[_ Old Earth _] Five Pillars of Evolution Compared with Creation

[jwu]

So how many eons do you estimate that it took for this one event to happen and is it proof positive, that the select sea squirts are no longer sea squirts?

The point is that a major morphological change has been directly observed. If they are still sea squirts or not is irrelevant for that purpose.

And besides, speciation has been observed often enough as well, as you know very well from earlier discussions.

How about your assertion that math doesn't support evolution? Do you back it up? What about the aforementioned genetic algorithms?

 

[Slevin]

So how many eons do you estimate that it took for this one event to happen and is it proof positive, that the select sea squirts are no longer sea squirts?

Hey, let's misrepresent Evolution some more!

 

[blunthitta4life]

Math does not support Evolution....

Actually lots of math is used in population genetics. For example, math is used to determine how natural selection, migration, mutation, mating, etc. affects allele frequency.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

The same goes for you, jwu. It's time for me to move on to more productive, scientific pursuits. It gets a bit old listening to a ToE fundamentalist; rationalize his religion of human materialism, under the guise of Christianity. May you find wisdom as you grow. May you also seek truth, instead of defend your religion.

Charlie's a little put out that Shannon showed that entropy is information in a message.

So he's just denying what Shannon said.

Explain to me what Shannon referred to as the "equivocation", and how it affects the information, R, in the equation:

R = H(x) - Hy(x)

This is Shannon 101.

And for the allele statistical data, explain to me how this data can instruct molecules to build proteins.

Until you can do that, Barb, there's no use continuing our debate. I'm debating against someone that doesn't understand the theory we're debating...

There's a saying in science: when you’re in a hole, stop digging...you just get deeper.

Cheers, and I hope you find wisdom in life's journey.

 

[Barbarian]

Explain to me what Shannon referred to as the "equivocation", and how it affects the information, R, in the equation:

R = H(x) - Hy(x)

Hy(x) is the conditional entropy, measuring the ambiguity of the signal. In other words, the greater the entropy, the more digits it requires to code for the signal, and therefore the greater the information in it.

And for the allele statistical data, explain to me how this data can instruct molecules to build proteins.

Alleles are composed of DNA sequences, which produce strings of mRNA, which together with tRNA and ribosomes, produce proteins. A new allele produces a novel protein.

Until you can do that, Barb, there's no use continuing our debate.

Done.

I'm debating against someone that doesn't understand the theory we're debating...

I'm afraid you still don't get it. Let's try it a bit simpler. Suppose we have a message that is 100 "0"s. It has very little information, and it takes very few bits to specify it. Now, let's take a random sequence of 100 digits, some "0"s and some "1"s. Which has more entropy? And yet it has far more information, and requires many more bits to specify.

Does that help?

There's a saying in science: when you’re in a hole, stop digging...you just get deeper.

Getting deeper is the object of science. You aren't a scientist, are you?

Cheers, and I hope you find wisdom in life's journey.

Wisdom comes hard, but anyone who wants to put in the work can learn how the theory works. Worth a try, um?

 

[blunthitta4life]

The same goes for you, jwu. It's time for me to move on to more productive, scientific pursuits. It gets a bit old listening to a ToE fundamentalist; rationalize his religion of human materialism, under the guise of Christianity. May you find wisdom as you grow. May you also seek truth, instead of defend your religion.

How is evolution a religion? How is evolution human materialism? ToE explains why there is so much diversity on this planet and it does so rather nicely.

If you want sling mud and question the integrity of a person who believes in evolution, that in no way disproves evolution. All it does is show that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to biology.

 

[LittleNipper]

Hey, let's misrepresent Evolution some more!

What type of evolution are you speaking of? There is more than one.

 

[LittleNipper]

How is evolution a religion? How is evolution human materialism? ToE explains why there is so much diversity on this planet and it does so rather nicely.

If you want sling mud and question the integrity of a person who believes in evolution, that in no way disproves evolution. All it does is show that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to biology.

The fact that no two living things have ever been exactly alike in all history is a reality of GOD's creative variation genius within kinds. GOD is also likely enabling kinds to adjust to a deteriorating environment that really was devastated during the time of the FLOOD, but has been becoming corrupted more and more since the FALL..

 

[jwu]

The same goes for you, jwu. It's time for me to move on to more productive, scientific pursuits. It gets a bit old listening to a ToE fundamentalist; rationalize his religion of human materialism, under the guise of Christianity. May you find wisdom as you grow. May you also seek truth, instead of defend your religion.

It's interesting to see a cop out like that right after an example of an observed major morphological change was provided.

The fact that no two living things have ever been exactly alike in all history is a reality of GOD's creative variation genius within kinds. GOD is also likely enabling kinds to adjust to a deteriorating environment that really was devastated during the time of the FLOOD, but has been becoming corrupted more and more since the FALL..

In other words, God created evolution?

 

[LittleNipper]

In other words, God created evolution?

Again, which evolution are you speaking of. Macro, micro, cosmic.... If by evolution, you mean cats and dogs have the same ancestor, eventually, or that man and apes share the same ancestor somewhere, then NO. God created man independently and without death or destruction according to HIS word.

If by evolution you imagine that the stars were created before earth, then again NO. God created and then strung out the Universe like a curtain from the earth. So the light from those distant stars reached here when the universe was more compact and has been traveling back from those stars as GOD has seen fit to spread the universe further and further away. At least that is what my bible seems to be indicating to me. What does the Bible indicate to you? Do you even consider the Bible? Something you may wish to ponder.....

 

[jwu]

God created man independently and without death or destruction according to HIS word.

According to your literal interpretation of His word, while the evidence indicates that a non-literal interpretation is much more likely to be correct.

f by evolution you imagine that the stars were created before earth, then again NO.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the solar system.

 

[LittleNipper]

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the solar system.

Cosmic evolution does..... And the evidence is presently being re-examined using modern equipment and old 19th Century notions are beginning to rust....

 

[jwu]

The theory of evolution is "change of frequency of allele over time". That has nothing to do with stars.

"Evolution" also is a word in common language, but that doesn't mean you can conflate everything with it with the ToE. The evolution of car designs has nothing to do with the ToE, neither does cosmic evolution.

And besides...there isn't really much 19th century science involved in the current models of the origin of the universe. And the current models were made based on data that we got from the most modern available instruments. Again, if you want to imply that new measurements falsify things like the big band, provide actual research papers which say so.

 

[LittleNipper]

The theory of evolution is "change of frequency of allele over time". That has nothing to do with stars.

"Evolution" also is a word in common language, but that doesn't mean you can conflate everything with it with the ToE. The evolution of car designs has nothing to do with the ToE, neither does cosmic evolution.

And besides...there isn't really much 19th century science involved in the current models of the origin of the universe. And the current models were made based on data that we got from the most modern available instruments. Again, if you want to imply that new measurements falsify things like the big band, provide actual research papers which say so.

But evolutionists are not beginning at square one... They continue to build on old evolutionist assumptions and principles without a full investigation of the Biblical model anew... Scientists have never been able to show that a change of frequency of allele causes the establishment of new kinds --- only variation and specification within a kind. The rest is simply an educated guess based on man's "wisdom."

A question might be asked, is man getting steadily lighter or darker in skin tone? If man in general is moving as a kind in either direction, does that mean that man is becoming any more or less a man?

 

[jwu]

Scientists have never been able to show that a change of frequency of allele causes the establishment of new kinds --- only variation and specification within a kind.

What is a kind? Please define that term. Species? Genus? Family? Phylum?

What about evidence for common ancestry? And what other than a change of frequency of allele is required for a new kind, whatever that may be?

A question might be asked, is man getting steadily lighter or darker in skin tone? If man in general is moving as a kind in either direction, does that mean that man is becoming any more or less a man?

No.

 

[Barbarian]

But evolutionists are not beginning at square one...

Evolutionary theory assumes that life began, but does not make any statements about the way it did.

Scientists have never been able to show that a change of frequency of allele causes the establishment of new kinds --- only variation and specification within a kind.

"Kind" has sort of expanded over the years. The Institute for Creation Research now admits the evolution of new species, genera, and families. They don't precisely define "kind", because the same amount of evolution they allow for canids would permit the evolution of apes and humans from a common ancestor.

 

[Guest]

Evolutionary theory assumes that life began, but does not make any statements about the way it did.

Then it's a baseless theory. Pointless, also. And the "assumes" part is huge.
Evolution is just a plain dumb theory, with no basis in reality.

 

[Guest]

ToE explains why there is so much diversity on this planet and it does so rather nicely.

So does an intelligent designer..and much better than depending on random chance and mutations. Claiming that random chance acting on mutations can create higher and higher forms of life is laughable. Makes for nice science fiction, though. :

 

[Guest]

The Institute for Creation Research now admits the evolution of new species, genera, and families.

Substantiate your claim. :roll:

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Evolutionary theory assumes that life began, but does not make any statements about the way it did.

Then it's a baseless theory.

In the sense that chemistry is a "baseless theory", because it assumes atoms exist, without making any statements about how they came to exist. And yet both chemistry and evolutionary theory give us successful and useful predictions for understanding the universe.

Pointless, also. And the "assumes" part is huge.

Seems like a pretty safe assumption to me. :

Barbarian observes:
The Institute for Creation Research now admits the evolution of new species, genera, and families.

Substantiate your claim.

Sure. The ICR has endorsed John Woodmorappe's Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study." In it, Woodmorappe writes that the Ark was sufficient to hold all the necessary animals, since new species, genera, and families evolved from a few basic organisms. I discussed this in email with Woodmorappe,and he confirmed that is what he meant.