the rock layers are all catastrophic, where does that leave gradualism?

So have you all cried information "uncle?" Not one answer yet. scohen tried to give me puzzles, Woolf uses an intelligently designed machine to answer and creeper just claims victory. Not very impressive.

I have two different accounts on different computers. That way I do not have to remember which login I am using for which set of blogs. I belong to a couple of team blogs and one team sharepoint access account.

I am a Christian and have joined a segment of the Republicans (the Republican Liberty Caucus) in an attempt to be the conscience of the Republican Party. I am a charter member and officer of that group but I refuse to join the national party or give them even a penny. So I do not belong to the Republican Party but rather to about four Tea Party organizations and one 527 group that is designed to kick the buttheads out of the elephant side. My wife and I are influencing and working with locals.

radar said...

Genetic variations? That is how information gets into the cell?????!!!!!!!!!!! Genetic variations are the combination/recombination and subtraction of preexisting information in the cell.

Where does money come from? My bank account. No, where did THAT money come from? Somebody had to put money in the bank for it to be there. You cannot say genetic information comes from the gene in answer to the question of where the gene got the information.

Jon Woolf said...

No, many paraconformities have not been explained and cannot be explained

Examples?

so they are ignored by the ruling class.

Ruling class? [snork]

A polystrate that measured some 80 feet was found in England in the 1800's thrust through layers of coal that was estimated to encompass was supposed to be millions of years.

Details please. Exact location, exact local geology, exact description of the "polystrate" fossil.

Genetic variations are the combination/recombination and subtraction of preexisting information in the cell.

And addition. When a gene undergoes a mutation, the result is a new gene with a new DNA sequence. It may do the same thing that the old gene did. It may not. It might do the same thing better. Or worse. Or it might do something else entirely.

(Aside: lurkers please note Radar's tactics here. Unable to make even one statement about Archaeopteryx that is drawn from his own understanding, not quoted from a creationist tract, Radar has run away from the whole topic of transitionals and dodged back to his old stand-bys of "information" and "polystrate fossils." Those who think Radar actually knows the material he's talking about should take note.)

John Terry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Terry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jimmy Hazard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jimmy Hazard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Terry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter Carter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter Carter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jimmy Hazard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Terry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Terry said...





Found your blog. It is full of really good information. Thank you for sharing. If you ever need service on air conditioning repair please visit us at rheemteamcomfort.com. We would love it if you would have a look at some of our blogs and let us know your thoughts.

Peter Carter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter Carter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jimmy Hazard said...


Very interesting. If you have paid the penalty abatement letter
, we can get them back for you. Head over to refundproject.com or call us at: 888-659-0588.

Peter Carter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter Carter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter Carter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter Carter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jimmy Hazard said...


Very interesting. If you have paid the irs penalty abatement form , we can get them back for you. Head over to refundproject.com or call us at: 888-659-0588.

Peter Carter said...






Great information here. Thank you for sharing. If you are ever in a need of colorado
emergency
Services we are Aurora Locksmith Services. You can find us at auroralocksmithco.com.com or call us at: (720) 220-4851.