Creationists

[daws101]

Daws let me give you an example if what I just said was to deep for you.

Let's say you have a wooden house and on your house you had this little spot of termites. These termites you couldn't do anything about. Eventually those termites would spread through the whole home until it was destroyed. These semi neutral mutations would do the same thing to the host that those termites did to your home.

false example there are no semi - neutral termites .

No, there are semi netural mutations,which your side call neutral mutations saying they cause no effect. That is not true and I gave you the reasons why that is not true.

you were lying then and you are lying now!

 

[daws101]

Sound science on probabilities. Where is your rebuttal? What evidence do you have to counter his argument?

don't need any ! do you not understand the concept of false premise :A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:

If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false - one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.

even easier, since I D is not science, no valid scientific conclusions can be drawn from it.

Evidently you are and you copy and paste them from your atheist sites

speaking of over your head..more proof complex concepts are above your pay grade.

 

[Youwerecreated]

[wrong! do you mean how do the geneticists know that that community has it?

No, how do you know that the larger population's Apo-AI isn't a detrimental mutation and the Apo-AIM isn't what we all should have had before we mutated to the less effective version?

well since the mutation is a benficial one and there is no proof of it being harmful your question answers it's self

Ignorance is bliss. You believe anything you read on the internet as long as it supports your Ideology.

 

[daws101]

No, how do you know that the larger population's Apo-AI isn't a detrimental mutation and the Apo-AIM isn't what we all should have had before we mutated to the less effective version?

well since the mutation is a benficial one and there is no proof of it being harmful your question answers it's self

Ignorance is bliss. You believe anything you read on the internet as long as it supports your Ideology.

another false statement about me that is ....for you it's spot on.
you will post anything even lies to support yours... the semi neutral mutation comes to mind.

semiOrigin of SEMI
short for semidetached
First Known Use: 1912
meaning partially detached.
neutralefinition of NEUTRAL
1: one that is neutral
2: a neutral color
3: a position of disengagement

 

[Youwerecreated]

false example there are no semi - neutral termites .

No, there are semi netural mutations,which your side call neutral mutations saying they cause no effect. That is not true and I gave you the reasons why that is not true.

you were lying then and you are lying now!

Same ol rhetoric Daws. Evidently it did go over your head. You don't understand the effects of mutations in the Genome, most under educated in the field of genetics don't understand this problem. You can post what ever you like and say it's a beneficial mutation because you don't understand what I posted yesterday.

All mutations are harmful because the reasons already stated. They all affect the duties of the genome. They slow the production of cells if you don't see that as a problem this stuff is clearly over your head .They don't as I explained, affect the phenotype and that is why your side makes the claim they are beneficial OR neutral,not taking into consideration the affects I stated.

Don't pretend you know what you are talking about because as far as I can see ,it's not you doing the talking. Your sources are completely ignorant of the Genome or are deliberately dishonest.

 

[Youwerecreated]

well since the mutation is a benficial one and there is no proof of it being harmful your question answers it's self

Ignorance is bliss. You believe anything you read on the internet as long as it supports your Ideology.

another false statement about me that is ....for you it's spot on.
you will post anything even lies to support yours... the semi neutral mutation comes to mind.

semiOrigin of SEMI
short for semidetached
First Known Use: 1912
meaning partially detached.
neutralefinition of NEUTRAL
1: one that is neutral
2: a neutral color
3: a position of disengagement

Daws I studied mutations for a living you have no clue except what you have been spoon fed from some biased ignorant site.

I have given you the reasons why you are posting nonsense. If you want to believe a lie have at it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

mind not blown !
your guy is dead wrong besides being dead. so that information is not current.

example of benificial mutations in humans.• Apolipoprotein AI-Milano. Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.

All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug.

There are also drugs in the pipeline based on a different mutation, in a gene called PCSK9, which has a similar effect. People with this mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease.

• Increased bone density. One of the genes that governs bone density in human beings is called low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5, or LRP5 for short. Mutations which impair the function of LRP5 are known to cause osteoporosis. But a different kind of mutation can amplify its function, causing one of the most unusual human mutations known.

This mutation was first discovered fortuitously, when a young person from a Midwest family was in a serious car crash from which they walked away with no broken bones. X-rays found that they, as well as other members of the same family, had bones significantly stronger and denser than average. (One doctor who's studied the condition said, "None of those people, ranging in age from 3 to 93, had ever had a broken bone.") In fact, they seem resistant not just to injury, but to normal age-related skeletal degeneration. Some of them have benign bony growths on the roof of their mouths, but other than that, the condition has no side effects - although, as the article notes dryly, it does make it more difficult to float. As with Apo-AIM, some drug companies are researching how to use this as the basis for a therapy that could help people with osteoporosis and other skeletal diseases.

• Malaria resistance. The classic example of evolutionary change in humans is the hemoglobin mutation named HbS that makes red blood cells take on a curved, sickle-like shape. With one copy, it confers resistance to malaria, but with two copies, it causes the illness of sickle-cell anemia. This is not about that mutation.

As reported in 2001 (see also), Italian researchers studying the population of the African country of Burkina Faso found a protective effect associated with a different variant of hemoglobin, named HbC. People with just one copy of this gene are 29% less likely to get malaria, while people with two copies enjoy a 93% reduction in risk. And this gene variant causes, at worst, a mild anemia, nowhere near as debilitating as sickle-cell disease.

• Tetrachromatic vision. Most mammals have poor color vision because they have only two kinds of cones, the retinal cells that discriminate different colors of light. Humans, like other primates, have three kinds, the legacy of a past where good color vision for finding ripe, brightly colored fruit was a survival advantage.

The gene for one kind of cone, which responds most strongly to blue, is found on chromosome 7. The two other kinds, which are sensitive to red and green, are both on the X chromosome. Since men have only one X, a mutation which disables either the red or the green gene will produce red-green colorblindness, while women have a backup copy. This explains why this is almost exclusively a male condition.

But here's a question: What happens if a mutation to the red or the green gene, rather than disabling it, shifts the range of colors to which it responds? (The red and green genes arose in just this way, from duplication and divergence of a single ancestral cone gene.)

To a man, this would make no real difference. He'd still have three color receptors, just a different set than the rest of us. But if this happened to one of a woman's cone genes, she'd have the blue, the red and the green on one X chromosome, and a mutated fourth one on the other... which means she'd have four different color receptors. She would be, like birds and turtles, a natural "tetrachromat", theoretically capable of discriminating shades of color the rest of us can't tell apart. (Does this mean she'd see brand-new colors the rest of us could never experience? That's an open question.)

And we have evidence that just this has happened on rare occasions. In one study of color discrimination, at least one woman showed exactly the results we would expect from a true tetrachromat.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

What I posted went right over your head. All mutations mess with the function of the genome,what may seem as a benefit winds up coming at a cost somewhere else and it affects the genomes duties.

again not fact!Are All Human Mutations Bad?Ads by Google
Many people consider mutations in the human genome to be a negative event as they associate mutations with cell damage, cancer and genetic diseases such as sickle cell anaemia and Huntington’s disease. However, when proper research is done, we can see that this is in fact incorrect: few human mutations are actually bad, most are completely neutral, and in fact, many are beneficial. Without mutations, we could not exist as we do and there would never have been evolution and natural selection as we know it. Mutations allow genetic diversity to exist within a population, increasing the range of alleles and keeping the human species alive.

Are All Human Mutations Bad?


also the assumption that you could post anything that "would go over my head" is laughable.

If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race."

But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve. you can't see the problem Daws ?

 

[daws101]

No, there are semi netural mutations,which your side call neutral mutations saying they cause no effect. That is not true and I gave you the reasons why that is not true.

you were lying then and you are lying now!

Same ol rhetoric Daws. Evidently it did go over your head. You don't understand the effects of mutations in the Genome, most under educated in the field of genetics don't understand this problem. You can post what ever you like and say it's a beneficial mutation because you don't understand what I posted yesterday.

All mutations are harmful because the reasons already stated. They all affect the duties of the genome. They slow the production of cells if you don't see that as a problem this stuff is clearly over your head .They don't as I explained, affect the phenotype and that is why your side makes the claim they are beneficial OR neutral,not taking into consideration the affects I stated.

Don't pretend you know what you are talking about because as far as I can see ,it's not you doing the talking. Your sources are completely ignorant of the Genome or are deliberately dishonest.

you are absolutely wrong and as always your judgment of others is erroneous, this post like all your others is nothing more then creationsit propaganda.

 

[daws101]

What I posted went right over your head. All mutations mess with the function of the genome,what may seem as a benefit winds up coming at a cost somewhere else and it affects the genomes duties.

again not fact!Are All Human Mutations Bad?Ads by Google
Many people consider mutations in the human genome to be a negative event as they associate mutations with cell damage, cancer and genetic diseases such as sickle cell anaemia and Huntington’s disease. However, when proper research is done, we can see that this is in fact incorrect: few human mutations are actually bad, most are completely neutral, and in fact, many are beneficial. Without mutations, we could not exist as we do and there would never have been evolution and natural selection as we know it. Mutations allow genetic diversity to exist within a population, increasing the range of alleles and keeping the human species alive.

Are All Human Mutations Bad?


also the assumption that you could post anything that "would go over my head" is laughable.

If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race."

But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve. you can't see the problem Daws ?

if youmean this :it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained…

it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection…

it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5…, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.

Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy


so what! I can post a 1000 other geneticists that disagree..
also since this statement is hypothesis and no test have been done (that I know of ) to prove it or disprove it then it has no real world value.

this statement is also not fact:But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve.

since life is here and did indeed evolve. the problem is your willfull ignorance of those facts.
as always you have no evidence to backup your bullshit!



almost forgot, your source: http://www.uncommondescent.com/biol...nwitting-pioneer-of-genetic-entropy-theories/
is bias and not credible

 

[Youwerecreated]

you were lying then and you are lying now!

Same ol rhetoric Daws. Evidently it did go over your head. You don't understand the effects of mutations in the Genome, most under educated in the field of genetics don't understand this problem. You can post what ever you like and say it's a beneficial mutation because you don't understand what I posted yesterday.

All mutations are harmful because the reasons already stated. They all affect the duties of the genome. They slow the production of cells if you don't see that as a problem this stuff is clearly over your head .They don't as I explained, affect the phenotype and that is why your side makes the claim they are beneficial OR neutral,not taking into consideration the affects I stated.

Don't pretend you know what you are talking about because as far as I can see ,it's not you doing the talking. Your sources are completely ignorant of the Genome or are deliberately dishonest.

you are absolutely wrong and as always your judgment of others is erroneous, this post like all your others is nothing more then creationsit propaganda.

Hello Hollie

 

[Youwerecreated]

again not fact!Are All Human Mutations Bad?Ads by Google
Many people consider mutations in the human genome to be a negative event as they associate mutations with cell damage, cancer and genetic diseases such as sickle cell anaemia and Huntington’s disease. However, when proper research is done, we can see that this is in fact incorrect: few human mutations are actually bad, most are completely neutral, and in fact, many are beneficial. Without mutations, we could not exist as we do and there would never have been evolution and natural selection as we know it. Mutations allow genetic diversity to exist within a population, increasing the range of alleles and keeping the human species alive.

Are All Human Mutations Bad?


also the assumption that you could post anything that "would go over my head" is laughable.

If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race."

But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve. you can't see the problem Daws ?

if youmean this :it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained…

it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection…

it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5…, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.

Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy


so what! I can post a 1000 other geneticists that disagree..
also since this statement is hypothesis and no test have been done (that I know of ) to prove it or disprove it then it has no real world value.

this statement is also not fact:But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve.

since life is here and did indeed evolve. the problem is your willfull ignorance of those facts.
as always you have no evidence to backup your bullshit!



almost forgot, your source: Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent
is bias and not credible

Don't quote something you don't understand. I want you to shoot down in your own words what I said and don't try to bate and switch anymore or I will terminate this conversation.

 

[Hollie]

Another video

Another article that explores the failures of the creationist ministries.

The Panda's Thumb: Search Results

The Fruitlessness of ID “Research”

By Jeffrey Shallit on November 30, 2009 8:37 AM


Scientists point out, quite rightly, that the religio-political charade known as “intelligent design” (ID) is not good science. But how do we know this?

One of the hallmarks of science is that it is fruitful. A good scientific paper will usually lead to much work along the same lines, work that confirms and extends the results, and work that produces more new ideas inspired by the paper. Although citation counts are not completely reliable metrics for evaluating scientific papers, they do give some general information about what papers are considered important.

ID advocates like to point to lists of “peer-reviewed publications” advocating their position. Upon closer examination, their lists are misleading, packed with publications that are either not in scientific journals, or that appeared in venues of questionable quality, or papers whose relationship to ID is tangential at best. Today, however, I’d like to look at a different issue: the fruitfulness of intelligent design. Let’s take a particular ID publication, one that was trumpeted by ID advocates as a “breakthrough”, and see how much further scientific work it inspired.

The paper I have in mind is Stephen Meyer’s paper “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, which was published, amid some controversy, in the relatively obscure journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in 2004. Critics pointed out that the paper was not suited to the journal, which is usually devoted to taxonomic issues, and that the paper was riddled with mistakes and misleading claims. In response, the editors of the journal issued a disclaimer repudiating the paper.

Putting these considerations aside, what I want to do here is look at every scientific publication that has cited Meyer’s paper to determine whether his work can fairly said to be “fruitful”. I used the ISI Web of Science Database to do a “cited reference” search on his article. This database, which used to be called Science Citation Index, is generally acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive available. The search I did included Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index. Even such a search will miss some papers, of course, but it will still give a general idea of how much the scientific community has been inspired by Meyer’s work.

I found exactly 9 citations to Meyer’s paper in this database. Of these, counting generously, exactly 1 is a scientific research paper that cites Meyer approvingly.

 

[Hollie]

What I posted went right over your head. All mutations mess with the function of the genome,what may seem as a benefit winds up coming at a cost somewhere else and it affects the genomes duties.

again not fact!Are All Human Mutations Bad?Ads by Google
Many people consider mutations in the human genome to be a negative event as they associate mutations with cell damage, cancer and genetic diseases such as sickle cell anaemia and Huntington’s disease. However, when proper research is done, we can see that this is in fact incorrect: few human mutations are actually bad, most are completely neutral, and in fact, many are beneficial. Without mutations, we could not exist as we do and there would never have been evolution and natural selection as we know it. Mutations allow genetic diversity to exist within a population, increasing the range of alleles and keeping the human species alive.

Are All Human Mutations Bad?


also the assumption that you could post anything that "would go over my head" is laughable.

If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race."

But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve. you can't see the problem Daws ?

I can't find the "quote" you are attributing to H. J. Muller.

Please provide the exact location where this "quote" can be found.

 

[Hollie]

Would anyone like to break tha news to the creationist ministry that H. J. Muller was a thorough, "evilutionst" believing "Darwinist"?

Oh the pain!



Muller and Mutations

A special irony with the use of Muller to mount a criticism of evolutionary theory is that Muller himself considered evolution to be a fact.



When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation.

-- from "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough"
by Hermann Muller, in School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959); taken from an extract given in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg (ed.), (ORYX Press 1983)

 

[Hollie]

If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race."

But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve. you can't see the problem Daws ?

if youmean this :it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained…

it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection…

it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5…, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.

Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy


so what! I can post a 1000 other geneticists that disagree..
also since this statement is hypothesis and no test have been done (that I know of ) to prove it or disprove it then it has no real world value.

this statement is also not fact:But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve.

since life is here and did indeed evolve. the problem is your willfull ignorance of those facts.
as always you have no evidence to backup your bullshit!



almost forgot, your source: Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent
is bias and not credible

Don't quote something you don't understand. I want you to shoot down in your own words what I said and don't try to bate and switch anymore or I will terminate this conversation.

Muller and Mutations

Muller believed that that the rare but non-zero occurrence of advantageous mutations was a necessary consequence of the effects of Darwinian selection.


If the mutations were really non-teleological, with no relation between type of environment and type of change, and above all no adaptive relation, and if they were of as numerous types as the theory of natural selection would demand, then the great majority of the changes should be harmful in their effects, just as any alterations made blindly in a complicated apparatus are usually detrimental to its proper functioning, and many of the larger changes should even be totally incompatible with the functioning of the whole, or, as we say, lethal. That is, strange as it may seem at first sight, we should expect most mutations to be disadvantageous if the theory of natural selection is correct. We should also expect these mainly disadvantageous changes to be highly diversified in their genetic basis.

-- Hermann J. Muller, Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1946
<http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1946/muller-lecture.html>

 

[Hollie]

You go, boy!


Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

 

[Hollie]

If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race."

But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve. you can't see the problem Daws ?

if youmean this :it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained…

it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection…

it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5…, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.

Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy


so what! I can post a 1000 other geneticists that disagree..
also since this statement is hypothesis and no test have been done (that I know of ) to prove it or disprove it then it has no real world value.

this statement is also not fact:But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve.

since life is here and did indeed evolve. the problem is your willfull ignorance of those facts.
as always you have no evidence to backup your bullshit!



almost forgot, your source: Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller, unwitting pioneer of genetic entropy theories | Uncommon Descent
is bias and not credible

Don't quote something you don't understand. I want you to shoot down in your own words what I said and don't try to bate and switch anymore or I will terminate this conversation.

Hey - speaking of John Sanford "quoting" Hermann Muller:


Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience - The Panda's Thumb

Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience

By Nick Matzke on February 27, 2012 12:27 PM| 150 Comments




Note: The Springer webpage for the book was taken down about 24 hours after this post; see update post.

It looks like some creationist engineers found a way to slither some ID/creationism into a major academic publisher, Springer. The major publishers have enough problems at the moment (e.g. see the Elsevier boycott), it seems like the last thing they should be doing is frittering away their credibility even further by uncritically publishing creationist work and giving it a veneer of respectability. The mega-publishers are expensive, are making money off of largely government-funded work provided to them for free, and then the public doesn’t even have access to it. The only thing they have going for them is quality control and credibility – if they give that away to cranks, there is no reason at all to support them.

(A note: even if you bought the ridiculous idea that ID isn’t creationism, they’ve got John Sanford, a straight-up young-earth creationist for goodness sakes, as an editor and presumably author!)

Here’s the summary:



Biological Information: New Perspectives

Series: Intelligent Systems Reference Library, Vol. 38

Marks II, R.J.; Behe, M.J.; Dembski, W.A.; Gordon, B.L.; Sanford, J.C. (Eds.)

2012, 2012, XII, 549 p.

Hardcover, ISBN 978-3-642-28453-3

Due: March 31, 2012 $179.00





About this book

Presents new perspectives regarding the nature and origin of biological information

Demonstrates how our traditional ideas about biological information are collapsing under the weight of new evidence

Written by leading experts in the field

In the spring of 2011, a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information. This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics. This volume presents new research by those invited to speak at the conference.

The contributors to this volume use their wide-ranging expertise in the area of biological information to bring fresh insights into the explanatory difficulties that biological information raises. Going beyond the conventional scientific wisdom, which attempts to explain biological information reductionistically via chemical, genetic, and natural selective determinants, the work represented here develops novel non-reductionist approaches to biological information, looking notably to telic and self-organizational processes.

Several clear themes emerged from these research papers: 1) Information is indispensable to our understanding of what life is. 2) Biological information is more than the material structures that embody it. 3) Conventional chemical and evolutionary mechanisms seem insufficient to fully explain the labyrinth of information that is life. By exploring new perspectives on biological information, this volume seeks to expand, encourage, and enrich research on the nature and origin of biological information.

Content Level “ Research

Keywords “ Biological Information - Computational Intelligence - Genetical Information - Neo-Darwinian Theory

Related subjects “ Artificial Intelligence - Computational Intelligence and Complexity - Systems Biology and Bioinformatics

Table of contents

Dynamics of Charged Particulate Systems.- Biological Information and Genetic Theory.- Theoretical Molecular Biology.- Biological Information and Self-Organizational Complexity Theory.

Speaking of Sanford – if you didn’t know, he has a bizarre argument which only “makes sense” from a young-earth creationist perspective. The claim is basically that natural selection can’t remove enough bad mutations from the human population (he forgets about recombination and soft sweeps – whoops!), and therefore the human genome has been decaying rapidly ever since Adam and Eve (with perfect genomes, I guess) started breeding.

Do you think Springer commissioned any actual population geneticists to peer-review his work and his editing? Any actual biologists at mainstream institutions anywhere? Or was it creationist engineers peer-reviewing theologians masquerading as information theoreticians? Does the volume actually address any of the detailed and technical rebuttals of the favorite ID arguments? (key references summarized here) Wouldn’t this be a minimal requirement, even if a publisher like Springer decided to publish pseudoscientists on the everyone-deserves-to-be-heard-even-cranks theory, or whatever?

As for “a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information”, a few posts from attendees tell us what actually happened – the conference wasn’t advertised, mainstream scientists with relevant expertise were not invited to attend, and participants were told several times to suppress their apparently otherwise overwhelming tendency to bring in their religion and do fundamentalist apologetics like they do in most other venues. It was basically just another fake ID “conference” where the ID fans get together and convince each other that they are staging a scientific revolution, all the while ignoring the actual science on how new genetic “information” originates.

Here is one of the “diverse group of scientists” who attended and reported on the event – Sid Galloway BS, M.Div., who I gather is the Director of the Good Shepherd Initiative at GSI Home Page, which is devoted to “Education, Counseling, & Animal-Assisted Apologetics.” Here’s his summary of the meeting (or his talk?).

 

[UltimateReality]

Unfortunately, I don't know nearly enough about proteins or amino acids to know if his premise is sound.

I also wonder if the same argument can be used to show the odds that life forms at all, whether be chance or not, at least if you assume that life either happened by chance or was created by an intelligence which used the already available materials (in other words, outside the possibility of an intelligence creating things the way they are).

I was following along well enough, ignoring the fact I couldn't determine if the whole premise makes sense, when he put up a number for total events in the universe. How the hell is THAT number determined?

Anyway, I'd need to look at things more deeply to know if there's any validity to the video, as well as just how many chances there would have been for it to occur (I'm not sure how the ratio he talked about was determined, it seemed to be left vague).

He was using simple probability arguments. If you have a combination lock with 5 digits, and each digit has 10 numbers, then the number of possibilities is 10 to the 5 power or 10 x 10 x 10 x10 x 10. This means that trying to get one specific combination, you have a 1 in 100,000 chance. He applies these simple probabilities to the argument on amino acids in a protein. How many possibilities at each link in the chain of a protein and how many links?

As far as the size of the universe goes, from Wiki:

The universe is immensely large and possibly infinite in volume. The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years,[19] based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed. For comparison, the diameter of a typical galaxy is only 30,000 light-years, and the typical distance between two neighboring galaxies is only 3 million light-years.[20] As an example, our Milky Way Galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter,[21] and our nearest sister galaxy, the Andromeda Galaxy, is located roughly 2.5 million light years away.[22] There are probably more than 100 billion (1011) galaxies in the observable universe.[23] Typical galaxies range from dwarfs with as few as ten million[24] (107) stars up to giants with one trillion[25] (1012) stars, all orbiting the galaxy's center of mass. A 2010 study by astronomers estimated that the observable universe contains 300 sextillion (3×10log23) stars.[26]

Since the density and volume of the observable universe can be measured, this information can allow one to calculate the number of atoms in the observable universerse:

"The present overall density of the universe is very low, roughly 9.9 × 10&#8722;30 grams per cubic centimetre. This mass-energy appears to consist of 73% dark energy, 23% cold dark matter and 4% ordinary matter. Thus the density of atoms is on the order of a single hydrogen atom for every four cubic meters of volume.[31] The properties of dark energy and dark matter are largely unknown. Dark matter gravitates as ordinary matter, and thus works to slow the expansion of the universe; by contrast, dark energy accelerates its expansion."

The observable universe contains between 1022 and 1024 stars (between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars).[40][41][42][43] To be slightly more precise, according to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, "[by] a conservative estimate.... the currently observable universe is home to of order 6 x 1022 stars"[1] These stars are organized in more than 80 billion galaxies, which themselves form clusters and superclusters.[44]

Two approximate calculations give the number of atoms in the observable universe to be close to 10log80.

This is a great read, and should make you feel really small.

Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If it doesn't, and you are someone on here that never clicks on or reads any info [you know who you are], this should be the link you explore. It is really fun and it will blow your kids minds as well too!!! It lets you travel from the hydrogen atom all the way to the observable universe and do size comparisons in between.

Magnifying the Universe

What I wonder is if there might be influences which would change the probabilities involved. The numbers provided seem to work if every possibility has an equal chance of occurring; I don't know if there are reasons that some are more likely than others. Are certain amino acid connections more likely to occur than others? Once a certain connection occurs, does it make the next level of connections more likely to happen one way or another? Etc. etc. The numbers in the video may be accurate from a purely mathematical standpoint, but I don't know if there are other influences, physical laws or environmental factors which could radically change the numbers.

I'll get to other links later today, probably.

Oh, and UR, I haven't clicked your links about the size of the universe, but I've seen some fun size comparisons before; I realize that the universe appears to be vast almost beyond comprehension, and that matter and energy can be broken down into components ridiculously small. The scope of reality in both directions is mind-boggling. I actually see that as reason not to believe we have knowledge about any god; we can barely take in the incredible scale of things, to think we know and understand a being that could create it all seems almost crazy to me.

It should definitely leave you in awe of the Creator!!! It is almost too much for your mind to take in because we seem so insignificant. If it weren't for the fact that God loves each and every one of us, we would just be a vapor in the wind, here for such a short time, for absolutely no reason.

Casting Crowns: Who am I

Who am I, that the Lord of all the earth
Would care to know my name
Would care to feel my hurt.
Who am I, that the Bright and Morning Star
Would choose to light the way
For my ever wandering heart.

Not because of who I am
But because of what You've done
Not because of what I've done
But because of who You're

I am a flower quickly fading
Here today and gone tomorrow
A wave tossed in the ocean
A vapor in the wind
Still You hear me when I'm calling
Lord, You catch me when I'm falling
And You've told me who I am
I am Yours, I am Yours

Who am I, that the eyes that see my sin
Would look on me with love and watch me rise again.
Who am I, that the Voice that calmed the sea
Would call out through the rain
And calm the storm in me
not because of who I am
but because of what You done
not because of what I done
but because of who you are

I am the flower quickly fading
here today and gone tomorrow
a wave tossed in the ocean(ocean)
a vapor in the wind
still You hear me when I call You
Lord you catch me when I'm falling
and You told me who I am (I am)
I am Yours

not because of who I am
but because of what You done
not because of what I done
but because of who You are

I am the flower quickly fading
here today and gone tomorrow
a wave tossed in the ocean(ocean)
a vapor in the wind
still You hear me when I call You
Lord You catch me when I'm falling
and you told me who I am (I am)
I am yours, I am yours ,I am yours.

Whom shall I fear?

 

[Youwerecreated]

again not fact!Are All Human Mutations Bad?Ads by Google
Many people consider mutations in the human genome to be a negative event as they associate mutations with cell damage, cancer and genetic diseases such as sickle cell anaemia and Huntington&#8217;s disease. However, when proper research is done, we can see that this is in fact incorrect: few human mutations are actually bad, most are completely neutral, and in fact, many are beneficial. Without mutations, we could not exist as we do and there would never have been evolution and natural selection as we know it. Mutations allow genetic diversity to exist within a population, increasing the range of alleles and keeping the human species alive.

Are All Human Mutations Bad?


also the assumption that you could post anything that "would go over my head" is laughable.

If mutations are not all harmful why did Geneticist H.J. Muller make this quote agreeing with what I stated "said that a rate of only 0.5 mutations,per person per generation would kill off the whole human race."

But that is the mutation rate you would have needed for your theory to fit the timeline evolutionist gave for life to evolve. you can't see the problem Daws ?

I can't find the "quote" you are attributing to H. J. Muller.

Please provide the exact location where this "quote" can be found.

American Journal of Human Genetics 2: 111-176.

Our load of mutations

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why are the atheist evolutionist worried about ID proponents ?