[_ Old Earth _] Hows this for logic

[Barbarian]

Information is what had killed evolutionism. Inorder for eyes antennnae, hard exoskeleton, and a number of other features found in true trilobites to "become"...much information is required to become.

You're probably unaware that every new mutation in a population adds information to it. Would you like me to show you?

So far no evo has explained how information is increased.

That happened early in the last century. It's no surprise. We can even calculate it, since Claude Shannon showed how it could be found mathematically. You've been badly misled about that.

Can I calculate biological information? I've never tried. Have you?

Yes. Can't do population genetics without it. If you don't know what it is, what makes you think it's a problem for science?

Now, what I do know is the DNA code requires much more information in a bumblebee that an earthworm to allow it to fly.

Let's see your numbers.

Perhaps information can be calculated by the number of pieces required to allow something to function.

Nope. Try again.

How many proteins are required to form an organelle....

Wrong again. You have no idea, do you?

...It all requires information...information outside of the ability to arrive by a process containing chance.

Let's test your assumption. Roll 2 six-sided dice 100 times, adding the numbers that come up from both dice. Then graph the times each value occurs (value on the x axis, and the number of times you got it on the Y axis).

Will the graph have any information?

Let us know. Please do the test; you might learn something interesting. And if you want, I can show you a simple case demonstrating why a random mutation increases information. Would you like to see it?

 

[Barbarian]

Let's say that there are two alleles in a population of organisms, A and a. Each are 50% of the population. So the amount of information for that allele is:

So that would be about -( -0.15 + -0.15) or about 0.3.

Now, let's assume a new allele arrives by mutation and it eventually increases until the population has three alleles, each about 0.33 in frequency.

Now, it would be about -(-0.16 + -0.16 + -0.16) or about 0.48.

Notice a couple of things. First, any change in allele frequency changes information. Second, information does not depend on whether or not the mutation is useful or not, and a useful mutation does not depend on information to be useful.

Indeed, it's possible for a useful mutation to reduce information. You probably can, if you follow the math above, figure out some ways that this could happen.

Think about it.

 

[Cygnus]

So would you like to amend your statement and say "many phyla and some classes of organisms first appear in the Cambrian, but many others appeared before and later?" As you see, that's what the fossil record actually shows.



It is true that there were no land animals or plants in the Cambrian. A fact that badly damages your initial statement. But icthyosaurs, Octopi, Mosasaurs, and other animals are marine organisms,and they too are absent from the Cambrian. Your statement is just wrong. No way to dodge that. That has already been explained to you...and you continue to turn a deaf ear.



No reptiles, even any marine reptiles. No octopi. No marine birds. And as you learned, organisms with the body plan of trilobites existed long before the Cambrian.



And as you see, even that's wrong. Not only have new phyla and classes continued to evolve after the Cambrian, many existed before the Cambrian, and in an increasing number of cases, we see that what were assumed to be only Cambrian organisms evolved before that time.

Your cement mixer...all animals get buried together concept...fails.

You skip the question...failing to answer it..then slip in your own question as if it has answered the original question. Please try again.

 

[Cygnus]

You're probably unaware that every new mutation in a population adds information to it. Would you like me to show you?



That happened early in the last century. It's no surprise. We can even calculate it, since Claude Shannon showed how it could be found mathematically. You've been badly misled about that.



Yes. Can't do population genetics without it. If you don't know what it is, what makes you think it's a problem for science?



Let's see your numbers.



Nope. Try again.



Wrong again. You have no idea, do you?



Let's test your assumption. Roll 2 six-sided dice 100 times, adding the numbers that come up from both dice. Then graph the times each value occurs (value on the x axis, and the number of times you got it on the Y axis).

Will the graph have any information?

Let us know. Please do the test; you might learn something interesting. And if you want, I can show you a simple case demonstrating why a random mutation increases information. Would you like to see it?

You'll excuse me if I find your ad-hoc....chop up my post answer ..a bit to frazzled to reply to.

 

[Barbarian]

(Cygnus begs off on the reason so many classes and phyla are missing from Cambrian rocks, noting that there were only marine organisms at the time)

So explain why no icthyosaurs, no pleisosaurs, no marine birds, no mosasaurs.

Warning: Straw man alert:

Your cement mixer...all animals get buried together concept...fails.

Nice try. But you still haven't explained all the missing classes and phyla, or why many Cambrian organisms have antecedents before the Cambrian.

You skip the question. Try again. And you might answer the question about "information." You toss that word around as if you understand what it means, but you seem a bit reluctant to answer a few questions about it.

 

[Cygnus]

(Cygnus begs off on the reason so many classes and phyla are missing from Cambrian rocks, noting that there were only marine organisms at the time)

So explain why no icthyosaurs, no pleisosaurs, no marine birds, no mosasaurs.

Warning: Straw man alert:


Nice try. But you still haven't explained all the missing classes and phyla, or why many Cambrian organisms have antecedents before the Cambrian.

You skip the question. Try again. And you might answer the question about "information." You toss that word around as if you understand what it means, but you seem a bit reluctant to answer a few questions about it.

If what you are saying is true...we should find all biomes fossilized together in the geological column...but we don't.
The flood captured the animals of that particular biome inwhich the icthyosaurs, pleisosaurs, marine birds and mosasaurs were not present in that biome.
..if the flood happened today you would ask, why are there no squirrels buried with the penguins?

Now, concerning information...I noticed you cut out much of my post (refused to respond to)....Quite an interesting ploy.

 

[Barbarian]

If what you are saying is true...we should find all biomes fossilized together in the geological column...

No, if what you are saying is true we should find all organisms fossilized together. But contrary to your claim, we don't find all phyla and classes in the Cambrian. As I showed you, your claim is false.

The flood captured the animals of that particular biome inwhich the icthyosaurs, pleisosaurs, marine birds and mosasaurs were not present in that biome.

That biome would be "ocean." And from the Cambrian we have fossils from all zones of that biome, from littoral to abyssopelagic, and yet we see no oceanic reptiles known to have lived in those various zones. So far, you've been unable to explain that. Why not just accept the evidence and admit that the Cambrian didn't have many of the later classes and phyla we see today?

And you're still not answering anything about information.

...It all requires information...information outside of the ability to arrive by a process containing chance.

Let's test your assumption. Roll 2 six-sided dice 100 times, adding the numbers that come up from both dice. Then graph the times each value occurs (value on the x axis, and the number of times you got it on the Y axis).

Will the graph have any information?

Let us know. Please do the test; you might learn something interesting. And if you want, I can show you a simple case demonstrating why a random mutation increases information. Would you like to see it? How about showing us whether an earthworm or a bumblebee has more information?

You throw that word around, but you don't seem to know what it means.

 

[turnorburn]

The only ones that benefit from preaching the evolutionary lie are communists atheists and humanists just ask Richard Dawkins what evolution did for him..

Name one well known heretic that says evolution is fact.. just one..

 

[Cygnus]

No, if what you are saying is true we should find all organisms fossilized together. But contrary to your claim, we don't find all phyla and classes in the Cambrian. As I showed you, your claim is false.



That biome would be "ocean." And from the Cambrian we have fossils from all zones of that biome, from littoral to abyssopelagic, and yet we see no oceanic reptiles known to have lived in those various zones. So far, you've been unable to explain that. Why not just accept the evidence and admit that the Cambrian didn't have many of the later classes and phyla we see today?

And you're still not answering anything about information.



Let's test your assumption. Roll 2 six-sided dice 100 times, adding the numbers that come up from both dice. Then graph the times each value occurs (value on the x axis, and the number of times you got it on the Y axis).

Will the graph have any information?

Let us know. Please do the test; you might learn something interesting. And if you want, I can show you a simple case demonstrating why a random mutation increases information. Would you like to see it? How about showing us whether an earthworm or a bumblebee has more information?

You throw that word around, but you don't seem to know what it means.

You destroy your own argument with your claims. We don't find all animals of a particular "age" buried in strata claiming to be of the era the old earthers claim them to be.

But back to the original point of discussion....you might claim the fossls in the cambrian are transitional.....but the fossils in the cambrian don't contain transitional....they appear fully formed with no transitional linage.

Why do you continue to fail to address that point/

 

[Cygnus]

The only ones that benefit from preaching the evolutionary lie are communists atheists and humanists just ask Richard Dawkins what evolution did for him..

The Theo-evos benifit from it by destroying what is written in the bible. (that is if destroying the bible is actually a benefit)

 

[Barbarian]

You destroy your own argument with your claims. We don't find all animals of a particular "age" buried in strata claiming to be of the era the old earthers claim them to be.

As I told you. Your claim that all phyla and classes are found in the Cambrian is just false. As I showed you several times. Why not just admit that it was wrong?

But back to the original point of discussion....you might claim the fossls in the cambrian are transitional.....

Just so we're on the same page, give us a testable definition of "transitional."

but the fossils in the cambrian don't contain transitional....they appear fully formed

All transitional forms are fully formed. If they weren't they wouldn't be organisms at all. But even honest creationists admit that there are an abundance of transitional forms. YE creationist scientist Kurt Wise, for example, cites many many series of such forms.

with no transitional linage.

Here's Wise's list:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and

Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise Towards a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms pp. 219-220

Why do you continue to fail to address that point/

As you see, Wise has repeatedly demonstrated that fact. Would you like to learn about transitional forms in trilobites?

 

[Barbarian]

The only ones that benefit from preaching the evolutionary lie are communists atheists and humanists just ask Richard Dawkins what evolution did for him..

Name one well known heretic that says evolution is fact.. just one..

Can't think of one. Surely there must be some. After all, heretics are usually in opposition to Christianity in various ways. So there must be some who are OK with evolution and heretical in some other way.

 

[Cygnus]

As I told you. Your claim that all phyla and classes are found in the Cambrian is just false. As I showed you several times. Why not just admit that it was wrong?

I never claimed "all phyla and classes are found in the Cambrian".

 

[Barbarian]

I never claimed "all phyla and classes are found in the Cambrian".

That's what you wrote. But as you learned, not only is that not true, we see many of the life forms in the Cambrian had antecedents in the Precambrian, and of course, we see transitional forms evolving during the Cambrian. I offered to show you some.

And you're still dodging my questions. You made claims about transitionals, but you won't even give us a testable definition of what you think a transitional is. And you made claims about "information", but you won't even tell us what you think "information" is.

If you were more forthcoming about these things, it would go better for you.

 

[Cygnus]

That's what you wrote. But as you learned, not only is that not true, we see many of the life forms in the Cambrian had antecedents in the Precambrian, and of course, we see transitional forms evolving during the Cambrian. I offered to show you some.

And you're still dodging my questions. You made claims about transitionals, but you won't even give us a testable definition of what you think a transitional is. And you made claims about "information", but you won't even tell us what you think "information" is.

If you were more forthcoming about these things, it would go better for you.

It's truly ashamed the moderators severely edited my post...trying to protect your view.
Once again I never claimed "all phyla and classes are found in the Cambrian". This is your folding of the facts. Shameful on your part as one who claims to be a christian...yet still folded.

 

[Barbarian]

Perhaps it would be better to deal with the facts. As you learned, not only do most classes not appear in the Cambrian, we can show that many of the organisms in the Cambrian appear before the Cambrian. And we can show them evolving and diversifying during the Cambrian.

So what exactly was your point, if not what you said?

 

[Barbarian]

You destroy your own argument with your claims. We don't find all animals of a particular "age" buried in strata claiming to be of the era the old earthers claim them to be.

So far, all of them. I'd be pleased to see something out of place in undisturbed deposits.

But back to the original point of discussion....you might claim the fossls in the cambrian are transitional....

Yep. Eyes of trilobites for example. Would you like to see that?

but the fossils in the cambrian don't contain transitional....

See above. The simple holochroal eyes of early trilobites evolved into various other forms. Would you like to learn about those?

they appear fully formed with no transitional linage.

All transitionals are "fully formed", but of course we have a huge number of transitional series. See above for the list compiled by one YE creationist who was honest enough to admit the fact.

 

[turnorburn]

Modern science in their rush to judgment left out the one equation that causes their doctrine of evolution to fall flat.. thus the attempt to say such an event didn't occur "The Flood" enter the flood all bets are off. The world was a much different place before the flood.. man lived to a ripe old age of 900 years and more.. and that's just one example.. plants animals you name it..

http://www.creationism.org/patten/PattenBiblFlood/PattenBiblFlood09.htm

 

[GodsGrace]

The only ones that benefit from preaching the evolutionary lie are communists atheists and humanists just ask Richard Dawkins what evolution did for him..

Name one well known heretic that says evolution is fact.. just one..

I haven't been following along so I won't say too much.
But, you're right, no scientist can say that evolution is a fact, but it only a theory.
Thus, I'm upset that this is taught as fact in schools where children are easily influenced. And where they could come to believe that they are descendant from monkeys - which sometimes makes them act as such, instead of acting as if the spirit of the creator was in them.

In fact, I read some time ago that many scientists are abandoning the theory of evolution because it should have been proven by now if it were true with all the information we have.

I mean, what are we waiting for to decide? How much more information would we need? Yeah. To me that theory is dead.

They say the eyes are proof of an intelligent creator. Because they can't evolve but have to start out as eyes. I never looked into this and might someday. Those of us who believe God created everything also don't have a burning need to read up on such topics.

But what about the heart? Did the heart evolve? Or did it start out as a beating heart?
Maybe Barbarian would have a comment on this.
If it wasn't a heart and beating, how was the occupier able to live? It seems to me it would have had to be a perfectly funtioning and formed heart from the get go.

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

Let's say that there are two alleles in a population of organisms, A and a. Each are 50% of the population. So the amount of information for that allele is:

So that would be about -( -0.15 + -0.15) or about 0.3.

Now, let's assume a new allele arrives by mutation and it eventually increases until the population has three alleles, each about 0.33 in frequency.

Now, it would be about -(-0.16 + -0.16 + -0.16) or about 0.48.

Notice a couple of things. First, any change in allele frequency changes information. Second, information does not depend on whether or not the mutation is useful or not, and a useful mutation does not depend on information to be useful.

Indeed, it's possible for a useful mutation to reduce information. You probably can, if you follow the math above, figure out some ways that this could happen.

Think about it.

I'm sorry Barb, I haven't been reading along but this is so interesting and can't go back and read all.
Please just answer this:
Are you just saying that there is mutation within a species
OR
Are you saying that, because of continuing mutation, one species could change into another?

I'm not sure that's worded right, but I think you'll understand what I mean.

Like, could a fish become a monkey given enough time and mutations?

(I don't believe so).

Wondering