Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

**Pooeypants** · Jan 25, 2004, 06:46 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,)

I reviewed the lecture series you posted. They are good, but incomplete as far as dealing with all potential mutations that may take place during diversification and speciation. The point of the possibility of new genetic material comes under the section that desvribes the possible 'insertion' in genetic mutation.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Oh I forgot to add in duplication, same in plants, they can sometimes double their chromosomal numbers...

jpapadpapa · Jan 25, 2004, 09:19 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
For ****'s sake, I was taught that at Secondary (High School) level?

Did you timewarp from a century ago?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Hmmmm...that's funny. This is not a personal attack? Wow. I'd hate to see what you consider a personal attack. Come on, let's have a real debate instead of resorting to lazy tactics. I will take a look at the link you provided and respond to it when I have the time later.

jpapadpapa · Jan 25, 2004, 11:04 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Oh I forgot to add in duplication, same in plants, they can sometimes double their chromosomal numbers...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Since I don't have time to recap all this information and I probably wouldn't do it justice anyway, I just posted the link here for you.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4343...Plantcolour.asp

Yikes! Aren't there any other creationists here who can help me out? There's so many on the evolution side that I don't have time to debate everyone.

Earlier, someone accused AiG of lying and misrepresenting. Can you please give me an example? I'd like to see this so I can address that comment.

jpapadpapa · Jan 25, 2004, 11:08 am

I also wanted to highlight one quotation from the article on Einstein's Gulf that I posted earlier:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
For any materialistic theory of evolution—i.e., the kinds espoused by Darwin, Freud, Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Sagan, Gould, etc.—all of which propose that non-living chemicals sprang to life which eventually evolved abstract thought, Einstein's Gulf produces a logical burden under which they collapse. All those theories fail to show in a comprehensible and plausible way how it is possible for inert matter to cross Einstein's Gulf.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What are your thoughts?

Capitalist Pig · Jan 25, 2004, 03:31 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
What are your thoughts?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>The ICR paper is rather unimpressive. The author would like to know why the proponents of evolution have fronted no explanation, and the simple answer is that one is not necessary. The article plays on the flawed perception that evolution has never been observed, that evidence for it doesn't exist. The author suggests it exists purely as an abstract explanation, when in fact it is not. It is simply another case of Creationists purporting a misconstrued view of evolution, in order to make a point. While I realize the article was not meant as a complete case against evolution, it would help if one could have shown that evolution has never been observed, before making use of Einstein's Gulf to disprove it. This is purely rhetorical because, as I established on page one, it has.

**Pooeypants** · Jan 25, 2004, 05:16 pm

Related to link.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

"Evolution needs swags of new information, if a microbe really did change into a man over several billion years. The additional new information would take nearly a thousand books of 500 pages each to print the sequence. Random changes cannot account for a page, or even a sentence, of this, let alone accounting for all of it. The evolutionist has an incredible faith!"
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Now how misleading is that? Evolution never claimed a microbe changed directly in man.
He doesn't even give the mathematics to prove his own random raving numbers.

jpapadpapa · Jan 25, 2004, 09:33 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
While I realize the article was not meant as a complete case against evolution, it would help if one could have shown that evolution has never been observed, before making use of Einstein's Gulf to disprove it. This is purely rhetorical because, as I established on page one, it has.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually, I don't believe that you did establish that. You showed that sometimes a loss of genetic material can be beneficial, but isn't this just natural selection? There is a common misconception that Creationists do not believe in natural selection. There is no doubt that occasionally a genetic mutation will be beneficial, but it is still a loss or corruption of genetic information. No one has observed evolution in action. No one has observed one species change into another.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
*yawn*
You know if you want what to take it personal thats fine but stop acting so ignorant, all the science is available readily for you and we will do nothing to stop you learning from it. And seeing as you're on the internet, there's no excuse not know the facts, especially when you make bold claims such as "The point that needs to be made is that scientists have yet to find a mutation that actually increases genetic information", when quite clearly thats wrong. You didn't even make it out like you were perhaps unsure, you basically stated that like it was a fact. And thats what pisses me off.

Anyway, look here and scroll down to Deletions and Insertions.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

As for this arguement, here's a great quotation I found from a question and answer session:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I had an evolutionist biologist tell me that new information could be added through polyploidal mutations and successive mutations. What’s wrong with this?

Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc. do not help the evolutionary cause. While they represent an increase in amount of DNA, they do not constitute an increase in the amount of functional genetic information—these create nothing new. Molecules-to-man evolution needs new genes (for making feathers on reptiles, for example). <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Also, I think if the question raised by Einstein's Gulf is a valid one, then it deserves to be answered regardless of the purported proof of evolution. If we assume that evolution is true, then why don't we try to explain this idea?

Finally, I found another site that may be of interest to some:

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/index.htm

shunyadragon · Jan 25, 2004, 10:59 pm

Quote:

I had an evolutionist biologist tell me that new information could be added through polyploidal mutations and successive mutations. What’s wrong with this?

Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc. do not help the evolutionary cause. While they represent an increase in amount of DNA, they do not constitute an increase in the amount of functional genetic information—these create nothing new. Molecules-to-man evolution needs new genes (for making feathers on reptiles, for example).

Also, I think if the question raised by Einstein's Gulf is a valid one, then it deserves to be answered regardless of the purported proof of evolution. If we assume that evolution is true, then why don't we try to explain this idea?
[/quote]

Please enlightment on what you are refering to as 'Eistein's Gulf'.

Capitalist Pig · Jan 26, 2004, 03:30 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
Actually, I don't believe that you did establish that. You showed that sometimes a loss of genetic material can be beneficial, but isn't this just natural selection? There is a common misconception that Creationists do not believe in natural selection. There is no doubt that occasionally a genetic mutation will be beneficial, but it is still a loss or corruption of genetic information.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>What you are misusing here is Shannon information theory[1], first published in the late '40s by Claude Shannon. He was working for Bell Labs, attempting to better encode information for transmitting over a noisy link. With the transmitter as the only source of information, the noise (randomness) takes on the role of entropy in the link -- decreasing the information content, but never producing it. This form of information theory does not apply to evolution, because the randomness is not separate from the source of information content. It is not trying to communicate from one station to another, it is simply acting.

The alternative is Kolmogorov, Chaitin, and Solomonoff's information theory[2]. The difference between KCS IT and Shannon's theory, is that KCS IT deals with algorithmic complexity, rather than a statistical comparison of the coherency of information from a single source. In this theory, the randomness in a "string" is the information, and the word entropy takes on a new meaning as a measure of information. The more randomness contained, the more information is present because of a low occurrence of redundancy. An increase in redundancy would mean a decrease of randomness, and so you would have less information. When applied to evolution, KCS IT suggests that information is constantly added and removed from the genome. This is not just theoretically possible, it has been observed in the real world.

Flavobacterium (species K172) was discovered in bacterial mats growing in a waste pond behind a factory in Japan[3]. Upon inspection in the laboratory, scientists discovered something extraordinary. The bacterium had apparently undergone a Frame Shift mutation, that produced an entirely new enzyme. This new enzyme, called nylonase, enables the hydrolysis of nylon for metabolization. Nylon is a a synthetic polyamide that wasn't around before the 1930s. The evolution of a whole new protein that responds to nylon oligomers, developing in a naturally occurring bacterium floating in the discarded sludge of a nylon factory, presents a tough case to dispute of a mutation clearly adding information.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Also, I think if the question raised by Einstein's Gulf is a valid one, then it deserves to be answered regardless of the purported proof of evolution. If we assume that evolution is true, then why don't we try to explain this idea?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Because if evolution is true, then it doesn't need to be answered. It's in the world of concrete objects. The underlying assumption of the article is that evolution is an abstract concept because there's no proof -- according to the author -- that evolution happens. If it does happen (and it is), there is no point in answering it.

Footnotes

1 More information on Shannon Theory: http://www.lucent.com/minds/infotheory/

2 Wikipedia entry on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_i...ormation_theory

3 Thomas, D. (2000) Evolution And Information: The Nylon Bug. http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,)
Please enlightment on what you are refering to as 'Eistein's Gulf'.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Here's the article that was referred to: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-327.htm

**Pooeypants** · Jan 26, 2004, 03:39 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)

Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc. do not help the evolutionary cause. While they represent an increase in amount of DNA, they do not constitute an increase in the amount of functional genetic information—these create nothing new. Molecules-to-man evolution needs new genes (for making feathers on reptiles, for example). <hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Once again, very misleading, saying molecules to man implies we evolved from organic matter to humans. I would like an example or how, if the insertion mutation occurs in a specific gene which then alters the protein it codes and thus a different enzyme, does not help in evolution.
Perhaps he should read this. And you'll see at the bottom a bibliography with all valid and qualified quotes. So how's Dr Dino doing these days?

Capitalist Pig · Jan 26, 2004, 03:45 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
So how's Dr Dino doing these days?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Damn it! I was hoping I could get through one evolution debate without hearing that bastard fanatic's name!

shunyadragon · Jan 26, 2004, 03:54 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
I also wanted to highlight one quotation from the article on Einstein's Gulf that I posted earlier:

What are your thoughts?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Sorry for the typo I made earlier concerning the differentiation of scientists who believe in God and believe science created the universe over billions of years and fundimentalist Christians who believe in a literal Genesis supported by 'Creation Science'. I think this an important distinctions.

Darwin should not be included with the atheist view of evolution held by scientists like Sagan or others. Darwin was not an atheist promoting a theory of evolution that took place by 'chance'. Darwin believed in God and proposed that the evolution he proposed was how God created the species. In fact the current scientific view of 'chaos mathimatics' nothing in the history of existence takes place randomly or by chance.

Darwin, Einstein and myself believe in God and creation, but not 'Creation Science' I have not found any quote by Einstein where he opposed evolution or supported 'Creation Science'. His research was devoted to understanding the underlying laws and principles for existence and he was not concerned with how existence was created. Most sources and quotes by him describe him as a Pantheist, which has little in common with the Christian view.

I looked back over the posts and now understand what 'Einstein's Gulf' refers too. No I don't think it applies to the Scientific view of evolution. The problem is whether people believe the evidence supports evolution or not. I feel the evidence does. Those who believe in 'Creation Science' believe the evidence does not. I'll explain in the next post how strategraphy supports a continuous long history, billions of years long without the support of radioactive decay dating, where distinct communities of life lived showing a gradual change from simple forms to complex forms. I believe radioactive decay dating supports this, but it is not necessary for the arguement of a long time frame for the history of life on earth.

There actually two different interesting arguements. (1) The source of the original life forms. (2) the evolution of life over billions of years. Darwin only addressed this issue (Origin of the Species), because the strategraphy concerning the different layers of rocks he collected data on offered no clues as to the origins of life.

Of these two issues the debate centers on two key points. (1) The age of the earth, solar system, universe and existence. The time frame for life on earth is a key issue in this arguement. Evolutionist believe the evidence of strategraphy and radioactive decay support the arguement for a long time frame for the different forms of life to evolve on the earth. (2) The relationship between the different life forms over the history of the earth. Evolutionists consider all life to be related. Fundimentalist Christians and many Moslems believe in 'Special Creation' where each specie was created seperately and in a relatively short time.

In the time and relationship between the species issue there is a related arguement and that is the issue of the 'Flood'.

Questions to jpapadpapa:

Do you believe in a short (thousands of years)or long (billions of years)time frame for the existence of the earth, solar system and the unverse?

Do you believe in a world flood?

Do you feel there is geologic or other sciencific evidence of a world flood?

Did humans exist on the earth at the same time as the dinosaurs? Is there any evidence of this?

shunyadragon · Jan 26, 2004, 04:17 am

The arguement by those who believe in 'Creation Science' that evolution between species has not been observed is valid if you are not allowed to submit geologic evidence. Those who believe in 'Creation Science' do not accept the geologic evidence for the progressive evolution of life. They believe these are distincly different species and unrelated, so 'Einstein's Gulf' is apparently how they view what they call the lack of evidence.

The actual evolution of species and the related genetic changes occur tens of thousands of years at least. There is no way science could ever 'directly observe' these changes.

They often point out the lack of intermediate examples of fossils as support for their argument. The best examples today science has for many intermediate stages of evolution, mixed populations with different stages of development is the horse and the whale.

shunyadragon · Jan 26, 2004, 04:53 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)

Since I don't have time to recap all this information and I probably wouldn't do it justice anyway, I just posted the link here for you.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4343...Plantcolour.asp

Yikes! Aren't there any other creationists here who can help me out? There's so many on the evolution side that I don't have time to debate everyone.

Earlier, someone accused AiG of lying and misrepresenting. Can you please give me an example? I'd like to see this so I can address that comment.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well if I'm not the first. I will say that the article from the skeptic on refering to plant color as an example of NEW GENETIC INFORMATION is a bogus as a 'three dollar bill' or a 'wing nut that can fly'.

(1) It refers to a person with a background in genetics and plant breeding. First mistake is his name, title and any reference to him as an authority is not given. Most credible magazines and other publications will site the person correctly that offers the question.

(2) The examples it gives are ones that someone with a background in genetics and plant breeding would never ever give for NEW INFORMATION. Using the examples given for evidence of NEW INFORMATION represents down right ignorance and stupidity in genetics and I am not an authority on genetics. These topics were covered in my basic Genetics course that I took as an Agriculture major in college.

I have a source that I am sure will offer more examples in the near future.

jpapadpapa · Jan 26, 2004, 09:25 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Questions to jpapadpapa:

Do you believe in a short (thousands of years)or long (billions of years)time frame for the existence of the earth, solar system and the unverse?

Do you believe in a world flood?

Do you feel there is geologic or other sciencific evidence of a world flood?

Did humans exist on the earth at the same time as the dinosaurs? Is there any evidence of this?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Quick answers--I doubt they'll shock you based on our discussion thus far:

1. Only thousands of years, not billions

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. Yes; Yes

Reasons to come later when time permits...

**Pooeypants** · Jan 26, 2004, 09:36 am

If you give me anything about a human footprint found with Dinos...I'm going to laugh my head off. I'll cite my sources later if you do so.

jpapadpapa · Jan 26, 2004, 09:57 am

Thanks for the heads-up. Ha, ha. I can't find the smiley's on here, BTW. I feel so constricted!

jpapadpapa · Jan 26, 2004, 09:59 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Well if I'm not the first. I will say that the article from the skeptic on refering to plant color as an example of NEW GENETIC INFORMATION is a bogus as a 'three dollar bill' or a 'wing nut that can fly'. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You really have no proof, though. The supposed proof you gave is really just your personal opinion. I am not saying you are wrong (though I believe you are), but that you have not proven anything with your example.

jpapadpapa · Jan 26, 2004, 10:02 am

...Perhaps this geneticist is just "down right ignorant and stupid." <wink>

jpapadpapa · Jan 26, 2004, 10:44 am

As a clarification, the link I posted earlier is a secular site that is against evolution. They have some links to Biblically-based sites, but they will not answer questions related to the Bible. That is why I thought some of you would find it more compelling than a site such as Answers in Genesis. Here's the link one more time:

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/index.htm

Jan 25, 2004, 06:46 am	#61 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,473	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,) I reviewed the lecture series you posted. They are good, but incomplete as far as dealing with all potential mutations that may take place during diversification and speciation. The point of the possibility of new genetic material comes under the section that desvribes the possible 'insertion' in genetic mutation.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Oh I forgot to add in duplication, same in plants, they can sometimes double their chromosomal numbers... War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 25, 2004, 09:19 am	#62 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by For ***'s sake, I was taught that at Secondary (High School) level? Did you timewarp from a century ago?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Hmmmm...that's funny. This* is not a personal attack? Wow. I'd hate to see what you consider a personal attack. Come on, let's have a real debate instead of resorting to lazy tactics. I will take a look at the link you provided and respond to it when I have the time later. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 25, 2004, 11:04 am	#63 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Oh I forgot to add in duplication, same in plants, they can sometimes double their chromosomal numbers...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Since I don't have time to recap all this information and I probably wouldn't do it justice anyway, I just posted the link here for you. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4343...Plantcolour.asp Yikes! Aren't there any other creationists here who can help me out? There's so many on the evolution side that I don't have time to debate everyone. Earlier, someone accused AiG of lying and misrepresenting. Can you please give me an example? I'd like to see this so I can address that comment. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 25, 2004, 11:08 am	#64 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	I also wanted to highlight one quotation from the article on Einstein's Gulf that I posted earlier: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by For any materialistic theory of evolution—i.e., the kinds espoused by Darwin, Freud, Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Sagan, Gould, etc.—all of which propose that non-living chemicals sprang to life which eventually evolved abstract thought, Einstein's Gulf produces a logical burden under which they collapse. All those theories fail to show in a comprehensible and plausible way how it is possible for inert matter to cross Einstein's Gulf.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What are your thoughts? I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 25, 2004, 03:31 pm	#65 (permalink) (top)
Capitalist Pig Market Anarchist Location: United States Posts: 650	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) What are your thoughts?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>The ICR paper is rather unimpressive. The author would like to know why the proponents of evolution have fronted no explanation, and the simple answer is that one is not necessary. The article plays on the flawed perception that evolution has never been observed, that evidence for it doesn't exist. The author suggests it exists purely as an abstract explanation, when in fact it is not. It is simply another case of Creationists purporting a misconstrued view of evolution, in order to make a point. While I realize the article was not meant as a complete case against evolution, it would help if one could have shown that evolution has never been observed, before making use of Einstein's Gulf to disprove it. This is purely rhetorical because, as I established on page one, it has. Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te Fortuna sinet.

Jan 25, 2004, 05:16 pm	#66 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,473	Related to link. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by "Evolution needs swags of new information, if a microbe really did change into a man over several billion years. The additional new information would take nearly a thousand books of 500 pages each to print the sequence. Random changes cannot account for a page, or even a sentence, of this, let alone accounting for all of it. The evolutionist has an incredible faith!" <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Now how misleading is that? Evolution never claimed a microbe changed directly in man. He doesn't even give the mathematics to prove his own random raving numbers. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 25, 2004, 09:33 pm	#67 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by While I realize the article was not meant as a complete case against evolution, it would help if one could have shown that evolution has never been observed, before making use of Einstein's Gulf to disprove it. This is purely rhetorical because, as I established on page one, it has.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually, I don't believe that you did establish that. You showed that sometimes a loss of genetic material can be beneficial, but isn't this just natural selection? There is a common misconception that Creationists do not believe in natural selection. There is no doubt that occasionally a genetic mutation will be beneficial, but it is still a loss or corruption of genetic information. No one has observed evolution in action. No one has observed one species change into another. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by yawn You know if you want what to take it personal thats fine but stop acting so ignorant, all the science is available readily for you and we will do nothing to stop you learning from it. And seeing as you're on the internet, there's no excuse not know the facts, especially when you make bold claims such as "The point that needs to be made is that scientists have yet to find a mutation that actually increases genetic information", when quite clearly thats wrong. You didn't even make it out like you were perhaps unsure, you basically stated that like it was a fact. And thats what pisses me off. Anyway, look here and scroll down to Deletions and Insertions.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> As for this arguement, here's a great quotation I found from a question and answer session: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I had an evolutionist biologist tell me that new information could be added through polyploidal mutations and successive mutations. What’s wrong with this? Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc. do not help the evolutionary cause. While they represent an increase in amount of DNA, they do not constitute an increase in the amount of functional genetic information—these create nothing new. Molecules-to-man evolution needs new genes (for making feathers on reptiles, for example). <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Also, I think if the question raised by Einstein's Gulf is a valid one, then it deserves to be answered regardless of the purported proof of evolution. If we assume that evolution is true, then why don't we try to explain this idea? Finally, I found another site that may be of interest to some: http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/index.htm I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 26, 2004, 03:30 am	#69 (permalink) (top)
Capitalist Pig Market Anarchist Location: United States Posts: 650	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) Actually, I don't believe that you did establish that. You showed that sometimes a loss of genetic material can be beneficial, but isn't this just natural selection? There is a common misconception that Creationists do not believe in natural selection. There is no doubt that occasionally a genetic mutation will be beneficial, but it is still a loss or corruption of genetic information.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>What you are misusing here is Shannon information theory[1], first published in the late '40s by Claude Shannon. He was working for Bell Labs, attempting to better encode information for transmitting over a noisy link. With the transmitter as the only source of information, the noise (randomness) takes on the role of entropy in the link -- decreasing the information content, but never producing it. This form of information theory does not apply to evolution, because the randomness is not separate from the source of information content. It is not trying to communicate from one station to another, it is simply acting. The alternative is Kolmogorov, Chaitin, and Solomonoff's information theory[2]. The difference between KCS IT and Shannon's theory, is that KCS IT deals with algorithmic complexity, rather than a statistical comparison of the coherency of information from a single source. In this theory, the randomness in a "string" is the information, and the word entropy takes on a new meaning as a measure of information. The more randomness contained, the more information is present because of a low occurrence of redundancy. An increase in redundancy would mean a decrease of randomness, and so you would have less information. When applied to evolution, KCS IT suggests that information is constantly added and removed from the genome. This is not just theoretically possible, it has been observed in the real world. Flavobacterium (species K172) was discovered in bacterial mats growing in a waste pond behind a factory in Japan[3]. Upon inspection in the laboratory, scientists discovered something extraordinary. The bacterium had apparently undergone a Frame Shift mutation, that produced an entirely new enzyme. This new enzyme, called nylonase, enables the hydrolysis of nylon for metabolization. Nylon is a a synthetic polyamide that wasn't around before the 1930s. The evolution of a whole new protein that responds to nylon oligomers, developing in a naturally occurring bacterium floating in the discarded sludge of a nylon factory, presents a tough case to dispute of a mutation clearly adding information. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Also, I think if the question raised by Einstein's Gulf is a valid one, then it deserves to be answered regardless of the purported proof of evolution. If we assume that evolution is true, then why don't we try to explain this idea?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Because if evolution is true, then it doesn't need to be answered. It's in the world of concrete objects. The underlying assumption of the article is that evolution is an abstract concept because there's no proof -- according to the author -- that evolution happens. If it does happen (and it is), there is no point in answering it. Footnotes 1 More information on Shannon Theory: http://www.lucent.com/minds/infotheory/ 2 Wikipedia entry on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_i...ormation_theory 3 Thomas, D. (2000) Evolution And Information: The Nylon Bug. http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,) Please enlightment on what you are refering to as 'Eistein's Gulf'.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Here's the article that was referred to: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-327.htm Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te Fortuna sinet.

Jan 26, 2004, 03:39 am	#70 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,473	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc. do not help the evolutionary cause. While they represent an increase in amount of DNA, they do not constitute an increase in the amount of functional genetic information—these create nothing new. Molecules-to-man evolution needs new genes (for making feathers on reptiles, for example). <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Once again, very misleading, saying molecules to man implies we evolved from organic matter to humans. I would like an example or how, if the insertion mutation occurs in a specific gene which then alters the protein it codes and thus a different enzyme, does not help in evolution. Perhaps he should read this. And you'll see at the bottom a bibliography with all valid and qualified quotes. So how's Dr Dino doing these days? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 26, 2004, 03:45 am	#71 (permalink) (top)
Capitalist Pig Market Anarchist Location: United States Posts: 650	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) So how's Dr Dino doing these days?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Damn it! I was hoping I could get through one evolution debate without hearing that bastard fanatic's name! Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te Fortuna sinet.

Jan 26, 2004, 03:54 am	#72 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) I also wanted to highlight one quotation from the article on Einstein's Gulf that I posted earlier: What are your thoughts?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Sorry for the typo I made earlier concerning the differentiation of scientists who believe in God and believe science created the universe over billions of years and fundimentalist Christians who believe in a literal Genesis supported by 'Creation Science'. I think this an important distinctions. Darwin should not be included with the atheist view of evolution held by scientists like Sagan or others. Darwin was not an atheist promoting a theory of evolution that took place by 'chance'. Darwin believed in God and proposed that the evolution he proposed was how God created the species. In fact the current scientific view of 'chaos mathimatics' nothing in the history of existence takes place randomly or by chance. Darwin, Einstein and myself believe in God and creation, but not 'Creation Science' I have not found any quote by Einstein where he opposed evolution or supported 'Creation Science'. His research was devoted to understanding the underlying laws and principles for existence and he was not concerned with how existence was created. Most sources and quotes by him describe him as a Pantheist, which has little in common with the Christian view. I looked back over the posts and now understand what 'Einstein's Gulf' refers too. No I don't think it applies to the Scientific view of evolution. The problem is whether people believe the evidence supports evolution or not. I feel the evidence does. Those who believe in 'Creation Science' believe the evidence does not. I'll explain in the next post how strategraphy supports a continuous long history, billions of years long without the support of radioactive decay dating, where distinct communities of life lived showing a gradual change from simple forms to complex forms. I believe radioactive decay dating supports this, but it is not necessary for the arguement of a long time frame for the history of life on earth. There actually two different interesting arguements. (1) The source of the original life forms. (2) the evolution of life over billions of years. Darwin only addressed this issue (Origin of the Species), because the strategraphy concerning the different layers of rocks he collected data on offered no clues as to the origins of life. Of these two issues the debate centers on two key points. (1) The age of the earth, solar system, universe and existence. The time frame for life on earth is a key issue in this arguement. Evolutionist believe the evidence of strategraphy and radioactive decay support the arguement for a long time frame for the different forms of life to evolve on the earth. (2) The relationship between the different life forms over the history of the earth. Evolutionists consider all life to be related. Fundimentalist Christians and many Moslems believe in 'Special Creation' where each specie was created seperately and in a relatively short time. In the time and relationship between the species issue there is a related arguement and that is the issue of the 'Flood'. Questions to jpapadpapa: Do you believe in a short (thousands of years)or long (billions of years)time frame for the existence of the earth, solar system and the unverse? Do you believe in a world flood? Do you feel there is geologic or other sciencific evidence of a world flood? Did humans exist on the earth at the same time as the dinosaurs? Is there any evidence of this? The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Jan 26, 2004, 04:17 am	#73 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	The arguement by those who believe in 'Creation Science' that evolution between species has not been observed is valid if you are not allowed to submit geologic evidence. Those who believe in 'Creation Science' do not accept the geologic evidence for the progressive evolution of life. They believe these are distincly different species and unrelated, so 'Einstein's Gulf' is apparently how they view what they call the lack of evidence. The actual evolution of species and the related genetic changes occur tens of thousands of years at least. There is no way science could ever 'directly observe' these changes. They often point out the lack of intermediate examples of fossils as support for their argument. The best examples today science has for many intermediate stages of evolution, mixed populations with different stages of development is the horse and the whale. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Jan 26, 2004, 04:53 am	#74 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) Since I don't have time to recap all this information and I probably wouldn't do it justice anyway, I just posted the link here for you. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4343...Plantcolour.asp Yikes! Aren't there any other creationists here who can help me out? There's so many on the evolution side that I don't have time to debate everyone. Earlier, someone accused AiG of lying and misrepresenting. Can you please give me an example? I'd like to see this so I can address that comment.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well if I'm not the first. I will say that the article from the skeptic on refering to plant color as an example of NEW GENETIC INFORMATION is a bogus as a 'three dollar bill' or a 'wing nut that can fly'. (1) It refers to a person with a background in genetics and plant breeding. First mistake is his name, title and any reference to him as an authority is not given. Most credible magazines and other publications will site the person correctly that offers the question. (2) The examples it gives are ones that someone with a background in genetics and plant breeding would never ever give for NEW INFORMATION. Using the examples given for evidence of NEW INFORMATION represents down right ignorance and stupidity in genetics and I am not an authority on genetics. These topics were covered in my basic Genetics course that I took as an Agriculture major in college. I have a source that I am sure will offer more examples in the near future. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Jan 26, 2004, 09:25 am	#75 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Questions to jpapadpapa: Do you believe in a short (thousands of years)or long (billions of years)time frame for the existence of the earth, solar system and the unverse? Do you believe in a world flood? Do you feel there is geologic or other sciencific evidence of a world flood? Did humans exist on the earth at the same time as the dinosaurs? Is there any evidence of this?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Quick answers--I doubt they'll shock you based on our discussion thus far: 1. Only thousands of years, not billions 2. Yes 3. Yes 4. Yes; Yes Reasons to come later when time permits... I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 26, 2004, 09:36 am	#76 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,473	If you give me anything about a human footprint found with Dinos...I'm going to laugh my head off. I'll cite my sources later if you do so. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 26, 2004, 09:57 am	#77 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	Thanks for the heads-up. Ha, ha. I can't find the smiley's on here, BTW. I feel so constricted! I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 26, 2004, 09:59 am	#78 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Well if I'm not the first. I will say that the article from the skeptic on refering to plant color as an example of NEW GENETIC INFORMATION is a bogus as a 'three dollar bill' or a 'wing nut that can fly'. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You really have no proof, though. The supposed proof you gave is really just your personal opinion. I am not saying you are wrong (though I believe you are), but that you have not proven anything with your example. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 26, 2004, 10:02 am	#79 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	...Perhaps this geneticist is just "down right ignorant and stupid." <wink> I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 26, 2004, 10:44 am	#80 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	As a clarification, the link I posted earlier is a secular site that is against evolution. They have some links to Biblically-based sites, but they will not answer questions related to the Bible. That is why I thought some of you would find it more compelling than a site such as Answers in Genesis. Here's the link one more time: http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/index.htm I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.