Evolutionism's appeal to junk science

That's demonstrably wrong. Let's take the hemoglobin responsible for sickle cell trait (and in homozygotes, the disease sickle cell anemia)

When this mutation occured, the resulting offspring had one allele for normal hemoglobin, and one for the mutated form. (which happens to confer a very good immunity to malaria, while having no drawbacks at all in lowland areas where malaria tends to be common)

So a the mutation produces additional information for one more form of hemoglobin, while retaining the old.

Heterozygotes have more information than homozygotes. And a mutation did it.

In malaria areas, this muation is sufficiently advantageous that the sickle-cell gene becomes widespread. Outside of that environment, the gene tends to disappear, and populations moving to malaria-free areas tend to lose the information.

There are many more examples. Would you like to learn about them?

Could happen. Or, as you see, sometimes it results in additional information.

No, that's wrong. In evolution, nothing comes from nothing. It's always a modification of something that existed before.

That's why most Christians don't buy it. Not only is it unscriptural, it's directly refuted by reality.

Nope. Someone's taken advantage of your trust on that one.

And you've gotten "information theory" muddled, too. Information theory doesn't rule out spontaneous increases in information, and we can often observe that happen.

Nope. As you just learned, heterozygotes have more information as a result of that mutation. They can code for two forms of hemoglobin instead of one. And they are thereby more likely to survive in areas where malaria is common.

So, decreases in entropy are possible on worlds where a sun exists? Isn't that true on our world? So what makes you think that it doesn't happen here?

What gets to zero? This isn't thermodynamics, it's counting. I gave you the equation in another post. Use it.

That has varied over the ages. Would you like some examples?

Part of the problem is, you don't have a very good idea what "information" or "entropy" are.

Maybe you should take a quick look and see if that doens't clear up the misunderstandings.

 

"Hold on there cowboy... before you get too excited, I didn't say that mutations couldn't lead to new homoglobin... but rather that there was no new information involved. I agree with your statement... once the original was created, it was quite possible for mutation to take place and different, less informative, more selective varieties could result."

I am holding, but I do not see your point.

The hemoglobin that you have in your blood today is a descendent of the ferrodoxins which are the earliest electron-transport system that we know of. In typical evolutionary fashion, the system used by early life was coopted later for use as an oxygen carrying molecule and then specialized into a molecule used for transporting oxygen around the body. Evolution generally builds and modifies. It tinkers to get what will help survive.

You see the same thing with the wide variety of types of hemoglobin that you see in a mammal for instance. It is laughable that you can say that evolving new forms of hemoglobin to do more specialized jobs is actually a loss of "information." The organism makes not only the original molecule but now has the ability to make another molecule to do a different job. I do not see how you can say that it is not new "information." IMHO, you are defining away the possibility of new "information" so that you can point to any change and say that it is really a decrease in information. Please. If an organism can make A to do B and then it developes C to do D, it now has A and C to do B and D. It has increased its information in all senses except for you flawed definition.

The YECers run towards Shannon information, as if Shannon's concept of information has anything to do with biology, and then have to invent reasons to abandon SHannon when they realize that under his definitions, mutations ARE increases in information. Well that cannot be. So they latch onto Shannon in an attempt to gain acceptance while at the same time distancing themselves from his actual concepts since they are different than their claims.

"Oh I see... well I'll give you a chance to show us the creatures you have formed from nothing and breathed life into. Lets see how much better yor optimizations are than God's.

That is a seperate topic, but we can get into if you wish. I believe life certainly shows evidence that the "design" you see in extant organisms is the product of tinkering and not intelligent design. Maybe we could talk about the problems have walking upright (do you know anybody with lower back problems) since their ancestors walked on four legs for much of history. I have presented you in the past with long lists of traits in humans that no longer serve a purpose but that were useful to four legged ancestors. I do not remember that list ever actually being addressed. I know, I know, you will object by saying "keep in mind you are examining a fallen world... not the perfection that was before death and sin entered the world." Of course, I will ask you where your old skeltons are with the better designs for walking upright.

"They are going to have to give me an honorary biology degree if I have to keep researching each and every one of these cases for you."

If you studied that much, you would accept evolution.

"Yet again, this is a loss of information.

Here is what you said: There is a mutation found in a particular ethnic group in Africa. From the pattern in which the mutation has spread, it is believed to have happened about 1000 years ago. There is a substitution in a single nucleotide of the gene that makes hemoglobin, the oxygen carrying molecule in the blood, that changes which amino acid is inserted at that spot. The new form is known as hemoglobin C. People with this gene ara about 14 times less likely to die from malaria."

Again? Like the Italian mutation where you quoted AIG as claiming a 70% loss in original function when the actual abstract I gave you claimed an increase in function PLUS the new anti-oxidant function?

Besides, let's remember there we two different ideas here. The hemoglobin C was an example of a beneficial mutation. I do not care that you define it as a loss of information or not. First off, your concept of information has been shown to be flawed. Second, these people are better suited to their environment. That is beneficial. No one claims that trade offs are not made when evolution optimizes an organism.

Biogeography provides many such examples of this. Let's take island birds. For many islands, few animals other than birds have been able to populate the island. So once they get there, they tend to speciate into different niches. Most of these islands have birds that have taken on the role of a ground hunter. They lose the ability to fly as they specialize into a specific niche. Now you would of course call this a "loss of information" but the truth is that they have increased their own likelyhood of survival by adapting to a role that was not being served. So whatever you want to call it, these are increases in the ability of the creature to survive and count as a beneficial mutation.

For actual new "information" I am sticking with the duplication and mutation. There are so many examples of genes that can be shown to be a product of such a process that there is no reaon to depart.

"And I have shown you how these did not increase information, but they were a loss of information, such as the hemoglobin c. "

Example of a beneficial mutation. I used other examples for increased "information."

"Concept of entropy is that if we are at 100 now, we will always decrease unless an outside force causes an increase. If left to it's own, it can only decrease.

so 100 turns to 99 etc etc etc until it gets to zero, or until something comes along and boosts it back up externally. This is the concept of open system, closed system.

In biological systems, we can see this happening. If a population becomes isolated, and the sum total of all information in that population is 65, then no individual in the population can exceed 65 unless an outside force (an animal from outside the population, for example) interjects it's DNA. Therefore, by the laws of entropy, the population will eventually run down to zero unless outside intervention happens. We see this all the time when animals go extinct. Their population information runs down to zero. Entropy."

Well if you kill all the members of a species, of course their genome no longer exists so for whatever your definition of "information" it is all gone.

You did nothing to tie entropy to "information" you just assumed it.

But your analogy fails. And this time without even needing the duplication step since you are talking about a population. Let's say you have a population with no genetic diversity. We are looking at a set of 65 specific genes found in all members of the population. So as the population grows, you still have only these 65 genes. In one generation one member has a mutation in one of these genes. Now 65 is 66. Now this mutation could do its job better or it could do it worse. If worse, it will be eliminated. If better, it will be preserved and now you have 66 genes to work with instead of 65.

"Tell me... which happens at a greater rate on the earth - extinctions or new species? It is estimated that 50,000 species go extinct per year."

I would say over the long term, they are about in balance. In the short term, man's influence seems to be getting rid of them more quickly than they are appearing.

 

Actually, it probably isn't ancestral to the birds we know today. It's kind of an offshoot, that didn't go much farther.

Perhaps we could clear this up, if you'd tell us what you would expect to find in a "true bird" and never find in a "true reptile."

If there are such traits, then we can see where Arachaeopteryx and similar organisms fit.

What do you think?

 

BobRyan, you are confusing symantecs - definition of a species as either bird or not bird - with evidence, i.e. the fact that Archaeopteryx is, indeed, intermediate between modern birds and reptiles.

It is typical of your approach to hold that words trump evidence. The scientific approach is that evidence trumps words.

 

Dino, Archie, modern bird.

Could anything be more transitional? PHOTO: Click HERE

[ July 26, 2004, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

BobRyan, you have still failed to show us what part of the theory of evolution the second law of thermodynamics works to frustrate.

Is it at the point where one generation fathers another generation?

Is it at the point where mutations happen?

Is it at the point where, by chance, a few of the mutations happen to assist in reproduction?

Is it at the point where in the following generations that helpful mutation winds up with greator representation precisely because it was helpful?

Is it at the point where the mutations that turn out to harm reproduction are less represented in following generations precisely because they harm reproduction?

Because if none of these are in any way oppossed by 2Lot - and of course it is my position and Asimov's position and the position of many many others that none of these are in any way oppossed by 2Lot - then your argument from 2Lot is voided.

 

I call on all who read these posts to note how BobRyan consistently remains unable to rise to the challenge he has been given over and over to show just how 2Lot actually does it's supposed work of impeding evolution.

 

Barbarian asks:
Perhaps we could clear this up, if you'd tell us what you would expect to find in a "true bird" and never find in a "true reptile."

So then a closely related species, Proarchaeopteryx robusta, which resembles Archaeopteryx, but has symmetrical feathers, would not be a bird? As you probably know, flight feathers are assymetrical, to permit flying.

Yep. It actually has more reptile features than bird ones. I posted a picture showing a small theropod dinosaur, Archaeopteryx, and a modern bird. Check it out for yourself.

Do they have a journal? I would love to see a copy of "The Proceedings of the Association of Atheist Evolutionists."

It would be as popular as the Journal of Irreproducible Results.

Gould says it's a transitional. So does Dawkins. And those two normally don't agree on anything. So do I. And that makes it final. (WFTH-I)

 

"As I said at the very start - your entire argument is framed in a "Asimov is wrong" model - and you are having a hard to admitting it."

Pay careful attention. I am not saying Asimov is wrong. I am saying that you are wrong. You are quoting Asimov as if he thinks that entropy is a problem when it has been quite clearly shown to you that he does not think that it is a problem. You are misapplying entropy.

My only fault with Asimov is that I wish folks could find a better way to explain entropy to laypersons than comparing thermodynamic disorder to disorder on a macro scale. Your arguments are proof that some who hear the analogy do not understand the analogy and fail to gain a better understanding of thermodynamics.

"Adding up (aggregating) a bunch of local entropy INCREASES will never result in --- the MASSIVE DECREASE that evolutionism needs!"

I'll lay this out very simple.

I assert that local decreases in entropy are allowed. Do you deny this or accept this. If you deny it, then you need to explain to us why.

I assert that these local decreases, in aggregate, are far more than sufficient to account for the decrease in entropy we see between basic chemicals and a human. If you accept local decreases, then explain to us why they cannot be aggregated. Tell us what it is that prevents evolution from happening according to entropy.

Good luck.

 

"So are you saying those evolutionists ARE WRONG again??"

No. They are likely right. I imagine that the conference in question was probably a very good meeting. Its results may be a little outdated now due to the recent discoveries in Liaoning, but that should not distract from their results.

What I am saying is that you are deliberately misrepresenting their findings.

"OR are you saying that this UNIQUE but TRUE Bird is a TRANSITION BETWEEN reptiles and TRUE BIRDS - EVEN though it is a TRUE BIRD??"

I am saying that if you have to pick reptile or bird, then bird is the right choice. I am also saying that it has a large number of features that make it more than just a unique bird. Because it has over a hundred features that are not found in extant birds but that are found in theropod dinosaurs, that we have good evidence that it is transitional between reptiles and birds. If you combine this with some of the other transitionals that we have (Sinosauropteryx and Caudipteryx that are more reptile and Confuciusornis that is more bird for three examples) then you begin to build an even more convincing case for its transitional status.

"Is this the part where the consensus of world renouned atheist evolutionists At the 1984 International Archaeopteryx Conference held in Eichstatt, -- becomes "MY WORDS"?? (As you like to do with Asimov on the subject of entropy)

Is this a revisionism that your beliefs in evolutionism require that you make in distorting the facts of the discussion at the very start?"

Nope. THis is where I show that a YECer never lets the truth get in the way of a good argument.

BTW, how do you know they were all atheists? I would bet there were quite a few Christian men there. Or is everyone who disagrees with you an atheist?

I suspected that there was more to the story than you are alledging. This is not a hard prediction to make based on your track record and that of YECers in general. So I challenged you to show us that the folks you cited really thought that archy was just a bird. It should be plain to all that your purpose in quoting the way you did was to make the case that it is only a bird and not a transitional.

I think that this was dishonest. You cited Dodson and Howgate. I asked you for evidence that these guys thought that archy was only a bird and not a transitional to support your assertion. I say that to not do so shows that you know what they were really saying and chose to assert that they were saying something else regardless. You did not support your assertion and instead choose to merely repeat yourself. So I'll do your work for you. But you will not like the results.

Why do we not first make a direct quote from Howgate?

Howgate, M. E. 1984. The teeth of Archaeopteryx and a reinterpretation of the Eichstätt specimen. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 82: 159-175.

"However, these authors present a decidedly ambiguous reconstruction of the Archaeopteryx ankle; it shows the ascending process associated equally with the astragalus and calcaneum. The Archaeopteryx ankle depicted by Martin et al. (1990, fig. 1G) seems, in fact, to be structurally intermediate between the theropod ankle and the neornithiform bird ankle."

Well, it seems that he may have thought it was a transitional after all.

Then I came across your very reference.

Dodson, P., 1985, International Archaeopteryx Conference: Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, vol. 5, p. 177-9.

In here, Dodson lists over 20 specific shared characteristics between Archeopteryx and specifically coelurosaur theropods. I think he was making a case for archy being a transitional, don't you?

Let me give you another reference from Dodson.

Barsbold, R.; Maryanska, T. & Osmolska, H. 1990. Oviraptorosauria. In: Weishampel, D. B.; Dodson, P. & Osmolska, H. (eds.), The Dinosauria. 249-258. University of California Press, Berkeley.

In this reference, the gentleman you cite discusses how some dinosaurs, such as Oviraptor and Ingenia, have furculas like birds as further evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

You might want to see this reference of his.

CHINSAMY A., CHIAPPE L. & DODSON P. (1994): Growth rings in mesozoic avian bones: physiological implications for basal birds. J.Vert.Paleont. 14(3, Suppl.): 21A

You will notice the word "basal" in the title. This means that he is studying the first birds and recognizes and accepts that they evolved.

One more reference for you.

Smith, J.B., You H., and P. Dodson. 1998. The age of the Sihetun quarry in Liaoning Province, China and its implications for early bird evolution. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Program, 30(7):38A.

See the phrase "bird evolution" in the title? You still assert that he thinks archy is just a bird and not a transitional? This paper ties the specimens found in Liaoning with other bird transitionals.

Now do you see why I doubted you? Now do you see that the people you quote as saying archy was just a bird really say that it was actually a transitional?

This does give you quite a delimma though. If you give your references, then I can used them to dissect your argument. If you fail to give references, then your argument has not basis and will not be believed.

"As I said - JUNK SCIENCE exhibit 3."

You have a funny definiton of "junk." Calling a transitional a "transitional" is "junk" to you? I think the real "junk" is the attempt to assert that the conference decided something that it did not decide. You should know that if you use such a tactic to make a claim that the flaseness of the claim is easy to show.

"A "TRUE flight FEATHER"."

You answered this in response to the question of what you would expect to find in a true bird but not in a true reptile. This should be good. You need to go look up microraptor. This is a four winged dinosaur with true flight feathers. It would never be confused with a bird. You might want to reconsider your answer. Now, what would you expect to find in a true bird but not in a true reptile? (I might suggest a beak. But archy did not have one of those.)

"(Kinda reminds me of your position on chiral orientation of amino acids and the myths of abiogenesis)."

Oh Bob. Remember that I have shown you how to make optically pure ribose and turn that into RNA all with the right chiral orientation. I have shown you how RNA can perform the functions that DNA and proteins serve in modern life. (In fact, RNA still performs these functions in a limited sense.) And since the RNA is optically active and can act as a catalyst, then it can be used to make optically pure proteins.

 

Romans 8:22-23 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Asimov is simply stating what the Bible already stated 2,000 years ago. Why are you guys arguing with both the Bible and him? That there is an increasing amount of enropy in the world is an obvious fact. Some of the examples that you use are pitiful and show to what lengths you will go to use "junk science" to try and justify evolution as a science.

The second law of thermodynamics in its simplest terms is degeneration.

Applied spiritually:
Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
--The minute a child is born into this world he goes astray morally and spiritually. He begins to speak lies. His heart is deceitful and degenerate from birth. From the day of his birth he begins to degenerate. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has already started to work spiritually. Take that one step further. For every moral sin, every moral action there is a consequence: both physical and spiritual. Thus even in childhood physically the second law of thermodynamics is working. Entropy is increasing. The child may be growing, but at the same time he is decaying. Death is working in him. He is living to die. He can never escape the consequence of death, or the curse of death upon his life. All the time his body is degenerating in one way or another--even in childhood when it is growing. It is inescapable. We wait for our redemption. Our bodies will never be free from the curse of sin--from sickness, infirmities, weaknesses, disease, and ultimately death until it is resurrected with a new and glorified body. It will continue to act in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, and in defiance of everything that evolution teaches.
DHK

 

"The second law of thermodynamics in its simplest terms is degeneration."

No the 2LOT in its simplest terms is that no apparatus can operate such that its only effect is to move heat from one resevoir to a warmer resevoir.

2LOT has nothing to do with "degeneration."

But it is a common mistake.

 

"Another way of stating the second law then is, 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'"
Asimov

I would rather believe Asimov than you.
DHK