"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

The Mad Hatter

Corkfeen wrote: »

This thread requires an epic score for the final 38 posts.... The end is nigh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl5McGN2L-E

One of the most educational topics around but at the same time, it can be completely mad and idiotic.....

On default profile settings, we're also about to hit page 666:eek:

mickrock

Zombrex wrote: »

Whats that, you have evidence that evolution can do X, ah yes but can it increase "complexity", can it produce "information, no I'm not going to define those terms so you can actually answer the question!

Supposedly Darwinian mechanisms can explain how a bacterium could evolve into a bird.

A bird is more complex than a bacterium.
"Why is a bird more complex than a bacterium? What makes something more complex than something else? Please define complexity."

Where does the information come from for the body plans of a bird? For wings, avian lungs, eyes etc
"Please define information. Anyway, talking about information is just a ploy used by creationists. Many small changes over a long time explains the evolution of a bird."

Zombrex

mickrock wrote: »

A bird is more complex than a bacterium.
...
Where does the information come from for the body plans of a bird?

Both of those things are explained currently by evolution and supported with evidence.

But you reject them off hand because you claim the individual examples of change in life forms are not "complex" enough for you, and you reject them off hand because you claim the individual example of creation of new genetic code in life forms is not enough "information" for you.

So again, define what you mean by "complex" and "information" in a fashion that we can definitively say that some evolutionary change is or isn't complex enough for you, and that the information change is enough of an information change for you to be satisfied.

Put up or shut up.

PopePalpatine

Sarky wrote: »

Surprise twist- J C shows up to finally apologise.

I want to believe (s)he's mentally handicapped, but that would do a disservice to those who really are handicapped who do their best to live with their disability.

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

"Please define intelligence."
"Please define information."
"Please define complexity."

For example, if asked how the digital information in DNA can be explained by chance and/or material processes, the inevitable response will be for a definition of information.

At this point I was going to try to explain how, when people who are serious about a topic communicate, they usually agree, frequently by default, things like terms of reference, common definitions, rules of debating, topic boundaries and so on. It creates a framework for an interesting, fruitful and worthwhile discussion.

However, creationists don't do this. They uniformly ignore attempts to ringfence a topic, they ignore any requests to define what they mean by any of the meandering, dribbly terms they use, they change topic at random and debate with all the honesty and attention of sugared-up junior infants in a schoolyard.

And their discussions -- like yours here in this forum -- are correspondingly uninteresting, fruitless and worthless.

Lucy8080

Thanks for the video Ghengis, as we can see, experimental mathematics can get beyond infinity to even bigger infinities. ad infinitum!

So that's infinity from the p.o.v. of maths.

I would imagine that from the p.o.v. of creationists or intelligent design proponents, it must mean an absence of finite stuff like birth/death disease and destruction!

Basically , the garden of Eden , before the apple (?) was eaten (according to creationists).

So, i'm slightly baffled as to how they propose to find evidence of I.D. in fossils (evidence of death and disease) ,floods ( evidence of destruction) or anything else finite that they study...whilst also maintaining that god, an intelligent designer/creationist, is not responsible for it .

It's a bit of a sticky wicket!

If the garden of Eden story is entertained, an infinite god created beings that cannot suffer death or disease unless they eat an apple.

If they eat the apple ( which is intelligently designed also) , the consequences are unintelligent design...i.e....you die ,suffer pain etc.

If creationists follow through on their own beliefs, the only possible evidence of I.D. they could find would be traces of something poisonous( the apple).

Maybe its c.f.s.i.

Paradoxically , if they remove it (assuming it exists), they could save themselves ...which might open another can of worms.

Scientific study would be their saviour!

nagirrac

wrong forum. or perhaps wrong universe

Lucy8080

I'm not sure if that response is to me Nagirric,...but just in case it is...i have not proposed any belief here....i'm just chasing through the logic of creationists/ .i.d. proponents ...and the arguments they propose.

Maybe your interpretation of what i have written is something for yourself and not me!

Your own universe perhaps?

nagirrac

I don't mean to be offensive Lucy8080 but Creationists are devout Christians. If you want to understand how they think and what they believe I suggest the Christianity forum.

Lucy8080

I know they are /claim to be Nagirric.

No offence taken on my part.

I hope you won't take offence if i suggest that you may have misunderstood my post.

nagirrac

Lucy8080 wrote: »

I know they are /claim to be Nagirric.

No offence taken on my part.

I hope you won't take offence if i suggest that you may have misunderstood my post.

Maybe I did
They don't claim to be devout Christians, they are devout Christians.
They accept as factual everything in the bible.

Sarky

Blimey, has it really been that long since J C wandered into an ordinary thread about how bloody stupid it was to have a minister for science endorsing a sh*tty book written by an ignorant loon, then proceeded to spam it with a seemingly endless supply of terrible arguments and outright lies?

My, how the time flies by. I'm going to miss this thread. Not because of J C or any of the crazies who flew by with the same tired old rubbish, but because of the sharp minds who tirelessly showed him to be talking bollocks again and again. I've learned so much from you guys.

mickrock

robindch wrote: »

However, creationists don't do this. They uniformly ignore attempts to ringfence a topic, they ignore any requests to define what they mean by any of the meandering, dribbly terms they use, they change topic at random and debate with all the honesty and attention of sugared-up junior infants in a schoolyard.

I'm not a creationist or even religious. Calling someone a creationist is a ploy used by Darwinists when someone disagrees with them.

When asked how Darwinism can explain increased complexity and the arising of the new informaton for the complexity they just stick their fingers in their ears and repeat their mantra that many small changes add up over time. Time is the Darwinist's superhero.

Darwinists, for example, say that Lenski's E.coli show an increase in complexity. The adaptaton comes about because the random mutations effectively break what's already there. It's like breaking the windscreen of a car on a very hot day to increase ventilation. There might be a perceived improvement but breaking a part of the car hasn't increased its complexity.

The idea behind, and the evidence for, Darwinian evolution is so flimsy it's laughable.

Zombrex

mickrock wrote: »

Darwinists, for example, say that Lenski's E.coli show an increase in complexity. The adaptaton comes about because the random mutations effectively break what's already there. It's like breaking the windscreen of a car on a very hot day to increase ventilation. There might be a perceived improvement but breaking a part of the car hasn't increased its complexity.

The idea behind, and the evidence for, Darwinian evolution is so flimsy it's laughable.

A surface that has a hole in the middle of it certainly seems more complex than simply a smooth surface. For a start there is a hole.

But then you seem to be using a notion of "complexity" that only you know.

Any time you want to define it for the rest of us.

Doctor Strange

mickrock wrote: »

I'm not a creationist or even religious. Calling someone a creationist is a ploy used by Darwinists when someone disagrees with them.

When asked how Darwinism can explain increased complexity and the arising of the new informaton for the complexity they just stick their fingers in their ears and repeat their mantra that many small changes add up over time. Time is the Darwinist's superhero.

Darwinists, for example, say that Lenski's E.coli show an increase in complexity. The adaptaton comes about because the random mutations effectively break what's already there. It's like breaking the windscreen of a car on a very hot day to increase ventilation. There might be a perceived improvement but breaking a part of the car hasn't increased its complexity.

The idea behind, and the evidence for, Darwinian evolution is so flimsy it's laughable.

EXPLAIN. YOUR. IDEA.

Seriously dude, I'm taking the bait one more time. Explain your hypothesis or theory on how evolution occurs, or GTFO.

Also, the irony of YOU accusing US of sticking our fingers in our ears is just sad. You're a vague hypocrite.

oldrnwisr

mickrock wrote: »

I'm not a creationist or even religious. Calling someone a creationist is a ploy used by Darwinists when someone disagrees with them.

When asked how Darwinism can explain increased complexity and the arising of the new informaton for the complexity they just stick their fingers in their ears and repeat their mantra that many small changes add up over time. Time is the Darwinist's superhero.

Darwinists, for example, say that Lenski's E.coli show an increase in complexity. The adaptaton comes about because the random mutations effectively break what's already there. It's like breaking the windscreen of a car on a very hot day to increase ventilation. There might be a perceived improvement but breaking a part of the car hasn't increased its complexity.

The idea behind, and the evidence for, Darwinian evolution is so flimsy it's laughable.

Why must we do this again and again mickrock.

Natural selection can and does explain complexity and information.

First, let's look at information. I've already explained to you and to JC on more than one occasion how changes to the genome result in an increase in information.

It can be quantified using information theory.

Let's start with a population of 1000 individuals. 500 of these individuals (which we'll call group A) have a gene with the codon CAG and 500 (which we'll call group with the codon CCC. So p(A) = 0.5 and p(B) = 0.5. Therefore, H = -(0.5*log2(0.5) - 0.5*log2(0.5)) = 1.000.

Now in the next generation, group A remains unchanged. However, in group B, thanks to a random mutation, there are 499 individuals with codon CCC and 1 mutant with CCG. Therefore, the sum of entropies is now:

p(CAG) * log2(p(CAG)) = 0.50000
p(CCC) * log2(p(CCC)) = 0.50044
p(CCG) * log2(p(CCG)) = 0.00997

So now, H = -(0.50000 + 0.50044 + 0.00997) = 1.01041

Therefore the information has increased thanks to this mutation.

The information increases due to variation in the population. This is also how natural selection works, particularly in areas like intrasexual selection (male-male competition). If a mutation confers an advantage on its possessor then he, as a result, looks better than his peers to the opposite sex. If, on the other hand, a mutation confers a disadvantage on its possessor then he makes his peers look better. The more instances of this in a given population, the more variation there is which drives natural or in this case sexual selection. This, as shown above increases the information in the subsequent generations.


As for complexity, it is difficult to argue against a term which you have yet to define in the context of biological evolution. However, we do have quite a good understanding of how complexity emerges through natural selection.

There are quite a few books (both academic and popular) and papers which explain this phenomenon.

How the Leopard Changed its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity

Evolution of biological complexity

The Evolution of Complexity by means of Natural Selection

Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation

kiffer

Zombrex wrote: »

A surface that has a hole in the middle of it certainly seems more complex than simply a smooth surface. For a start there is a hole.

But then you seem to be using a notion of "complexity" that only you know.

Any time you want to define it for the rest of us.

Tut tut... define defining.

Genghiz Cohen

kiffer wrote: »

Tut tut... define defining.

To be in the process of explaining the meaning, annotative and connotative (where relevant to the current context) of a requested word or phrase.

Tisk tisk, define tut.

EDIT: ANNOTITIVE & Connotative

doctoremma

mickrock wrote: »

Darwinists, for example, say that Lenski's E.coli show an increase in complexity. The adaptaton comes about because the random mutations effectively break what's already there. It's like breaking the windscreen of a car on a very hot day to increase ventilation. There might be a perceived improvement but breaking a part of the car hasn't increased its complexity.

Again, with random use of the word "complexity". As Zombrex said, a windscreen with a hole in it is more complex than an intact windscreen. The structure itself requires more terms for description (either mathematically/scientifically or in plain English) and there has been an additional process in the creation of the structure. How do you not view this as more "complex" (by anyone's definition)?

Mickrock, why don't you tell us what you think happened. Don't worry about supporting it scientifically, just what is your feeling here?

Were all species "created" as they are? Were genetically superior "kinds" created and from them, there has been a cascade of slightly less complex individual species? What do you imagine "created" either the species or the kinds? Did decreasing genetic complexity mean that you feel everything has evolved from Homo sapiens (or whichever animal you regard as the most evolutionarily superior)? Do you find Lamarckism attractive? Something else (I'm sure there are lots of other options)?

kiffer

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Tisk tisk, define tut.

A word representing the noise made with the tongue at the front of the mouth just behind the upper incisors to indicate disapproval or as a mild reprimand.

Define "running out the clock"...


Come on mickrock! get some substance in before the lock! You can do it!
Things pending, some if the many:
What would you count as a novel adaptation/feature in an animal?
What do you mean by more/less complex when talking about animals? Is a fancy crested pigeon more complex than a dull old rock dove?
What is happening in evolution if not Natural selection of variations caused by mutations?

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

I'm not a creationist or even religious. Calling someone a creationist is a ploy used by Darwinists when someone disagrees with them.

I didn't call you a creationist. I did say that you ignore repeated questions, that you change topic randomly, you misrepresent people's opinions, you use flexible terms that mean whatever you want them to mean (but won't tell anybody in case you get called out on it). Generally, you behave just as creationists do, and your very limited set of talking points are much the same.

In this forum, and in most places where a high standard of debate is maintained, that amounts to willful dishonesty.

Why don't you have a read of some of oldrnwisr's posts (for example) and try and understand what he's taking the time to explain to you, patiently and carefully?

mickrock

oldrnwisr wrote: »

So now, H = -(0.50000 + 0.50044 + 0.00997) = 1.01041

Therefore the information has increased thanks to this mutation.

Saying a random mutation adds information is like saying that adding a random word to the manuscript of a book adds information. It will end up garbling the information.

kiffer

mickrock wrote: »

Saying a random mutation adds information is like saying that adding a random word to the manuscript of a book adds information. It will end up garbling the information.

Methinks it is like a weasel.


Edit: also on an other level: weasels

seamus

mickrock wrote: »

Saying a random mutation adds information is like saying that adding a random word to the manuscript of a book adds information. It will end up garbling the information.

Do you not agree that if you keep adding random words to a manuscript, every so often a word will get inserted which not only makes sense, but in fact improves the prose? Then of course, every future copy of that manuscript will include this improved prose.

The manuscript is actually a rather wonderful example to give to explain evolution. A copywriter discards any randomly-added words which garble the text. Words which do not affect the text often get overlooked and copied into the text, and words which improve the text are usually copied forward into future publications.

mickrock

kiffer wrote: »

Methinks it is like a weasel.

If you have a target like Dawkins did then it doesn't mimic Darwinian mechanisms.

The Mad Hatter

mickrock wrote: »

Saying a random mutation adds information is like saying that adding a random word to the manuscript of a book adds information. It will end up garbling the information.

Not necessarily.

kiffer

mickrock wrote: »

If you have a target like Dawkins did then it doesn't mimic Darwinian mechanisms.

One, there are aways targets. Reproductive success and survivability are targets, for example. See the critism section of the article.
Two, I think you weasel out a lot.

swampgas

mickrock wrote: »

The idea behind, and the evidence for, Darwinian evolution is so flimsy it's laughable.

Actually, this just shows that your powers of comprehension / imagination are severely limited.

Imagine saying any of the following:
"The idea behind, and the evidence for, Gravity is so flimsy it's laughable."
"The idea behind, and the evidence for, General Relativity is so flimsy it's laughable."
"The idea behind, and the evidence for, the theory that the earth goes around the sun is so flimsy it's laughable."
"The idea behind, and the evidence for, <any well accepted scientific theory> is so flimsy it's laughable."

Do you reject all mainstream science or just evolution? If it's just evolution why? Its foundations are based on the same scientific principles as all other scientific theories.

mickrock

seamus wrote: »

The manuscript is actually a rather wonderful example to give to explain evolution.

I think a computer progam is even better. I posted this before:

Let's liken the genetic information in the first unicellular life form to a computer program (which somehow has formed by chance). The role of natural selection is played by a person familiar with programming. Random changes are made to the program which he can either accept or reject.

Almost all the changes he'll reject because they'll corrupt the program and he'll let the beneficial ones be incorporated. Since each change is random it is unrelated to the one that preceeded it and to the one that will follow.

If this process is allowed to continue for a long time will we end up with a far more sophisticated program with new functions, applications and capabilities? By a similar process, can the genetic code in a single cell evolve into the genetic code of a horse?

The answer I would give is no.

oldrnwisr

mickrock wrote: »

Saying a random mutation adds information is like saying that adding a random word to the manuscript of a book adds information. It will end up garbling the information.

No, not at all.

In genetics terms there are frameshift mutations, i.e. the change in a gene brought about by the insertion or deletion of a number of nucleotides which is indivisible by 3. This causes the stop codon or terminus of the gene to change which changes how the information is read in translation. A summary of frameshift mutations can be found here:

Frameshift mutations

Such mutations can lead to the acquisition of novel abilities. One such ability discovered in the seventies is how two species of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas respectively evolved the ability to metabolise certain industrial waste products.

Biodegradation of nylon oligomers


You know you really should read up on these things before making such remarkably dumbass pronouncements. As Mark Twain once said:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."