Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Science! Ask you question here. Biscuits NOT included and answers not guaranteed.
Comments
-
-
-
FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?Bannasidhe wrote: »I shall take that in the spirit it was intended. :P
OOPSA!! In my defence, I have never been to your lectures Bann. I love your historical posts here too!
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?What do you lecture? UCC I presume?
Also is there anything oldnwiser doesn't know?:D
Oh challenge accepted
Why when I send a parcel by road is it called a shipment but when i send it by boat it's called cargo?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
The Bible is silent on how the animals were fed ... you guys scoff at how this could be achieved naturally ... and I have given an explaination ... 2/3rds of the Ark space available for the storage of feed, the possibility of some form of hibernation amongst at least some of the animals and juvenile pairs of each Kind greatly reducing feed requirements.It should be trivial but it would also be by the standards of your mythology, miraculous. Considering that the Pentateuch is an edited work compiled from a number of different sources, it is odd that the editors would give special mention to such a miraculous event twice (Exodus 16, Numbers 11) and then fail to mention the same act when it is even more relevant to the story in Genesis 8. Like I said to JC, stop reading things into the text that aren't there.
Genetic information is observed to be complex functional and specified ... which is similar but infinitely more sophisticated to information written in a book.There are two caveats here related to your questions.
Firstly, there are two separate and independent questions here. One, the increase in genetic information is related to evolution and how the mechanism of biological evolution proceeds. The other relates to the origin of said information which is a topic referred to as abiogenesis.
The second caveat is that for this topic to be meaningful then you need to define your understanding of "information" in a biological context. What do you mean by all the "information" for life on earth.
The reason you 'don't really know' how life originated is because you are denying the only plausible mechaism ... which it Direct Divine Creation ... and that is why all other invalid and illogical Hypotheses 'fall on their face' ... and don't stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny.Now, to address your second question first. The short answer is we don't really know how life originated. It's not that we have no idea, we have in fact got several well-supported hypotheses. The problem is that we have no way of travelling back in time 3.8 billion years to figure out which possible method of generating life is the correct one. It's like being faced with a murder victim who has been cremated. You can theorise based on circumstantial evidence whether the victim was shot, stabbed, suffocated etc. but you have no real way of determining which possible method was the actual one. The topic of abiogenesis is long, complicated and involves a serious amount of scientific understanding to digest so let me know if you want to go through it in detail and we can cover it in another post. In the meantime, this article might give you an idea of the scope of the problem involved.
Natural Selection is a fact ... but it can only select ... and the proposed mechanism to provide the information from which to select (mutagenesis) is destructive of the complex functional specified information observed to be in genetic information.Now, to get on to your first question, the increase in genetic information from simple-celled life forms to humans. So, how can genetic information increase? Well it's rather straightforward. The process of biological evolution relies on two processes. Mutation and natural selection. Mutation is the process by which, either during reproduction or the life cycle of an organism, random changes are introduced into an organism's genetic blueprint. Natural selection is the complementary process which filters these changes, favouring ones which confer a survival or attractiveness benefit for the parent organism and weeding out those which are harmful.
So the Evolution Hypotheses is made up of a combination of a genetic information destroying mechanism (Mutagenesis) and a selection mechanism ... to select the degraded information ... which would only result in a downwards spiral from perfection to imperfection (which is what we observe)... and not the other way around ... which would be required if 'pondkind did, in fact, evolve into Mankind'
Agreed ... genetic information is complex functional and specified like the information is a very sophisticated book.Before we get into more detail, a little primer on your genome for those who don't know. Your genetic blueprint, your genome is like a book. This book is organised into 23 chapters which are called chromosomes (well actually chromosomal pairs). Each chapter is composed of lots of short stories called genes. Each story is made up of paragraphs. Some of these paragraphs are made up of text relevant to the story, we call these exons. Others are just ads, which we call introns. Each paragraph is made up of words called codons. Finally these words are made up of three letters called bases. The language of the book is written in an alphabet comprised of just four letters, A,C,T,G.
... and all of this change to the English language was produced through the appliance of Human Intelligence ... in a tightly specified and complex manner typical of the intelligent production of all new compex functional specified information.There are three ways in which we can see how mutation and natural selection increase genetic information, analogy, example and mathematics.
The best analogy for how genetic information is increased is the development of language. The English language is composed of just 26 letters. When the first English language dictionary "A Table Alphabeticall" was published in 1604, it contained 2543 words. By comparison, the current dictionary contains 171,476 words with approximately 4000 new words being added every year. Like twerking, for example. However this voluminous change is achieved by combining the same 26 letters in new combinations or finding new uses for existing ones.
... the problem is that applying intelligence could do this (like you show in your example of intelligently working out a newspaper puzzle ... but a random non-intelligent process, like mutagenesis cannot do this ... and it will just degrade any information that might be present.Similarly, the increase in genetic information is created by combining the four letters in new combinations driven by random change. Evolution (in scenarios like the evolution of the eye) proceeds by making incremental changes with each intermediate stage conferring benefit to the user. So in a way, it is like those puzzles you get in a newspaper where you change one letter each time. Like this:
SWORD
SWORE
SHORE
SHARE
PHARE
PHASE
At each stage, a new, properly defined word is formed by changing just one letter so that the final word bears no resemblance to the first.
The problem that you are describing is the production of an entire 'book' that is coherent and mega muti-functional for each species ... and not merely manipulating one simple word within this book ... and thus it becomes mathematically impossible to produce CFSI using random changes ... just like making random changes to letters in a book just degrades the information in the book to the point where it become gobbledy-gook ... and not another well written coherent book about some other subject.
... but even if these new combinations occur ... you have just said that it has been freed from NS ... and thus these new combinations cannot be selected ... and if it isn't freed from from NS ... the intermediate combiantions will be selected against.OK, time for an example. The best example of mutation increasing biological information is a process known as gene duplication. In this process, a gene is accidentally copied twice into an organism. This process should be familiar to most people. When this process occurs on a larger scale, i.e. an extra copy of an entire chromosome, it manifests as Down's syndrome. However, on the scale of a gene the process can be quite beneficial. In this case, the second copy of the gene is freed from selective pressure. Because it is no longer integral to the functioning of its host, it experience a much higher mutation rate without affecting the parent organism. Therefore the genetic information within the second gene can be wildly recombined resulting in new functions.
The only known way of overcoming this conundrum (which also exists in our everyday working environment) is the appliance of intelligence.
The ability to destroy something isn't anywhere nearly as sophisticated as the ability to create something. For example, fire will destroy most things ... but it isn't capable of creating anything, in the absence of applied intelligence.One prominent example of this is the development of nylon-eating bacteria. In this case a combination of gene duplication and frameshift mutation allowed a strain of Flavobacterium to acquire the ability to digest a synthetic material like nylon.
Shannon Information ... is a measure raw data without any measure of its compexity, functionality of specificity ... which are all critical in living systems. A series of random jumbled cyphers contain the same Shannon Information as a series of compex, functional specified codes. In living processes the random jumbled cyphers would be fatal ... while the compex, functional specified codes are the genertic information that codes for living processses.Finally, let's look at the mathematics of information.
Our method for quantifiying information in biological systems or any other field is information theory.
Information theory was devised by a scientist working at Bell Labs called Claude Shannon. In fact Dembski claimed to base his work on that of Shannon even though he got eveything wrong.
Shannon defined information initially as a probability. For example, a message Xi has the probability p(Xi). So if you asked someone their birthday, assigning the value of Xi to 1st January would yield p(Xi) of 0.003.
Shannon then formalised this postulate by defining the information content of a stream as its entropy given by:
so for p(x) = 0 and p(x) = 1, the function has a value of 0.0 -
I'm sorry.Bannasidhe wrote: »Dr Who about to begin so ignores young pup as unworthy.
Since Dr Who is televised, applying JC's logic. There's a very good chance that Gallifrey and the Doctor are very real. 0 -
-
-
-
The quantity of Shannon Information has increased ... but the quality of the genetic information has decreased ... and if the mutation to CCG results in a loss of functionality in a critical system it could even be fatal.oldrnwisr wrote:Now, we'll take a biological example to show how mutation leads to an increase in information.
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.
Morality can and does evolve ... under the intelligently directed thoughts of Mankind. It can be highly dynamic and quite arbitrary in may cases, depending on the vagaries of public opinion ... for example, in the early 20th Century it was morally acceptable to drink in public in America ... in the 1920's and early 1930's it was morally unacceptable ... and now it is acceptable again.oldrnwisr wrote:Science can and does give us an insight into how we have developed and continue to develop our moral compass. Morality is a function of social behaviour and communal existence. There is a significant body of research regarding the evolution of morality. I have posted some links for you below, some books as primers and some peer-reviewed research as well:
Books
The Origins of Virtue
Adaptation and Natural Selection
The Moral Landscape
Research
The evolution of reciprocal altruism
Fairness vs. reason in the ultimatum game
Five rules for the evolution of cooperation
The evolution of the golden rule
Volunteering as Red Queen mechanism in public goods games
... only where the theory is vindicated by repeatable observation or experimentation ... neither of which apply to the Theory that Pondkind evolved into Mankind through selected Mutagenesis.oldrnwisr wrote:Well, it's both. A law is a simple statement relating the causal factors of a phenomenon. This is why we can state the law of gravity mathematically:
The law allows us to see how gravity works, what factors influence gravity and to what degree. However, nothing in the law explains why gravity works. That's what a theory is for. A theory is an explanatory framework which encompasses observations and laws. It is the highest level of confidence science can attain.
The moon dust argument is not considered to be valid by Creation Science.oldrnwisr wrote:You seem to have gotten this hoary old creationist claim completely ass backwards.
This claim dates back to Henry Morris, one of the founders of ICR. In a book called Scientific Creationism back in 1974. It claims that the influx of meteorite dust measured on earth does not tally with the amount of moon dust meaning that the moon must be young.
The claim is based on a single and now long-refuted measurement:
"The best measurements have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year"
However it has been known since the time Morris' book was published that Pettersson's estimate was vastly overstated. One of the most recent figures published in 1996 shows Pettersson's estimate to be overstated by a factor of a factor of 12.
Luminous efficiency based on photographic observations of the Lost City fireball and implications for the influx of interplanetary bodies onto Earth.
So the actual data poses no problem for an old moon.
The assumption that influx of meteorite dust doesn't vary with time is unfounded ... and thus no conclusion, one way or the other can be drawn in relation to this matter.
All it shows is that the 'long agers' got it wrong when they put large discs on the legs of the Moon Landing Craft in anticipation of deep dust being present due to a supposed billions of years old moon.
... this full scale model of the Ark doesn't seem to be falling apart ... as you have predicted ... so your hypothesis isn't supported by reality.oldrnwisr wrote:Are you kidding me?
I just wanted to quote this to draw attention to its monumental stupidity.
So let me get this straight. A boat which would probably have buckled under its own hull stresses given that cypress only has a tensile strength of 3.5MPa is somehow going to survive the rogue waves capable of destroying ships much bigger than the ark built from materials 10,000 times stronger than those used to build the ark. Sometimes the stupid in your posts astound even me.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246247/Dutchman-Johan-Huibers-launches-life-sized-Noahs-Ark-replica-Dordrecht.html
Christians have never believed in a Flat Earth ... and, like you have said, the fact that the Earth is spherical is easily established by a few simple observations.oldrnwisr wrote:Umm, no it doesn't.
In Isaiah 40:22:
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."
the word for circle used is the word:
ח֣וּג
This word means a flat circle and is used in this meaning in Proverbs 8:27:
"I was there when he set the heavens in place,when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep"
Had the author intended to mean sphere then he would have used the word:
כַּדּ֕וּר
as in Isaiah 22:18:
"He will roll you up tightly like a ball and throw you into a large country. There you will die and there your splendid chariots will remain— you disgrace to your master’s house!"
Secondly, the scholarly consensus is that the book of Isaiah was constructed in three parts. The first part, Proto-Isaiah (Chapters 1-39) is attributed to Isaiah albeit with some expansions written in the 7th century BCE. However, the passage above is from the Deutero-Isaiah portion (Chapters 40-55) which is attributed to an anonymous author writing in the 6th century BCE near the end of the Babylonian captivity.
This creates a problem for your assertion since the passage was written at a time when the Greeks had formulated the concept of a spherical earth.
Thirdly, it's not as if the evidence for a spherical earth wasn't available to people of the time. The biggest pieces of evidence which convinced Greek thinkers of a spherical earth are something that anyone can confirm for themselves. First of all, the Greeks noticed that ships returning from afar appeared over the horizon mast first which wouldn't have happened on a flat earth. Secondly, the Pole star appears higher in the sky as you travel further north which wouldn't happen if the earth was flat. Thirdly, lunar eclipses (which the Greeks realised were caused by the earth passing in front of the moon) were always circular which wouldn't happen if the earth was a flat disc. Clearly no divine inspiration is required.
Finally, the quote from Isaiah itself doesn't help your argument. It describes the sky being stretched out over the circle of the earth as if it were a tent. This alone indicates that the author was referring to a flat earth.
We also don't believe in spontaneous generation or perpetual motion machines ... for the same reason ... that it is easily established by a few simple observations that they are impossible ... and the Bible doesn't concern itself unduly with these issues as well.
In an Old Testament community, it would have been regarded as taking something that wasn't yours to take ... if consentual sex occurred between a man and a woman outside of marriage.oldrnwisr wrote:Again, no.
This is not a mistranslation. The current NASB translation of the verse:
"“If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days."
is admittedly more accurate semantically than the NIV version:
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
but the same lack of consent is present in both verses. In Hebrew the verse:
כִּֽי־יִמְצָ֣א אִ֗ישׁ [נַעַר כ] (נַעֲרָ֤ה ק) בְתוּלָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־אֹרָ֔שָׂה וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ וְשָׁכַ֣ב עִמָּ֑הּ וְנִמְצָֽאוּ׃
contains the word:
וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ
which translates as "lays hold of" or "seizes". This immediately destroys any idea of consent. The word above is used in other places in the Old Testament too:
"Then it will be when you have seized the city, that you shall set the city on fire. You shall do it according to the word of the LORD. See, I have commanded you."
Joshua 8:8
Saul went on one side of the mountain, and David and his men on the other side of the mountain; and David was hurrying to get away from Saul, for Saul and his men were surrounding David and his men to seize them.
1 Samuel 3:26
"When you besiege a city a long time, to make war against it in order to capture it, you shall not destroy its trees by swinging an axe against them; for you may eat from them, and you shall not cut them down. For is the tree of the field a man, that it should be besieged by you?
Deuteronomy 20:19
The word is always used in the sense of taking something that is not yours. Thus combined with the mention of intercourse in the original phrase the clear intent of the passage is rape.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[-0-]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9fe3689003eb73770da7be6d014ea6d5.svg)
Advertisement