****Official Bill Nye The Science Guy Thread******* (1 Viewer)

[fatness]

blowhole

 

[Cliff Clavin]

If you can't see it, it's not worth discussing. DNA=blueprints. The watch found in the desert proves a designer. The house you come upon, proves a designer. It's elementary. It's logic 101 to ME. Obviously not to you, and if you don't respect my intelligence due to my "simplistic" view on this, that's your right. But I don't know exactly what you're asking for here. Kind of like the scripture that was posted earlier Romans 1:20. Creation is clearly seen, it's right in front of your eyes every day. Either you see it or you don't.

So your theory is:1) Something is there2) ????3) God did it. And more specifically, your god since it says so in your book.Great theory.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I don't know how you quantify either on to be honest. Which is harder or less hard. Life from non- life is a miracle and something science isn't close to explaining.

Which makes more sense: saying "I don't know" or "god did it"?

 

[MasterofOrion]

Convergent evolution may have evolution in its name, but what it means is that unrelated species have similar features that are not the result of evolution.

Blind humans do not have sonar equipment that bats or dolphins have. Humans just listen to how the sound bonces back to them after they click with their mouth.

I didn't say dolphins didn't have predecessors am saying that sonar in unrelated species appear to be very similar based on something other than evolution.

No, convergent evolution means that different organisms that were under the same selective pressures independently evolved a similar solution.Also, to the point about blind humans - what I am illustrating is that humans do have the capacity for sonar. If there was selective pressure for humans with sonar there would be a subset of the population that would have an advantage. No different than bats or dolphins. Some of us already have this ability - but it isn't being selected for because we don't need it.

That is a distinction without a difference. Tasmanian wolf is not related to north american wolf. We have no proof that they had the same selective pressures. That is a huge assumption.going from point A to point b isn't as simple as putting selective pressure on something. Sonar is a designed integrated biological machines. You need a biological pathway, environmental conditions that require the adaptation to have an advantage.... You can assume all that happened, but that isn't proof.

Yet you make even greater assumptions that point to the existence of God...

You make just as big an assumption that life occurred without a God.

No, not really. And I don't do it while simultaneously denouncing other's theories for not having a standard of proof that my own theory doesn't even come close, by orders of magnitude, of achieving (all while butchering English along the way).

I think you have it backwards.

Science is scrutinized and challenged as a matter of course

Proof of a theory has to stand on its own two feet. TOE is the only science I know of that says It is right because the other theory is wrong.

 

[mad sweeney]

Convergent evolution may have evolution in its name, but what it means is that unrelated species have similar features that are not the result of evolution.

Blind humans do not have sonar equipment that bats or dolphins have. Humans just listen to how the sound bonces back to them after they click with their mouth.

I didn't say dolphins didn't have predecessors am saying that sonar in unrelated species appear to be very similar based on something other than evolution.

No, convergent evolution means that different organisms that were under the same selective pressures independently evolved a similar solution.Also, to the point about blind humans - what I am illustrating is that humans do have the capacity for sonar. If there was selective pressure for humans with sonar there would be a subset of the population that would have an advantage. No different than bats or dolphins. Some of us already have this ability - but it isn't being selected for because we don't need it.

That is a distinction without a difference. Tasmanian wolf is not related to north american wolf. We have no proof that they had the same selective pressures. That is a huge assumption.going from point A to point b isn't as simple as putting selective pressure on something. Sonar is a designed integrated biological machines. You need a biological pathway, environmental conditions that require the adaptation to have an advantage.... You can assume all that happened, but that isn't proof.

Yet you make even greater assumptions that point to the existence of God...

You make just as big an assumption that life occurred without a God.

No, not really. And I don't do it while simultaneously denouncing other's theories for not having a standard of proof that my own theory doesn't even come close, by orders of magnitude, of achieving (all while butchering English along the way).

I think you have it backwards.

Science is scrutinized and challenged as a matter of course

Proof of a theory has to stand on its own two feet. TOE is the only science I know of that says It is right because the other theory is wrong.

And yet you rely on that same exact phrase as proof that you're right...Like I said, hold up your theory to even 1% of the scrutiny you hold TOE up to and it still doesn't even come close to being believable.

 

[MasterofOrion]

I don't know how you quantify either on to be honest. Which is harder or less hard. Life from non- life is a miracle and something science isn't close to explaining.

Which makes more sense: saying "I don't know" or "god did it"?

I am saying that God did it. Why because life, DNA, has specified information which is information that a third party understands. DNA needs ribosomes to create proteins. Ribosomes understands the DNA code and uses it to create something. This is analogous to computer code and computer. The computer code is no value unless it has a "third party" which understands the language that can use it. The only source of specified information is intelligence . This is a theory which best describes the facts and it can be disproven. This is not saying God did it and leaving it that. Information can be measured quantitatively by Shannon Information theory.

 

[mad sweeney]

I don't know how you quantify either on to be honest. Which is harder or less hard. Life from non- life is a miracle and something science isn't close to explaining.

Which makes more sense: saying "I don't know" or "god did it"?

I am saying that God did it. Why because life, DNA, has specified information which is information that a third party understands. DNA needs ribosomes to create proteins. Ribosomes understands the DNA code and uses it to create something. This is analogous to computer code and computer. The computer code is no value unless it has a "third party" which understands the language that can use it. The only source of specified information is intelligence . This is a theory which best describes the facts and it can be disproven. This is not saying God did it and leaving it that. Information can be measured quantitatively by Shannon Information theory.

ie: I have no idea so therefore God Did It! See, it's easy.

 

[CrossEyed]

Master of Orion: Could you please provide me with scientific evidence that God exists?

This isn't even the right question. Science is the study of the physical and natural world. God is spirit and supernatural. Why would you ask for scientific proof of God? The question itself shows that your concept of God is incorrect.

God either exists or doesn't. The answer is one of the two. There is no "evidence" to support existence. There isn't a shread of evidence to support that anything supernatural exists either. None.If man wasn't aware of its own mortality, the idea of the supernatural would never even occur. It is the fear of death that creates the supernatural. Death is the cognitive architect of it all.

That's the bottom line.The rest of your post is all speculative hogwash.

 

[CrossEyed]

I don't know how you quantify either on to be honest. Which is harder or less hard. Life from non- life is a miracle and something science isn't close to explaining.

Which makes more sense: saying "I don't know" or "god did it"?

That would defend on whether or not God did it, now wouldn't it?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

TOE is the only science I know of that says It is right because the other theory is wrong.

Evolution is the best scientific theory we have that describes how species have changed over time. It's been rigorously tested.ID is not a scientific theory. It makes no testable predictions. "It's complicated, ergo God" isn't a testable prediction. It's religion.We've already seen that your main impetus for engaging people on this topic is due to some perceived threat over your religious beliefs. I know that I'm not trying to influence your religious beliefs. I take offense with you trying to take a crap over science, especially when you're doing so as a matter of propaganda.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I don't know how you quantify either on to be honest. Which is harder or less hard. Life from non- life is a miracle and something science isn't close to explaining.

Which makes more sense: saying "I don't know" or "god did it"?

That would defend on whether or not God did it, now wouldn't it?

It sure would. And since there is nothing to indicate that 'god did it' it doesn't make sense to say it.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I don't know how you quantify either on to be honest. Which is harder or less hard. Life from non- life is a miracle and something science isn't close to explaining.

Which makes more sense: saying "I don't know" or "god did it"?

I am saying that God did it. Why because life, DNA, has specified information which is information that a third party understands. DNA needs ribosomes to create proteins. Ribosomes understands the DNA code and uses it to create something. This is analogous to computer code and computer. The computer code is no value unless it has a "third party" which understands the language that can use it. The only source of specified information is intelligence . This is a theory which best describes the facts and it can be disproven. This is not saying God did it and leaving it that. Information can be measured quantitatively by Shannon Information theory.

So if god did it, why did he do such a ####ty job? Why did he make us susceptible to disease but not sharks? He created cancer, addiction, droughts, natural disasters... I could go on here but you get the point. People, created in gods image, are horribly designed. Look at the female reproductive system! Just terrible. Why would an omnipotent god be so terrible at creating stuff?

 

[Frostillicus]

Science is scrutinized and challenged as a matter of courseProof of a theory has to stand on its own two feet. TOE is the only science I know of that says It is right because the other theory is wrong.

I always read these threads because I love science and am always interested in learning and I bet I've seen this explained to you at least 50 times over the years. Why is this so hard to understand, especially for a "chemical engineer."

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Science is scrutinized and challenged as a matter of courseProof of a theory has to stand on its own two feet. TOE is the only science I know of that says It is right because the other theory is wrong.

1) TOE is not a science. It is a theory which is built upon and confirmed by each applicable branch of science.2) Evolution does not give two ####s about any other theory. It stands on alone as the only theory with any evidence behind it.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Science is scrutinized and challenged as a matter of courseProof of a theory has to stand on its own two feet. TOE is the only science I know of that says It is right because the other theory is wrong.

I always read these threads because I love science and am always interested in learning and I bet I've seen this explained to you at least 50 times over the years. Why is this so hard to understand, especially for a "chemical engineer."

I don't know what Bruce's training is. He was more obsessed with telling me that I didn't have two degrees in chemical engineering.

 

[MasterofOrion]

TOE is the only science I know of that says It is right because the other theory is wrong.

Evolution is the best scientific theory we have that describes how species have changed over time. It's been rigorously tested.ID is not a scientific theory. It makes no testable predictions. "It's complicated, ergo God" isn't a testable prediction. It's religion.We've already seen that your main impetus for engaging people on this topic is due to some perceived threat over your religious beliefs. I know that I'm not trying to influence your religious beliefs. I take offense with you trying to take a crap over science, especially when you're doing so as a matter of propaganda.

What is the theory of evolution other than change over time. Without a mechanism the takes things from less complex to more complex we can not explain the complexity, nor the diversity of life. In other words, without a mechanism TOE is just a concept. It has not been rigorously tested. It is a historical science which describes past events. It is absolutely horrible at predicting future events. ( tiktaalik is a possible exception)ID does have a testable theory and I laid it out for you - more than once. . It is testable unlike TOE Both TOE and I.D. use the method of best describes past events. TOE assumes away God in the assumptions. I call that advancing atheism in the name of science.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Science is scrutinized and challenged as a matter of course

Proof of a theory has to stand on its own two feet. TOE is the only science I know of that says It is right because the other theory is wrong.

I always read these threads because I love science and am always interested in learning and I bet I've seen this explained to you at least 50 times over the years. Why is this so hard to understand, especially for a "chemical engineer."

This is a leading scientist that does not believe I.D and states that NDET has not worked and does not explain the diversity of life. He has an alternative theory which is interesting.If you want research articles showing that Neo Darwin Evolution (NDET) has not worked I will be happy to show you peer reviewed research articles for you. I have done so in the past.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Science is scrutinized and challenged as a matter of courseProof of a theory has to stand on its own two feet. TOE is the only science I know of that says It is right because the other theory is wrong.

I always read these threads because I love science and am always interested in learning and I bet I've seen this explained to you at least 50 times over the years. Why is this so hard to understand, especially for a "chemical engineer."

I don't know what Bruce's training is. He was more obsessed with telling me that I didn't have two degrees in chemical engineering.

It started off by you stating you were a chemical engineer and I said that I was as well. The thread went downhill. It was resolved when I sent information to MT about the college I graduated from, the year I graduated and permission to check it out. You started this Chemical Engineering thing.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

What is the theory of evolution other than change over time. Without a mechanism the takes things from less complex to more complex we can not explain the complexity, nor the diversity of life. In other words, without a mechanism TOE is just a concept. It has not been rigorously tested. It is a historical science which describes past events. It is absolutely horrible at predicting future events. ( tiktaalik is a possible exception)

Wiki: "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."You can't agree on that definition?Of course there's a mechanism. In fact, there are several: natural selection, genetic drift, genetic hitchhiking, mutation and gene flow. Again, this is basic stuff.

ID does have a testable theory and I laid it out for you - more than once. . It is testable unlike TOE Both TOE and I.D. use the method of best describes past events. TOE assumes away God in the assumptions. I call that advancing atheism in the name of science.

What's curious to me is that you claim ID is testable, yet evolution is not. I've never heard anyone, even Behe, claim such a thing. It's like bizzaro world. You may not agree with the conclusions from the evidence, but I can't imagine what wouldn't make evolution testable.A theory that allows for anything to be true isn't a scientific theory. How would you test it? "God did it" allows for literally anything to be true. Anything.ID attempts to exist by virtue of "God of the gaps," or "lack" of scientific evidence is somehow implicit proof of God's existence. ID doesn't not exist under the umbrella of science. By definition it cannot. Once you invoke the possibility that an omnipotent God could influence something, the exercise is over. No credible scientist would use ID because ID has no practical use. It does not refine itself to explain anything or make predictions. There are no testable hypotheses. Nothing can be falsified because God could conceivably do anything he pleases.We get it: you feel like evolution and science are a threat to your beliefs. You yearn to change minds on the topic. My set of beliefs or lack thereof do not stem from science. You're making a false assumption. Like Ferris has explained, religion and science can peacefully co-exist. I have no issue with that. For whatever reason, you're not satisfied with this concept, and so do yourself a disservice by making a mockery of rational discourse. You have a marked advantage. You can always say "God did it" and render the discussion into metaphysics where no one who is adhering to the premise of scientific inquiry can tread. Don't be so defensive. No one is asking you to renounce your faith. For whatever reason, you feel entitled to ask for people to renounce logic. You embarrass yourself. A lot.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Science is scrutinized and challenged as a matter of courseProof of a theory has to stand on its own two feet. TOE is the only science I know of that says It is right because the other theory is wrong.

I always read these threads because I love science and am always interested in learning and I bet I've seen this explained to you at least 50 times over the years. Why is this so hard to understand, especially for a "chemical engineer."

I don't know what Bruce's training is. He was more obsessed with telling me that I didn't have two degrees in chemical engineering.

It started off by you stating you were a chemical engineer and I said that I was as well. The thread went downhill. It was resolved when I sent information to MT about the college I graduated from, the year I graduated and permission to check it out. You started this Chemical Engineering thing.

Huh?You've stated endlessly that I'm not a chemical engineer.

 

[MasterofOrion]

What is the theory of evolution other than change over time. Without a mechanism the takes things from less complex to more complex we can not explain the complexity, nor the diversity of life. In other words, without a mechanism TOE is just a concept. It has not been rigorously tested. It is a historical science which describes past events. It is absolutely horrible at predicting future events. ( tiktaalik is a possible exception)

Wiki: "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."You can't agree on that definition? Without a mechanism this is just a concept. We can agree that there is change over time. But not systematic change.

Of course there's a mechanism. In fact, there are several: natural selection, genetic drift, genetic hitchhiking, mutation and gene flow. Again, this is basic stuff. All these mechanisms loose information. We start with genetic information ABCD ----> ABC ----> AB. These processes actually make the organism less fit rather than increase fitness. These organism has less of an ability to adapt than before it lost information. We need a mechanism that creates something, new, increases the genome rather that reduce genetic information. Something like this ABCD ----> ABCDE

ID does have a testable theory and I laid it out for you - more than once. . It is testable unlike TOE Both TOE and I.D. use the method of best describes past events. TOE assumes away God in the assumptions. I call that advancing atheism in the name of science.

What's curious to me is that you claim ID is testable, yet evolution is not. I've never heard anyone, even Behe, claim such a thing. It's like bizzaro world. You may not agree with the conclusions from the evidence, but I can't imagine what wouldn't make evolution testable.A theory that allows for anything to be true isn't a scientific theory. How would you test it? "God did it" allows for literally anything to be true. Anything.

ID attempts to exist by virtue of "God of the gaps," or "lack" of scientific evidence is somehow implicit proof of God's existence. ID doesn't not exist under the umbrella of science. By definition it cannot. Once you invoke the possibility that an omnipotent God could influence something, the exercise is over.

No credible scientist would use ID because ID has no practical use. It does not refine itself to explain anything or make predictions. There are no testable hypotheses. Nothing can be falsified because God could conceivably do anything he pleases. I.D. Is not about God. It is about intelligent design whatever that intelligence is.

We get it: you feel like evolution and science are a threat to your beliefs. You yearn to change minds on the topic. My set of beliefs or lack thereof do not stem from science. You're making a false assumption. Like Ferris has explained, religion and science can peacefully co-exist. I have no issue with that. For whatever reason, you're not satisfied with this concept, and so do yourself a disservice by making a mockery of rational discourse. You have a marked advantage. You can always say "God did it" and render the discussion into metaphysics where no one who is adhering to the premise of scientific inquiry can tread. You really don't debate. You troll and ridicule.

Don't be so defensive. No one is asking you to renounce your faith. For whatever reason, you feel entitled to ask for people to renounce logic. You embarrass yourself. A lot.

 

[Frostillicus]

You've stated endlessly that I'm not a chemical engineer.

Pretty sure that's obvious to everyone by now. Protein folding indeed.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

All these mechanisms loose information. We start with genetic information ABCD ----> ABC ----> AB. With these mechanisms. These processes actually make the organism less fit rather than increase fitness the organism has less of an ability to adapt than before it lost information. We need a mechanism that creates something, new rather that reduce genetic information. Something like this ABCD ----> ABCDE

I don't know why you keep saying this, but it's dead wrong. We've even discussed it in this thread, and you just dismissed it. There is no other area of science you would do this with. You're selectively dismissive of evolution because your idea of religion insists upon it. You'd starve doing the same with other branches of scientific inquiry.

ID is nothing more than repackaged creationism. You want to say it doesn't need a "God" but rather some omnipotent designer. I think we can agree that's a "God."

 

[MasterofOrion]

You've stated endlessly that I'm not a chemical engineer.

Pretty sure that's obvious to everyone by now. Protein folding indeed.

Here is a research article about NDET. You say I have been told lots of times that NDET is true and I show research that shows it has been debunked.

 

[Frostillicus]

All these mechanisms loose information. We start with genetic information ABCD ----> ABC ----> AB. With these mechanisms. These processes actually make the organism less fit rather than increase fitness the organism has less of an ability to adapt than before it lost information. We need a mechanism that creates something, new rather that reduce genetic information. Something like this ABCD ----> ABCDE

I don't know why you keep saying this, but it's dead wrong. We've even discussed it in this thread, and you just dismissed it. There is no other area of science you would do this with. You're selectively dismissive of evolution because your idea of religion insists upon it. You'd starve doing the same with other branches of scientific inquiry.

ID is nothing more than repackaged creationism. You want to say it doesn't need a "God" but rather some omnipotent designer. I think we can agree that's a "God."

And also wouldn't loose information make mutations more likely? Kind of like a single electron at a Halogen convention?

 

[Frostillicus]

You've stated endlessly that I'm not a chemical engineer.

Pretty sure that's obvious to everyone by now. Protein folding indeed.

Here is a research article about NDET. You say I have been told lots of times that NDET is true and I show research that shows it has been debunked.

That's not at all what I said. Plus the guy who wrote that article is Russian so we can pretty much dismiss him right off the bat.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It started off by you stating you were a chemical engineer and I said that I was as well. The thread went downhill. It was resolved when I sent information to MT about the college I graduated from, the year I graduated and permission to check it out.

For what it's worth, I have no recollection of this.

 

[MasterofOrion]

All these mechanisms loose information. We start with genetic information ABCD ----> ABC ----> AB. With these mechanisms. These processes actually make the organism less fit rather than increase fitness the organism has less of an ability to adapt than before it lost information. We need a mechanism that creates something, new rather that reduce genetic information. Something like this ABCD ----> ABCDE

I don't know why you keep saying this, but it's dead wrong. We've even discussed it in this thread, and you just dismissed it. There is no other area of science you would do this with. You're selectively dismissive of evolution because your idea of religion insists upon it. You'd starve doing the same with other branches of scientific inquiry.

ID is nothing more than repackaged creationism. You want to say it doesn't need a "God" but rather some omnipotent designer. I think we can agree that's a "God."

It is not wrong.Your first example was genetic drift. Every one of your examples was a loss of genetic information. You state things authoritatively that are flat out wrong consistently

s the fraction of the copies of one gene that share a particular form.[2]Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

It started off by you stating you were a chemical engineer and I said that I was as well. The thread went downhill. It was resolved when I sent information to MT about the college I graduated from, the year I graduated and permission to check it out.

For what it's worth, I have no recollection of this.

Troll.

 

[Frostillicus]

All these mechanisms loose information. We start with genetic information ABCD ----> ABC ----> AB. With these mechanisms. These processes actually make the organism less fit rather than increase fitness the organism has less of an ability to adapt than before it lost information. We need a mechanism that creates something, new rather that reduce genetic information. Something like this ABCD ----> ABCDE

I don't know why you keep saying this, but it's dead wrong. We've even discussed it in this thread, and you just dismissed it. There is no other area of science you would do this with. You're selectively dismissive of evolution because your idea of religion insists upon it. You'd starve doing the same with other branches of scientific inquiry.

ID is nothing more than repackaged creationism. You want to say it doesn't need a "God" but rather some omnipotent designer. I think we can agree that's a "God."

It is not wrong.Your first example was genetic drift. Every one of your examples was a loss of genetic information. You state things authoritatively that are flat out wrong consistently

s the fraction of the copies of one gene that share a particular form.[2]Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation.

How is genetic drift a loss of information?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

All these mechanisms loose information. We start with genetic information ABCD ----> ABC ----> AB. With these mechanisms. These processes actually make the organism less fit rather than increase fitness the organism has less of an ability to adapt than before it lost information. We need a mechanism that creates something, new rather that reduce genetic information. Something like this ABCD ----> ABCDE

I don't know why you keep saying this, but it's dead wrong. We've even discussed it in this thread, and you just dismissed it. There is no other area of science you would do this with. You're selectively dismissive of evolution because your idea of religion insists upon it. You'd starve doing the same with other branches of scientific inquiry.

ID is nothing more than repackaged creationism. You want to say it doesn't need a "God" but rather some omnipotent designer. I think we can agree that's a "God."

It is not wrong.Your first example was genetic drift. Every one of your examples was a loss of genetic information. You state things authoritatively that are flat out wrong consistently

s the fraction of the copies of one gene that share a particular form.[2]Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation.

Information doesn't have to increase in evolution, but on the whole it has. Not every mechanism will increase information.This tireless insistence on information increase is of your own creation.

What I find interesting is that the "designer" has set up a mechanistic biological system that looks suspiciously like what is described by evolution. Yet we are to believe that it's close but not quite right because of, well, whatever we feel like challenging on a given day. God of the gaps indeed. Oops, I mean intelligent omnipotent being of the gaps.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I don't know how you quantify either on to be honest. Which is harder or less hard. Life from non- life is a miracle and something science isn't close to explaining.

Which makes more sense: saying "I don't know" or "god did it"?

I am saying that God did it. Why because life, DNA, has specified information which is information that a third party understands. DNA needs ribosomes to create proteins. Ribosomes understands the DNA code and uses it to create something. This is analogous to computer code and computer. The computer code is no value unless it has a "third party" which understands the language that can use it. The only source of specified information is intelligence . This is a theory which best describes the facts and it can be disproven. This is not saying God did it and leaving it that. Information can be measured quantitatively by Shannon Information theory.

So if god did it, why did he do such a ####ty job? Why did he make us susceptible to disease but not sharks? He created cancer, addiction, droughts, natural disasters... I could go on here but you get the point. People, created in gods image, are horribly designed. Look at the female reproductive system! Just terrible. Why would an omnipotent god be so terrible at creating stuff?

 

[Frostillicus]

All these mechanisms loose information. We start with genetic information ABCD ----> ABC ----> AB. With these mechanisms. These processes actually make the organism less fit rather than increase fitness the organism has less of an ability to adapt than before it lost information. We need a mechanism that creates something, new rather that reduce genetic information. Something like this ABCD ----> ABCDE

I don't know why you keep saying this, but it's dead wrong. We've even discussed it in this thread, and you just dismissed it. There is no other area of science you would do this with. You're selectively dismissive of evolution because your idea of religion insists upon it. You'd starve doing the same with other branches of scientific inquiry.

ID is nothing more than repackaged creationism. You want to say it doesn't need a "God" but rather some omnipotent designer. I think we can agree that's a "God."

And also wouldn't loose information make mutations more likely? Kind of like a single electron at a Halogen convention?

Come on, guys. Gimme something.

 

[Frostillicus]

All these mechanisms loose information. We start with genetic information ABCD ----> ABC ----> AB. With these mechanisms. These processes actually make the organism less fit rather than increase fitness the organism has less of an ability to adapt than before it lost information. We need a mechanism that creates something, new rather that reduce genetic information. Something like this ABCD ----> ABCDE

I don't know why you keep saying this, but it's dead wrong. We've even discussed it in this thread, and you just dismissed it. There is no other area of science you would do this with. You're selectively dismissive of evolution because your idea of religion insists upon it. You'd starve doing the same with other branches of scientific inquiry.

ID is nothing more than repackaged creationism. You want to say it doesn't need a "God" but rather some omnipotent designer. I think we can agree that's a "God."

It is not wrong.Your first example was genetic drift. Every one of your examples was a loss of genetic information. You state things authoritatively that are flat out wrong consistently

s the fraction of the copies of one gene that share a particular form.[2]Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation.

How is genetic drift a loss of information?

This is a real question, by the way.

 

[Marvin]

All these mechanisms loose information. We start with genetic information ABCD ----> ABC ----> AB. With these mechanisms. These processes actually make the organism less fit rather than increase fitness the organism has less of an ability to adapt than before it lost information. We need a mechanism that creates something, new rather that reduce genetic information. Something like this ABCD ----> ABCDE

I don't know why you keep saying this, but it's dead wrong. We've even discussed it in this thread, and you just dismissed it. There is no other area of science you would do this with. You're selectively dismissive of evolution because your idea of religion insists upon it. You'd starve doing the same with other branches of scientific inquiry.

ID is nothing more than repackaged creationism. You want to say it doesn't need a "God" but rather some omnipotent designer. I think we can agree that's a "God."

And also wouldn't loose information make mutations more likely? Kind of like a single electron at a Halogen convention?

Come on, guys. Gimme something.

We talking about headlights now?

 

[Psychopav]

[hijack]

Frostilicus, if I scroll down so that just the bottom half of your avatar of Emma Stone is visible, then scroll up so that just her eyes are visible, each half taken on its own is as gorgeous as the whole thing. If you haven't tried it yourself, you should. It's really something.

Kudos to you, sir. Thank you for that avatar.

I felt compelled to interject. Now back to the discussion.

[/hijack]

Yep, God broke the mold when he made Ms. Stone. What a beautiful creation she is. Truly the height of evolution of our species. A specimen like her is going to be able to mate early and often.

 

[MasterofOrion]

All these mechanisms loose information. We start with genetic information ABCD ----> ABC ----> AB. With these mechanisms. These processes actually make the organism less fit rather than increase fitness the organism has less of an ability to adapt than before it lost information. We need a mechanism that creates something, new rather that reduce genetic information. Something like this ABCD ----> ABCDE

I don't know why you keep saying this, but it's dead wrong. We've even discussed it in this thread, and you just dismissed it. There is no other area of science you would do this with. You're selectively dismissive of evolution because your idea of religion insists upon it. You'd starve doing the same with other branches of scientific inquiry.

ID is nothing more than repackaged creationism. You want to say it doesn't need a "God" but rather some omnipotent designer. I think we can agree that's a "God."

It is not wrong.Your first example was genetic drift. Every one of your examples was a loss of genetic information. You state things authoritatively that are flat out wrong consistently

s the fraction of the copies of one gene that share a particular form.[2]Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation.

How is genetic drift a loss of information?

It causes variations to disappear.

 

[MasterofOrion]

All these mechanisms loose information. We start with genetic information ABCD ----> ABC ----> AB. With these mechanisms. These processes actually make the organism less fit rather than increase fitness the organism has less of an ability to adapt than before it lost information. We need a mechanism that creates something, new rather that reduce genetic information. Something like this ABCD ----> ABCDE

I don't know why you keep saying this, but it's dead wrong. We've even discussed it in this thread, and you just dismissed it. There is no other area of science you would do this with. You're selectively dismissive of evolution because your idea of religion insists upon it. You'd starve doing the same with other branches of scientific inquiry.

ID is nothing more than repackaged creationism. You want to say it doesn't need a "God" but rather some omnipotent designer. I think we can agree that's a "God."

And also wouldn't loose information make mutations more likely? Kind of like a single electron at a Halogen convention?

Come on, guys. Gimme something.

I don't understand your question. Why do you think a that?

 

[sn0mm1s]

How is genetic drift a loss of information?

It causes variations to disappear.

That doesn't mean there is a loss of information. Also, I can just as easily say it causes variations to appear. If I take population of organisms, isolate a few, and subject them to selective pressures the isolated group will likely express new traits over time. You then have the original population with all the variation it had before and the new population expressing traits the original didn't have.

 

[Mario Kart]

All these mechanisms loose information. We start with genetic information ABCD ----> ABC ----> AB. With these mechanisms. These processes actually make the organism less fit rather than increase fitness the organism has less of an ability to adapt than before it lost information. We need a mechanism that creates something, new rather that reduce genetic information. Something like this ABCD ----> ABCDE

I don't know why you keep saying this, but it's dead wrong. We've even discussed it in this thread, and you just dismissed it. There is no other area of science you would do this with. You're selectively dismissive of evolution because your idea of religion insists upon it. You'd starve doing the same with other branches of scientific inquiry.

ID is nothing more than repackaged creationism. You want to say it doesn't need a "God" but rather some omnipotent designer. I think we can agree that's a "God."

It is not wrong.Your first example was genetic drift. Every one of your examples was a loss of genetic information. You state things authoritatively that are flat out wrong consistently

s the fraction of the copies of one gene that share a particular form.[2]Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation.

How is genetic drift a loss of information?

It causes variations to disappear.

WTF?I would just like to comment that the last couple of pages is pure, solid gold. Quotes that even the best science fiction writer could write.

Also, I have always wondered something and maybe MOO could clarify but why do humans have an appendix?

 

[sn0mm1s]

Again....the whole point of me getting into the pakicetus discussion...This isn't my kind of science. The speculating of what an animal probably looked like based off of skull fragments, the theorizing on fossils that cannot be proven, the guesswork, followed by the dogmatic seal of evolutionary approval are not for me. There are limits to what you can learn about an animal based on fossils. That's the bottom line, and we may have finally found a point of agreement.

You are getting hung up on the look of the animal - that is irrelevant.Let me give you a similar example. Suppose you are at a lake and you see a clear, pristine, print in the mud on the shore. I am sure, with 100% certainty that you, even with a lack of scientific background, could determine if it was a human footprint. Why? Because humans have unique feet. No other animal on the planet is known to have feet like ours. If I said, how do you know it is a human that print is much skinnier than mine, or much smaller, you would probably explain that there is a variation in the size of people, you would suggest that it was made by a child etc. etc. You didn't see the footprint made, you might never find a perfect match, but just from your familiarity you know that a human made that print.Now, paleontologists and scientists focusing on cladistics spend hours and hours cataloging unique structures, measuring lengths, ratios, bone density and many, many, more factors that you likely never even thought of to find relationships between organisms in an attempt to define them as much as possible. When they say that a structure is completely unique to a certain class of animals that means quite a bit. In regards to Pakicetus, those bones in the ear are so unique and distinctive, that when just given a partial skull fragment, scientists thought it was likely part of a whale. Once they found more complete skeletons, they knew it wasn't a whale, but instead a likely ancestor of a whale (which is much more exciting as far as science goes).

 

[MasterofOrion]

How is genetic drift a loss of information?

It causes variations to disappear.

That doesn't mean there is a loss of information. Also, I can just as easily say it causes variations to appear. If I take population of organisms, isolate a few, and subject them to selective pressures the isolated group will likely express new traits over time. You then have the original population with all the variation it had before and the new population expressing traits the original didn't have.

When you loose a variation the genetic information is lost (via genetic drift.) You than state after something louses information, natural selection and selective pressures come to the rescue and will increase information. This is the question: How do you get more information without hand waving, - an increase in the genome that creates new systems, new designs new something. Pickles used several examples where information was lost, losing variations, as proof of evolution. This is moving in the wrong direction. Sure we can roll a ball down hill, but having the ball roll up hill is harder to do.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

How is genetic drift a loss of information?

It causes variations to disappear.

That doesn't mean there is a loss of information. Also, I can just as easily say it causes variations to appear. If I take population of organisms, isolate a few, and subject them to selective pressures the isolated group will likely express new traits over time. You then have the original population with all the variation it had before and the new population expressing traits the original didn't have.

When you loose a variation the genetic information is lost (via genetic drift.) You than state after something louses information, natural selection and selective pressures come to the rescue and will increase information. This is the question: How do you get more information without hand waving, - an increase in the genome that creates new systems, new designs new something. Pickles used several examples where information was lost, losing variations, as proof of evolution. This is moving in the wrong direction. Sure we can roll a ball down hill, but having the ball roll up hill is harder to do.

Lose. LOSE. The word is "lose."You keep stipulating this insistence that information must be gained for evolution to be true. This is not accurate. Regardless, there are multiple mechanisms in evolution, and there is certainly the capacity for information to be increased in a system. This is not in dispute.

All of this discussion of mechanism has me wondering what you think ID says on the matter. If a intelligent non-god-but-exactly-the-same-as-god designs living systems, when was all of the "information" injected into the system? All at once? Periodically? When does the intelligent spaghetti monster of truth decide to wield his magic wand? How does this work? How would we test something like this? What predictions can we make?

 

[sn0mm1s]

When you loose a variation the genetic information is lost (via genetic drift.) You than state after something louses information, natural selection and selective pressures come to the rescue and will increase information. This is the question: How do you get more information without hand waving, - an increase in the genome that creates new systems, new designs new something. Pickles used several examples where information was lost, losing variations, as proof of evolution. This is moving in the wrong direction. Sure we can roll a ball down hill, but having the ball roll up hill is harder to do.

No, it isn't necessarily lost. This is an assumption you are making that is wrong. A change in phenotype could be made by loss, gain, or just a change in DNA.Hell, many birth defects are due to an "information increase" (trisomies). An extra full or partial copy of a chromosome can have a dramatic effect on phenotype (it is pretty easy to recognize someone with Down's syndrome). In fact, many pregnancies are spontaneous miscarriages due to this increase in information.Also, before you say it is the same thing repeated, you are wrong. Chromosomes passed to offspring are a mix of the parents' DNA. If it wasn't then all children would look the same. The very fact that either an X or a Y chromosome is passed on to offspring illustrates that chromosomes are unique when they are passed - they contain different information. The process of meiosis isn't exact either. A passed on chromosome could be lengthened or shortened in the crossing over process.We see complete duplication of chromosomes in plants resulting in new species that look completely different from the parent plant. This information kick that you are on is completely baseless.

 

[Mister CIA]

How is genetic drift a loss of information?

It causes variations to disappear.

That doesn't mean there is a loss of information. Also, I can just as easily say it causes variations to appear. If I take population of organisms, isolate a few, and subject them to selective pressures the isolated group will likely express new traits over time. You then have the original population with all the variation it had before and the new population expressing traits the original didn't have.

When you loose a variation the genetic information is lost (via genetic drift.) You than state after something louses information, natural selection and selective pressures come to the rescue and will increase information. This is the question: How do you get more information without hand waving, - an increase in the genome that creates new systems, new designs new something. Pickles used several examples where information was lost, losing variations, as proof of evolution. This is moving in the wrong direction. Sure we can roll a ball down hill, but having the ball roll up hill is harder to do.

I know why the caged bird can't roll a ball uphill.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

This information kick that you are on is completely baseless.

I know exactly why he's on it. It sounds right to say an information increase should accompany newer generations of offspring. It's also something that can mire the discussion since it's not of central importance to how evolution works. Once the discussion migrates to information theory, eyes glaze over and people don't really have a handle on it.Bruce seems to be conflating information and energy as in "balls don't roll uphill." It's not the same discussion at all, but if you wanted to pursue it for fun, in an open system, balls sometimes do roll uphill.

 

[Mister CIA]

MoO's first day in heaven.

 

[matuski]

It started off by you stating you were a chemical engineer and I said that I was as well. The thread went downhill. It was resolved when I sent information to MT about the college I graduated from, the year I graduated and permission to check it out.

For what it's worth, I have no recollection of this.

 

[shader]

All these mechanisms loose information. We start with genetic information ABCD ----> ABC ----> AB. With these mechanisms. These processes actually make the organism less fit rather than increase fitness the organism has less of an ability to adapt than before it lost information. We need a mechanism that creates something, new rather that reduce genetic information. Something like this ABCD ----> ABCDE

I don't know why you keep saying this, but it's dead wrong. We've even discussed it in this thread, and you just dismissed it. There is no other area of science you would do this with. You're selectively dismissive of evolution because your idea of religion insists upon it. You'd starve doing the same with other branches of scientific inquiry.

ID is nothing more than repackaged creationism. You want to say it doesn't need a "God" but rather some omnipotent designer. I think we can agree that's a "God."

It is not wrong.Your first example was genetic drift. Every one of your examples was a loss of genetic information. You state things authoritatively that are flat out wrong consistently

s the fraction of the copies of one gene that share a particular form.[2]Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation.

How is genetic drift a loss of information?

It causes variations to disappear.

WTF?I would just like to comment that the last couple of pages is pure, solid gold. Quotes that even the best science fiction writer could write.

Also, I have always wondered something and maybe MOO could clarify but why do humans have an appendix?

I wouldn't go down that route. Vestigal organs on humans is not one of evolution's shining moments.

 

[shader]

Again....the whole point of me getting into the pakicetus discussion...This isn't my kind of science. The speculating of what an animal probably looked like based off of skull fragments, the theorizing on fossils that cannot be proven, the guesswork, followed by the dogmatic seal of evolutionary approval are not for me. There are limits to what you can learn about an animal based on fossils. That's the bottom line, and we may have finally found a point of agreement.

You are getting hung up on the look of the animal - that is irrelevant.Let me give you a similar example. Suppose you are at a lake and you see a clear, pristine, print in the mud on the shore. I am sure, with 100% certainty that you, even with a lack of scientific background, could determine if it was a human footprint. Why? Because humans have unique feet. No other animal on the planet is known to have feet like ours. If I said, how do you know it is a human that print is much skinnier than mine, or much smaller, you would probably explain that there is a variation in the size of people, you would suggest that it was made by a child etc. etc. You didn't see the footprint made, you might never find a perfect match, but just from your familiarity you know that a human made that print.Now, paleontologists and scientists focusing on cladistics spend hours and hours cataloging unique structures, measuring lengths, ratios, bone density and many, many, more factors that you likely never even thought of to find relationships between organisms in an attempt to define them as much as possible. When they say that a structure is completely unique to a certain class of animals that means quite a bit. In regards to Pakicetus, those bones in the ear are so unique and distinctive, that when just given a partial skull fragment, scientists thought it was likely part of a whale. Once they found more complete skeletons, they knew it wasn't a whale, but instead a likely ancestor of a whale (which is much more exciting as far as science goes).

So why couldn't it just be "convergent evolution"? Yes, they spend hours and hours measuring lengths and bone density and that is all fine and good. Learning about the fossil in question is pure science.But then extrapolating that into imaginary scenarios where one evolves into another moves into science fiction and is imaginative. Still blows me away that you guys don't see the difference.