|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 01/02/2011 : 17:56:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
But, I would think one would have to believe that Chimps somehow intermingled genes with something else. |
That's because you're not paying attention.| I've already shown you through a scientific study... |
No, you pulled some numbers from a scientific study, ran them through a totally inappropriate formula, and declared yourself correct. That's not science. It's not evidence of anything but your ability to fool yourself.| ... that it could not have happened via mutations. |
Of course, nobody claims that it happened through mutations alone. Selection is the process through which information is transferred from the environment to the genome.| To suggest that an observation is a measurement is a stretch. You don't believe I can look at you without also measuring your arm or something? |
You cannot seem to get away from anthropomorphizing everything, can you? It seems to be your biggest hurdle to understanding anything. You seem to dogmatically adhere to an anthropomorphic QM, and you anthropomorphize genes when ridiculing your strawmen of modern evolutionary theory.| Genetics and Evolution 205 is where the introduction to evolution begins at the college level. Google it. |
Northern Virginia Community College starts teaching evolution in Biology 101. No need to Google it, my wife took that class last spring semester. MIT also begins teaching evolution in its "Introduction to Biology" courses.| For example, do you really think that one could understand evolution without having taken biology 101? That is just silly. |
Since evolution and biology are so intricately intertwined (remember, "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution"), it's very much not silly to teach biology and evolution at the same time.
More later... |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 18:15:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by podcat
Originally posted by JerryB
| If you want to seriously critique evolutionary theory, you will need to know what it says. So it's back to school with you. What's the High-School biology primer for Evolution 101? |
BAHAHAhahahah.....There is no such thing as Evolution 101....
|
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
|
That is an online article from Berkely, not a college course one can sign up for....LOL.....Genetics and Evolution 205 is where the introduction to evolution begins at the college level. Google it.
Use some danged common sense. There are prerequisite courses that one must take to understand the course content. For example, do you really think that one could understand evolution without having taken biology 101? DUH.
Oh, I'm sure you can find some podunk college that Ham or Hovind put together that offers it, but not a government (i.e. state sponsored) university that does.
That is the way it was when I went to college. If it has changed, reference it. You won't.
|
Oh please. Don't play dumb Jerry. (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Did you see that?) It's common to call any introductory class in almost any subject, "Whatever the class is-101." Even in schools it's a common reference even if it's not the official name of the intro class. "Math 101" or "English 101" or "evolution 101," etcetera... Also, you can't really teach biology without teaching evolution because they are pretty much the same thing. That they sometimes do before collage level is political and has nothing to do with the reality of how much biology can't be understood without understanding it's most important component, evolution.
And as long as I'm posting, no. Humans did not evolve from Chimps. No one who understands human and chimp evolution would ever suggest such a thing. Evolution has a whole lot to do with common ancestry.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 18:18:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by podcat
Originally posted by JerryB
| If you want to seriously critique evolutionary theory, you will need to know what it says. So it's back to school with you. What's the High-School biology primer for Evolution 101? |
BAHAHAhahahah.....There is no such thing as Evolution 101....
|
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
|
That is an online article from Berkely, not a college course one can sign up for....LOL.....Genetics and Evolution 205 is where the introduction to evolution begins at the college level. Google it.
Use some danged common sense. There are prerequisite courses that one must take to understand the course content. For example, do you really think that one could understand evolution without having taken biology 101? DUH.
Oh, I'm sure you can find some podunk college that Ham or Hovind put together that offers it, but not a government (i.e. state sponsored) university that does.
That is the way it was when I went to college. If it has changed, reference it. You won't.
|
I didn't go to college, so who's word should I, an ignorant redneck layman, accept? Yours of the highly regarded university at Berkley, CA, eh?
Here's another in their series called Evolution 101. You will note, I'm sure that every fact presented can be easily referenced. I think it's great that such an excellent resource should be so readily available.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 19:30:15 [Permalink]
|
[i]Originally posted by Kil[/b
Oh please. Don't play dumb [b]Jerry. (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Did you see that?) It's common to call any introductory class in almost any subject, "Whatever the class is-101." Even in schools it's a common reference even if it's not the official name of the intro class. "Math 101" or "English 101" or "evolution 101," etcetera... Also, you can't really teach biology without teaching evolution because they are pretty much the same thing. That they sometimes do before collage level is political and has nothing to do with the reality of how much biology can't be understood without understanding it's most important component, evolution. |
Let's just very easily put this to bed. Link me to where I sign up for that evolution 101 course at Berkely.
And here is a better one. Link to where I can sign up to any evolution 101 course at ANY reputable university. You won't because they do not exist.
All colleges give you a way to sign up for courses online, or at least send you to the catalog. Post the links, please.
| And as long as I'm posting, no. Humans did not evolve from Chimps. No one who understands human and chimp evolution would ever suggest such a thing. Evolution has a whole lot to do with common ancestry. |
Well Gee, then why would two famous evolutionary biologists named Eyer-Walker and Keightley do a study on man's walk from chimp. Seems like the left hand don't have any idea what the right hand is doing in your field. Could it be just made up fairytale pseudoscience? The more you guys expound on it, the better it looks that this is the case. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 19:44:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
I didn't go to college, so who's word should I, an ignorant redneck layman, accept? Yours of the highly regarded university at Berkley, CA, eh? |
Doesn't mean anything, Filthy. Some of the smartest people I have ever met never went to college and some of the dumbest people I have ever met are PhDs.
But just like the other bullshit people throw at me here: That was not a college course at Berkeley....LMAO, that was just a very simple Internet paper entitled Evolution 101.
Some want to play the shell game rather than engage in science....What is under the third shell, is it Darwin? LOL
Here's another in their series called Evolution 101. You will note, I'm sure that every fact presented can be easily referenced. I think it's great that such an excellent resource should be so readily available.
|
That is a college course I can take?? Have you missed the entire point? Link me to where I can sign up for that course......That is the discussion. |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 20:02:42 [Permalink]
|
Cool this is called Evolution 101? I didn't see that....Please cut and paste. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 21:07:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
That should have been "loose" information--typo. And that means that in systems that are not fixed, EXAMPLE OF LOOSE: randomly mutating genes in genomes--that information will degrade over time. But you really need a paper to support this? Sure:
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf |
One peer-reviewed paper and you claim a consensus? Awesome! Then AGW has a clear scientific consensus, too.
Seriously: you claimed that "[Loose] information (such as info not fixed as in a book or CD) will degrade over time unless energy is added into the system to stabilize it" is a theory of the Intelligent Design field. Shannon's paper uses the word "design" only four times, all in relation to communications systems designed by humans, and "intelligent" (or "intelligence") doesn't appear in it at all. Neither does "loose" or "degrade" or "stabilize." Shannon only used the word "energy" in relation to the least energy point of function spaces. Yet you would have me believe that this paper demonstrates your statement to be a theory of ID by your definition that a theory is a hypothesis which has been verified and had a scientific consensus built around it?No, really, it's still your turn.| Show me one theory in Darwinism that can be refuted. |
Common descent is one. Find a Devonian Bunny, and common descent, as a scientific theory, will have to be serious revised, if not altogether trashed.| You haven't provided a method with which to measure this "order" you speak of. |
Of course I have. The order/disorder is called entropy and I have calculated it for you. |
So we can calculate the "disorder" by counting deleterious mutations and considering them as discreet, uniformly distributed events as compared to the genome size as a whole? How do we get from just a raw count to "disorder?" Doesn't their position matter, or is the GGGGGBBBBBGGGGG (with G for Good and B for Bad) genome exactly as equally disordered as the BGBGGBGGGBGGGGB genome (both 15 units long with five "bad" units)?| "We" would expect it? Why? Do you think chimps are less "ordered" than humans? |
I would think so. I don't know any Chimp Chiropractors. |
So quacks are symbols of an ordered genome?| No, it showed no such thing. You'll have to define what "good" information is, and how it differs from normal, everyday information. |
Depends on the system we are discussing. In this case genomes, good information could be defined as genes that benefit the viability and functionality of the organism in it's environment. The inverse being vice versa. |
Which leaves out all of the neutral information, then.| Again with the misdirection. Most of the people you've quoted are dead, and so I'm stuck talking to you. But when you get criticized, you try to deflect the criticism off you, and onto the dead people. It's a transparent ploy on your part to avoid engaging in an actual discussion, and to maintain your dogmatism. |
Depressing, isn't it.....<:0) The deal is that I quote science from the greats of science and some of them are, yes.....dead. But ya know what? Their science still works today in the lab just as it did when they were alive. |
But their science is fine, it's your interpretation of it that I have problems with.| One of your debate tactics is to take the science I present you, pretend it came from me, then attack me. |
That's not at all what I'm doing. None of the scientists that you've quoted so far has taken two numbers from a study of deleterious mutations and run them through Boltzmann's formula to try to determine "genetic entropy." That's all you, Jerry. Don't insult the scientists by claiming that they made the same mistakes that you're making.| That's OK, I use a good Red Herring from time to time, so I recognize them when I see them and turn them back on you. |
But you haven't done so.| You must admit that you seem to be having some trouble addressing their science. |
I don't need to address their science, because their science is top-notch. It's your idiocy that I'm addressing.| But you still haven't calculated a trend. |
I don't need to. They did this for us in the paper and in the study interpretation:
"we estimate that at least 38% have been eliminated by natural selection, indicating that there have been more than 1.6 new deleterious mutations per diploid genome per generation." |
Yes, and using that value multiplied by 1.0 means you're calculating the "genetic entropy" of a single generation. And what they actually calculated was 4.2 mutations per person per generation, 1.6 of which might be deleterious, so you're actually trying to calculate the "genetic entropy" per person per generation. And as James Crow says, these mutations won't be the same for everyone, and sexual reproduction allows them to be repaired.| Really? There are only two options under consideration: an unintelligent natural process, or poofing. Since car companies do not rely upon evolution to make their products, they must be "poofed" into existence from a biological perspective. |
Nah.....there is another option. That would be the one that design engineers espouse via quantum mechanics wherein the microstates are designed to result in a given macrostate. |
From a biological viewpoint, that's just a word salad which means "poof."Oh, do you think poofs are magic when considered from a biological point-of-view? How limiting that would be.Not so far.| Of course, this requires intelligence and you just don't have that in the natural processes. |
Yes, poofing things into existence requires intelligence, I agree with you there.| Once again, you attribute one of your ideas to me and then laugh at me for it. You really, really need to learn self-awareness. |
Just attacking your logic. Nothing personal. |
How could it be personal when you're attacking your own logic?
Also:| Link me to where I sign up for that evolution 101 course at Berkely. |
At Berkeley, students begin learning about evolution in Biology 1A, a class required before taking any other biology classes.| Well Gee, then why would two famous evolutionary biologists named Eyer-Walker and Keightley do a study on man's walk from chimp. |
No, they did a study on man's evolution since man's last common ancestor with chimps. Since "the split" with the evolutionary line of heredity starting six million years ago which led to modern chimps. The LCA was neither human nor chimp, but was definitely some type of ape.
Of course, since you're insisting that man couldn't possibly have evolved from an ape-like ancestor, you're insisting that Eyer-Walker and Keightley's methodology was intractably flawed, and so their results cannot be used as a premise for any strictly logical process (like the Boltzmann formula) since garbage in means garbage out. By insisting that gradualism is false, you insist that 1.6 deleterious mutations per generation is a nonsense number, Jerry. So, you've shot your argument in its foot. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 21:10:11 [Permalink]
|
JerryB.
Let's just very easily put this to bed. Link me to where I sign up for that evolution 101 course at Berkely.
And here is a better one. Link to where I can sign up to any evolution 101 course at ANY reputable university. You won't because they do not exist. |
Did you read what I wrote too fast? I know I didn't write it too fast so maybe there is a comprehension problem. What I said, and this is well known among english speaking people in this country, is that calling an entry level class a 101 is common even if that isn't the official name of the class. But let me help you a little bit more:
"Something 101"
It used to be common for colleges, particularly in America, to give the various courses numbers. The 100 series for the first year, the 200 series for the second and the 300 series for the third. And of course -01 would be the simplest course, the foundation module, that everybody had to take; they then oftn had choices from higher number courses, so not everybody took, say, 123.
So "Something 101" is the very basic entry level stuff that everybody is supposed to have learned long ago. |
See? It doesn't have to be a real class for someone to say you should take "evolution 101." And just about everyone knows what it means when they are told to do that. (So much for giving you the benefit of the doubt...) 
JerrB.
Well Gee, then why would two famous evolutionary biologists named Eyer-Walker and Keightley... |
Oh please. I have absolutely no doubt that whatever it was that the famous Eyer-Walker and Keightley said, it had nothing to do with them saying humans evolved from chimps. It's probably something quote mined off a creationist site. In any case, link me to where they say it. Find me the study.
But all of their fame aside (and just so you know, I've never heard of them, but there are a lot of evolutionary biologists out there) if they did suggest that humans evolved from chimps, than they are total whackaloons. I'm betting on a creationist quote mine and a miss-representation of their work from wherever you got those names from. Because... Read my lips Jerry, no one accept a creationist could mangle a quote or a study to mean such a stupid thing and think that anyone who understands evolution would buy it.
Here's the deal. Bonobo chimps and humans have a common ancestor. A chimp couldn't have been the ancestor because chimps didn't exist when the split occurred. It's as simple as that. We did not evolve from any modern ape. And I bet that the famous Eyer-Walker and Keightley would agree with that.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2011 : 22:07:00 [Permalink]
|
| Let's try this whole "math" thing from a different direction, Jerry: at what value of S is "mutational meltdown" ensured? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 01/03/2011 : 05:18:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by filthy
I didn't go to college, so who's word should I, an ignorant redneck layman, accept? Yours of the highly regarded university at Berkley, CA, eh? |
Doesn't mean anything, Filthy. Some of the smartest people I have ever met never went to college and some of the dumbest people I have ever met are PhDs.
But just like the other bullshit people throw at me here: That was not a college course at Berkeley....LMAO, that was just a very simple Internet paper entitled Evolution 101.
Some want to play the shell game rather than engage in science....What is under the third shell, is it Darwin? LOL
Here's another in their series called Evolution 101. You will note, I'm sure that every fact presented can be easily referenced. I think it's great that such an excellent resource should be so readily available.
|
That is a college course I can take?? Have you missed the entire point? Link me to where I can sign up for that course......That is the discussion.
|
No, it is you that has missed the point, intentionally I suspect; that point being that the subject matter is available to anyone who wants it. It is titled Evolution 101. Does getting the information in a classroom rather than on-line make it any more valuable? I think not.
This evolution 101 noise is merely a red herring laying out in the rhetorical road. Not being very smart, I followed it to the entire Berkley series. It might not be an official course of study, but it might as well be because it's what the students get. At any reputable college. Your objection to it is little more than cheap hyperbole.
And as Dave pointed out, it is easy to falsify the Theory of Evolution; all you have to do discover that legendary lagomorph. Or perhaps a modern Hallucigenia. Might be there's one out there somewhere -- thanks to evolution, it's a diverse, ol' world.
Oh, wait, finding an Hallucigenia would neither prove nor disprove anything. It would merely send the YECs into spasms of orgasmic if misguided ecstasy.
Me, I would love to hear about a fossil chicken bone or the like being found in the Burgess Shale. It ain't gonna happen, of course, but wouldn't it be grand? Unfortunately, even that would not make ID the default theory.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2011 : 07:08:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
You have been told several times now that this is not what current evolutionary says about origin of Homo Sapien and Pan Bonobo. You keep building the same strawman over and over again. Don Quixote would have been proud of you. You're just as delusional as he was. |
Do you really believe that everyone who disagrees with you is delusional? |
No I don't.
I assign the label "delusional" to people who has been told several times that they are wrong, yet they refuse to consider they may be wrong because they are so convinced that they can't be wrong.
| Does it not occur to you that people are diverse and opinions can vary without any degree of intellectual dishonesty on the part of any party? |
It occurs to me that no evolutionary biologist describes the human-chimp speciation the way you say they do. What they have said is a matter of record, it's not mere opinion that they have expressed themselves. It's fact. It's as much fact as there is a moon orbiting earth. You can't deny it without either being intellectually dishonest, flat out lying, or being delusional. If you're dishonest or lying, then you're a troll and nothing I say will matter. If you are delusional, then there is still a chance someone might get through to you.
| You have accused me more than once of building strawmen, yet you have been asked more than once to bring an argument on how homo sapiens walked from a monkey. You simply refuse to do so, therefore I assume you don't have one. |
You assume wrong. I defer to expert opinion on evolutionary theory for the origin of Homo Sapiens from primitive hominids. Those are researched in Universities all around the world, and taught in collage biology classes. As such, I have no obligation to defend evolutionary theories, because it is the established main stream science.
You are the one introducing a brand new hypothesis that run contrary to scientific consensus. It's up to you to defend and back up your claims with evidence. I'm just pointing out that they do not hold water.
| (Yes, were you in my biology class, I would have docked you for thinking that the Latin term sapiens is singular when spelled sapien--it is not) |
Oh, boohoo... I made a slip on the keyboard. Big deal.
| What is it you want from me? |
To properly defend your arguments. Back up your claims with evidence.
| You have yet to bring an argument we can discuss, |
Pinning ID against evolution as if those two are the only options is a logical fallacy. If by some miracle you managed to refute any of the pillar stones of evolution, ID isn't the obvious replacement.
I've brought a number of arguments to show you that you are betting on the wrong horse, but seem to ignore them. That's not a fault of mine, but yours.
| No you haven't, that's just more delusions on your part. |
LOL....There you go again. You need to learn to debate. How can you say I did not post those studies when you know I did? You don't remember this abstract: |
I read that abstract. And it does not say the things you say it does. Besides, it's an abstract. You cannot draw accurate conclusions from an abstract. What we need is the actual conclusion by the researchers, or an expert in the field's comments when he is reviewing the entirety of their work.
With you coming back with yet another "you're delusional" I would have no idea what point you are trying to make or how to respond to it. Attack the argument and the evidence presented not the messenger. That's the only way you will ever win a debate. |
You have repeatedly used the same argument, several times after being told that your argument is false, invalid, wrong. Basic evolutionary theory as it pertains to speciation, offspring of different species, or horizontal gene transfers between bacteria.
Your inability to realise you need to educate yourself on basic biology and evolutionary theories frustrate me to the point of me becoming insulting. It doesn't mean I'm a bad debater, it only means that your boneheadedness is greater than my patience.
No, evolution. Darwinian magic(tm) is a figment of creationists' imagination, possibly brought on by the effects of serious brain damage due to self-inflicted brainwashing of christian dogma. |
YAWN......This is your answer to the challenge to show some evidence.....ANYTHING.....to pose a credible scenario concerning a mechanism in which man could have walked from monkey? |
More boneheadedness from your part. IT'S NOT MY JOB TO DEFEND EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTISTS. I do not do original research in biology.
You are the one bringing new and unevidenced conjectures on how species devolve into extinction (you have yet to name how a new species poof into existence, despite your insistence that it violates SLOT).
| If you want to seriously critique evolutionary theory, you will need to know what it says. So it's back to school with you. What's the High-School biology primer for Evolution 101? |
BAHAHAhahahah.....There is no such thing as Evolution 101....This tells me you have never had a formal course in your life. LOL |
Laughing at this only makes you look like a moron. I have not taken a formal course in my life, in USA. So at least that part is correct. It's not my fault that you're so fucking ignorant to not realise I might have gotten my education some place else. My location can be read under my avatar, and people with average intelligence understands that the education system may look different. Even if there isn't a Evolution 101 course, did it even occur to you that my statement was meant to be interpreted metaphorically? Anysubject_101 denotes the entry-level course on anysubject. What I meant was that you need to start with the High-School primer and then continue with the actual biology cources pertinent to bring you up to a reasonable understanding of evolutionary theory.
| Now, this is prima facie evidence you know jack-shit about Quantum Mechanics. If you can't tell a human arm from an electron, there must be something more fundamentally wrong with you. |
Hahaha......Great debate point. I would have no idea how to overcome the logic and almost Einsteinian brillience that such a statement conveys to our intellectual conversation. |
And I don't see the point of debating Quantum Mechanics with someone who can't see the difference between the macro-world and QM. Or that there is a difference between a macro world observer and a QM observer.
Your belief that you can actually provide a reasonable argument in light of this is what makes you delusional.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2011 : 08:39:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Your calculation used the per-generation mutation rate, and the total number of bases studied by Eyer-Walker and Keightly minus the per-generation mutation rate. So 1.71×107 is the total number of microstates consistent with a single generation (since you used the per-generation rate multiplied by one), assuming (incorrectly) that the deleterious single-point mutations could have occurred anywhere within the tiny portion of the genome studied in 1999 with equal probability.
Your premise is still incorrect, you're still taking a spot measurement and claiming a trend, and you're trying to extrapolate to the whole genome from a small sample. |
Again, we can beat this dead horse as long as you want to, I simply did not. And you repeating it over and over will not make it so.
I used their figures which were an average of 1.6 deleterious mutations over a period of about 6 million years. In no way could that be considered a spot sample and I can assure you that anyone other than you reading in here will be able to see this.
| No, he was much smarter than you. His footnote to physicists is important, and he is pretty much saying in that chapter that life is characterized by negatively entropic processes. |
He was much smarter than me? Did you give us both an IQ test? And I know what he was saying. Again, you keep missing the point. The point is that he used Boltzmann's constant to calculate entropy in the human body just as did I. When I do it, you claim it is incorrect math, but since you don't comment about him doing it, I suppose that's OK.
| Saying that you have not measured anything doesn't imply that you did. Again, you need to learn Englich. |
No, I think you need to learn logic. When you state that I did not calculate the beneficial mutations, you imply that I calculated the deleterious ones.
"My concern, however, is not with mutation as a cause of evolution, but rather as a factor in current and future human welfare. Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious. And it is this deleterious effect that I want to discuss."
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.long
Now can I get a reference to the vice versa?
| The very nature of an organism should tell you that SLOT doesn't tell us anything about it genome, since living creatures (and their genomes) are open systems. |
What the heck does that mean? You think that Schrodinger did his work on entropy in the human body in some isolated chamber on Mars or something?
| Go back and read Shannon again: entropy is information. Randomness is maximal information and maximal entropy. |
I have to read the entire paper because you refuse to quote from it? No thank you. Boltzmann stated that information is the opposite of information and it is Boltzmann entropy, not Shannon entropy we are discussing.
Besides, LOL.....You BADLY misunderstand Shannon if you think he meant that entropy IS information. So the more the information organizes so does the entropy which is disorganization? He would have been laughed out of science
| That's why evolutionary biology suggests no such thing: it's a silly strawman that you and the creationists share. |
Well, since I have introduced the Eyre-Walker/Keightely study that shows deleterious mutations increasing so dramatically in the genome since man supposedly split from monkey to the point that evolutionary biologists are wondering why we are not extinct, it couldn't have happened that way.
Question Du jure: How did it happen?
| Every interaction between particles collapses the wave function (which is a measurement, an observation), including interactions between completely unconscious and unintelligent particle detectors. |
Then why does not the film in the back of the box show this? It clearly shows that the particles act as solids when being observed and as waves when not. That's what the experiment is all about.
| You've done nothing more than add the adjective "conscious" or "intelligent" to the word "observer," in the footsteps of Tipler. |
Nonsense again. And again you are attributing science to me that Tipler produced. Tipler mathematically constructs a single pocket of increasingly higher level organization evolving to the ultimate "Omega Point" which he implies to be a god of quantum mechanics that acts as an intelligent observer from the future backward to the past.
It would have to be intelligent in order to know what to observe/not observe to collapse the wave-function. Else, the bed you sleep in could be waves and when you turn on the light switch only solids might come out.
And I see you failed to define "unconscious" or "non-intelligent" observer. The fact is there is no such thing. How could a dumb rock "watch" something else happen? <:0)
| But it's not. Tipler, Chopra, Capra and other new-age woo-meisters are the only ones who insist that a QM observer need be conscious and/or intelligent, and they haven't demonstrated that, anywhere. They just make the same wrong assumption you do. |
But how could an observer of something not be exhibiting intelligence? There is no other possibility other than in your mind. Please explain this so that others can understand it. How can non-intelligent entities observe something else in any meaningful way?
Nope.
| All that needs to happen is for something else, like a dead elk, to fall on one end of the tree, lifting whatever (lighter) thing might be on the other. |
OK, I won't laugh......but it is pure hell holding it in. What would be on the other end and the purpose for lifting it? Isn't a lever supposed to be a device designed to do work?
So here is the scenario. We lave a large rock in the woods. A dead tree falls across it. An elk comes along, jumps way up in the air, has a heart attack in mid-jump, falls on the raised lever and lifts maybe a dead raccoon into the air and this is how ICSs are formed without intelligence? Darwin would certainly be applauding you right now for that creative thinking. :)
| No, they will function just fine. You're trying to conflate function with meaning, but that won't fly here. |
No, I am using the dictionary definition of function.
| If the hammer happens to be laying on a piece of paper, then it functions as a paperweight just fine without any intelligent input. |
Please read what I write. A hammer sitting on a paper does not function as a hammer at all because it isn't hammering anything, now is it? Sheeze......are you ever grasping.
| Not at all. There's no need for anything to "assign" a "bridge" function to a tree across a gorge: ants walking across it (using it as a bridge) won't understand anything about its "bridgy-ness." They don't care if it's a bridge or not, but they'll use it as one. That's the problem with conflating function and meaning: unintelligent processes don't care one whit about meaning, but they'll function just fine. |
I don't know how to break this to you, but ants exhibit intelligence too. All organisms do.
I'm afraid the only way you can remove intelligence from your bridge is to set it on an incline, have your Elk walk up, have a heart attack, fall on it and slide across. Of course, it's not going to do that sucker any good because when he arrives, he's going to be dead so he didn't go anywhere. 
| I know how sweaters are designed, from watching them being knitted, so when presented with a random sweater, I can say, "I know how that was made." No science there, no "design detection," just observation and deduction. |
And I know how ICSs are designed because I'm familiar with the way design engineers do it. So when I see an ICS in a biological system, just like you, my first inclination is to believe it too was designed by intelligence. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2011 : 09:26:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Oh please. Don't play dumb Jerry. (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Did you see that?) It's common to call any introductory class in almost any subject, "Whatever the class is-101." Even in schools it's a common reference even if it's not the official name of the intro class. "Math 101" or "English 101" or "evolution 101," etcetera... |
In case people are curious, I will elaborate. I'm afraid that the class numbering system in colleges is very well structured and numbered so that students and parents will know what they are before the student is enrolled.
For example, physics 100 is a 1st year course for non-science majors. It's designed to be easy, little math, etc. and people can take that just because they may be curious about physics or their world around them. A 100 course is just an elective.
Physics 101 is much more difficult and is designed for science (or related) majors or minors.
Other courses are numbered for certain purposes. For example, myself--As an environmental chemistry major and biology minor I started at chem 110, a course for chemistry (or related) majors and biology 101 since that was my minor.
second year courses begin with 2, 3rd year 3...etc.
College level evolution is normally taught in Genetics and Evolution 205, a 2nd year class for science majors. However, some institutions may differ with another specialty science such as microbiology as 205 and G&E as another.
But my point is that Evolution cannot be taught without 1st year prerequisite classes (such as bio 101) or no one wold understand it (that is one intense course) and that is why is is a 200 level course.
| Also, you can't really teach biology without teaching evolution because they are pretty much the same thing. That they sometimes do before collage level is political and has nothing to do with the reality of how much biology can't be understood without understanding it's most important component, evolution. |
No, I beg to differ. Bios logos is the study of life; living things. Evolution is the study of changing gene pools in populations over time. I can teach biology for an entire semester and never touch on evolution. We can study cells, cellular structure, anatomy, the list goes on.
However, I'll admit that in modern academia evolution is normally taught in biology classes. I remember having it in 6th grade....I even remember the teacher starting out with these words...."Ok, let's get into evolution, and if you don't believe this, you are nuts...." C'mon, why don't they start out that way when they teach gravity, chemistry or physics.
And as long as I'm posting, no. Humans did not evolve from Chimps. No one who understands human and chimp evolution would ever suggest such a thing. Evolution has a whole lot to do with common ancestry.
|
What then, does this mean from evolutionary biologists (and I can name you at least three well known ones who have said this):
"Eyre-Walker and Keightley have made the analysis feasible by concentrating on protein-coding regions. They measured the amino-acid changes in 46 proteins in the human ancestral line after its divergence from the chimpanzee."
http://www.colband.com.br/ativ/nete/biot/textos/geral/007.htm |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2011 : 10:40:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
One peer-reviewed paper and you claim a consensus? Awesome! Then AGW has a clear scientific consensus, too.
Seriously: you claimed that "[Loose] information (such as info not fixed as in a book or CD) will degrade over time unless energy is added into the system to stabilize it" is a theory of the Intelligent Design field. Shannon's paper uses the word "design" only four times, all in relation to communications systems designed by humans, and "intelligent" (or "intelligence") doesn't appear in it at all. Neither does "loose" or "degrade" or "stabilize." Shannon only used the word "energy" in relation to the least energy point of function spaces. Yet you would have me believe that this paper demonstrates your statement to be a theory of ID by your definition that a theory is a hypothesis which has been verified and had a scientific consensus built around it? |
That paper has been peer reviewed for over 50 years, never challenged to my knowledge and is known as one of the greatest papers ever contributed to science in my opinion, and you think there isn't a consensus that it walks?
And what do you expect to find in papers that contribute to intelligent design. Do you expect them to start in the abstract: Ok, here is an ID paper on..........?
That is again a simple misunderstanding of ID. As I have said repeatedly on here, we study biology, physics, chemistry etc. just as anyone else does and we use the same papers. There is no such thing as an "ID paper" and there never will be because ID is just a different paradigm in the larger body of science.
So, would I expect Shannon to use the term "Loose" information? No, but it has to be either fixed where it cannot degrade or loose where it can. That's just common sense.
So, can information degrade? Yes, then it is loose information. Then does it degrade unless energy is added into the system to stabilize it? Yes, that's what the paper is about. If you don't have signal boosters, or repeater stations (when it comes to cell phones), you are going to end up with little information and a lot of noise.
That paper fully supports my introduction of the theory. So does the Eyre-Walker/Keightly paper I introduced.
| Common descent is one. Find a Devonian Bunny, and common descent, as a scientific theory, will have to be serious revised, if not altogether trashed. |
OK, I'll give you that one. You are right.
| So we can calculate the "disorder" by counting deleterious mutations and considering them as discreet, uniformly distributed events as compared to the genome size as a whole? How do we get from just a raw count to "disorder?" Doesn't their position matter, or is the GGGGGBBBBBGGGGG (with G for Good and B for Bad) genome exactly as equally disordered as the BGBGGBGGGBGGGGB genome (both 15 units long with five "bad" units)? |
It is when they no longer code for protein that is beneficial or neutral to the organism that the genome disorders. No need to make it any more complicated than that.
| So quacks are symbols of an ordered genome? |
Yes, because I don't know any Chimp quacks, either.
| Which leaves out all of the neutral information, then. |
I suppose, but so what since neutral mutations don't do anything by their very definition.
| But their science is fine, it's your interpretation of it that I have problems with. |
Then reinterpret it and tell me how I am wrong. You certainly have not successfully accomplished this as of yet. You can't just tell me I am wrong over and over and not show me how. That is meaningless to anyone.
| That's not at all what I'm doing. None of the scientists that you've quoted so far has taken two numbers from a study of deleterious mutations and run them through Boltzmann's formula to try to determine "genetic entropy." That's all you, Jerry. Don't insult the scientists by claiming that they made the same mistakes that you're making. |
Huh, how would they do that, I thought you said they were all dead...<:0) And thank you for complimenting me on being the first to extrapolate that particular study into thermodynamics. I know you didn't mean that as a compliment, but that is exactly what you said.
I used the same formula as Schrodinger, one of the greatest physicists that ever lived. Yet you think I'm insulting him? No, you are insulting him because when you accuse me of being wrong you also accuse him of being wrong. Well, I challenge you to find a single scientist or paper from a university science dept that agrees with you.
But if he was right, and he most surely was, then so am I.
| Yes, and using that value multiplied by 1.0 means you're calculating the "genetic entropy" of a single generation. And what they actually calculated was 4.2 mutations per person per generation, 1.6 of which might be deleterious, so you're actually trying to calculate the "genetic entropy" per person per generation. And as James Crow says, these mutations won't be the same for everyone, and sexual reproduction allows them to be repaired. |
Why do you waste both our time by dabbling so much in irrelevance? When did you see me multiply anything by 1? Everything you wrote in that paragraph is meaningless. I KNOW 1.6 deleterious mutations occurred and that is what I used. And I KNOW that it won't be for everyone, that is an average per generation. It is a trend. SLOT is a tendency. Can we get off this now and move on?
| From a biological viewpoint, that's just a word salad which means "poof." |
Then so is Darwinism, you can't have it both ways.
| Yes, poofing things into existence requires intelligence, I agree with you there. |
Good, I'm glad to see that we agree the Cambrian Explosion was a Darwinian *POOF* or are you now stating that this was design at work?
| No, they did a study on man's evolution since man's last common ancestor with chimps. Since "the split" with the evolutionary line of heredity starting six million years ago which led to modern chimps. The LCA was neither human nor chimp, but was definitely some type of ape. |
That's a possibility, but it certainly doesn't seem to be their meaning the way they word it. I had always thought that man and chimp shared a common ancestor in the body of thought. But the way the three scientists word their writings leads me to believe they are assuming speciation in the form of man from chimp. I could be wrong on this.
Of course, since you're insisting that man couldn't possibly have evolved from an ape-like ancestor, you're insisting that Eyer-Walker and Keightley's methodology was intractably flawed, and so their results cannot be used as a premise for any strictly logical process (like the Boltzmann formula) since garbage in means garbage out. By insisting that gradualism is false, you insist that 1.6 deleterious mutations per generation is a nonsense number, Jerry. So, you've shot your argument in its foot.
|
Not in the least bit. Because you also have to assume the above in the vein of logic you are using to bring that argument, and when you do I have won this argument and the discussion is over. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Intelligent Design is Stupid
