"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Doctor Strange · 13-02-2013 10:10AM

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 · 13-02-2013 10:22AM

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 · 13-02-2013 11:14AM

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 · 13-02-2013 11:24AM

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 · 13-02-2013 11:50AM

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 · 13-02-2013 12:07PM

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 · 13-02-2013 12:20PM

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 · 13-02-2013 12:35PM

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 · 13-02-2013 12:37PM

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 · 13-02-2013 12:39PM

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 · 13-02-2013 12:42PM

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 · 13-02-2013 12:54PM

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 · 13-02-2013 12:58PM

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 · 13-02-2013 01:03PM

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 · 13-02-2013 01:04PM

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 · 13-02-2013 01:06PM

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."

Ziphius · 13-02-2013 01:06PM

mickrock wrote: »

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.

And why not? If the mutations arise and adequate selections are there this would happen.

Theoretically this could occur. However the chances are infinitesimal. But evolution doesn't operate by transforming one organism into another Platonic ideal.

kiffer · 13-02-2013 01:08PM

mickrock wrote: »

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.

Based on what?

mickrock · 13-02-2013 01:30PM

Ziphius wrote: »

Theoretically this could occur. However the chances are infinitesimal.

If we see complex software we know an intelligence created it.

Similarly when we see the genetic code it's not unreasonable to infer that inteligence is the most likely cause.

legspin · 13-02-2013 01:38PM

mickrock wrote: »

If we see complex software we know an intelligence created it.

Similarly when we see the genetic code it's not unreasonable to infer that inteligence is the most likely cause.

Now its the blind watchmaker? An argument that was refuted 150 years ago and you think we're going to fall for it now?

There isn't a face palm hard enough for this bullshít.

mickrock · 13-02-2013 01:44PM

legspin wrote: »

Now its the blind watchmaker? An argument that was refuted 150 years ago and you think we're going to fall for it now?

No, it's not the "blind watchmaker".

It's the "watchmaker" and it hasn't been refuted at all, although Darwinists like to think it has.

legspin · 13-02-2013 01:53PM

That you refuse to accept as such does not make it less of a fallacy.

Anyway, I'm done listening to your particular brand of rampant, wilful and oh so proud if itself ignorance and you are now on ignore.

oldrnwisr · 13-02-2013 01:54PM

Since we are close to the end of this thread I think a fitting finale would be a legacy of information for anyone curious (and I mean actually honestly curious) about what evolution is, how it works and why it is one of the most robust theories in science.

So here goes:

Basic Primers

Books - Academic

Books - Popular

Papers

Videos

Other websites

One final note - this isn't even skimming the surface of all there is to learn on evolution. Most of this list has been crafted from personal interest and utility but hopefully there's something in there for everyone.

mickrock · 13-02-2013 02:00PM

Think for yourself!

Delirium · 13-02-2013 02:05PM

mickrock wrote: »

Think for yourself!

Doctor Strange · 13-02-2013 02:23PM

mickrock wrote: »

Think for yourself!

A fitting note for you to sign off with on this thread. Your ignorance is caused by some misguided attempt at "free thinking".

Sarky · 13-02-2013 03:59PM

mickrock wrote: »

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.

And you would be wrong. I mentioned genetic algorithms before. I would love to think you were just so busy reading oldrnwisr's posts that you missed it the first time, but somehow I get the impression that you didn't bother reading any of the links or information we've given you time and again.

I guess the message we can all take from this thread is that some people just aren't interested in improving their knowledge, and no amount of showing them precisely why they're wrong will get them to let go of their ignorance. It's kind of depressing.

On a brighter note though, I'm very glad to have had the opportunity to share some of my knowledge with you guys in this thread, and it's been a pleasure learning off you guys. Too many to mention everyone, but shoutouts in particular to oldrnwisr, Zombrex, Sycopat and doctoremma. Awesome work, you guys.

Oh, and thanks to mickrock and J C as well. Your shining example of pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the eye is a warning to us all, and an inspiration to never, ever settle for the easy answer.

Ok, I think we're done here. How bittersweet.

Gbear · 13-02-2013 04:04PM

Thankfully this thread has passed the 10k post mark and can now be disposed of.

Preferably in nuclear fire.

Zombrex · 13-02-2013 05:33PM

mickrock wrote: »

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.

God you cannot be that silly.

There is an entire discipline in computer science, called Genetic Algorithms, that do precisely what you claim wouldn't work.

There seems to be no end to your ignorance.

And you never answered my previous question to you.

robindch · 13-02-2013 05:36PM

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

A fitting note for you to sign off with on this thread.

If past history with creationists is anything to go by -- and I think it's fair to say at this point that mickrock is, indisputably, a creationist -- then he'll be back shortly, repeatedly posting the same silly talking points, repeatedly ignoring honest question after honest question, sticking his fingers deep into his ears, thumbing his nose at what he doesn't understand and doesn't want to understand, and generally debating with all the grace and honesty of a bum railyard preacher.

Why do creationists insist on doing this? Does the man make the manner, or the other way around? I have no idea. Seems dreadfully tedious to me.

Still, pray continue. While mickrock's silly contributions are instantly forgettable and forgotten, other people's are not.

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Comments