Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

was there another article that went into the topic with some clarity?

There was the scientific journal article itself, and the press release in layman's terms that was written by the same scientists who submitted the journal article.

Then there was my own hypothesis for an additional possible reason beyond the one that the scientists came up with for an explanation as to why most species have a recent common ancestor (a different common ancestor for each species of course).

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

(OTHERS can be) forgiven but not farmer. I am sure he actually knows better but maintains that position in order to discourage others from questioning the dogma of neo-evolutionary thought.

Prhps youre right, I was a bit off base by taking offense by your "equating" the data contents of a DNA molecule as "intelligently derived information"
I should have spent more time in dealing with your lame equations
Since much of a genome does nothing more than record the "developmental history" of a genera (or higher taxa), its hard todeny that the sequences of nucletotides moost often, do nothing at all. Pwrhaps, for your purposefully miscalculating mind, I should have argued the point further but just ran out of interest when your insistence in your "beliefs" being evidence based is where I should have been more ttentive.

SO youre through eh?? So please dont mind when you post some more of your Discovery Institute derived crap and folks come at you and your friend BJ with information that is more reasoned .
Right now I see that you are beginning a trend to become another Gungasnake (who insists that evolutionary theory is unscientific nd then posts his own mindless junk from "Answers in Genesis").
You too, I see are engaging in the bogus pronouncements implying that science is buying into ID, quite the contrary.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

It's interesting that almost all species have a recent sole ancestor within the past couple hundred thousand years.

Natural selection isnt being subsumed by "Something better" .
Those examples I left last week should have mentioned the seminal work on the role of extinction in evolution done by David Raup back in the 80's ND 90's.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Natural selection and extinction has nothing to do with how new information is introduced into the genome. All they do is pick the winners and the losers. Natural selection works the same whether the new information is introduced into the genome randomly or intelligently. Let's just talk about where the new information comes from . We agree on everything else already so let's quit talking about the stuff we agree on.

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

Changes in the genome are random. Selection is not. When any form of selection is applied to a statistically random base, you get what is colloquially referred to as "information". That's where information, in the case of biological evolution, comes from.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Natural selection isnt being subsumed by "Something better".

We have new data. We need new hypothesis and theories to account for this new data.

farmerman wrote:

Those examples I left last week should have mentioned the seminal work on the role of extinction in evolution done by David Raup back in the 80's ND 90's.

This phenomena is not caused by extinction. What happened 200,000 years ago was not old species dying out and new ones evolving to take their place.

Rather, existing species continued unchanged, but only a handful of specimens from each species passed on their DNA. The majority of each species did not have any surviving offspring.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The majority of each species did not have any surviving offspring.

Id sorta call that evolution through adaptational extinction wouldnt you?? The term is not a type of demise, its that a species changes via many career options, through cataclysm , genetic drift, adaptation, and many other types of named species change through time. Dave Raups book is called "Extinction, Bad luck or bad genes",

Half life of DNA is about 55 years so 200k years we have over 3500 hallf lives (7 is a number we use for invalidating radiometric dating techniques).Id venture that they may be looking at artifacts of nucleotide and amino acid retention. I say Im going to wait for a fairly good time before jumping to conclusions.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

The genome has information whether the species goes extinct or not. Natural selection does not turn the genome into information, it became information the moment it was a recognizable pattern (like when the first two hydrogen atoms were formed).

For a species to survive long enough for evolution to happen and possibly be recorded in the fossil record (because we know that there are gaps) “as” information it had to “be” information in a live organism. If natural selection never exterminated a species and all were still alive the genome would still contain information wouldn’t it?

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Natural selection and extinction has nothing to do with how new information is introduced into the genome.

Never said it did. If you took it that way, youre incorrect at understanding what I was trying to say.
Ive been consistent in saying that evolution is a two part process, random generation of genetic "information", which is sorted or clipped by natural selection provided by the environment and how a given phenotype responds to that environment either successfully ( as reflected in its descendents,)or unsuccessfully as seen in the fossil record .

Thats why you guys seem to want to deny the effect that the environment has on the many sister species that litter up the fossil record and how they dont seem to support "Intelligence over natural selection".

I still dont know what your evidence consists of (besides loud assertionizing).
Creation math has always relied upon "impossibilities of achieving anything by evolution". Youve said that youve done the math and have it by your side. Id love to see it and I bet, without even seeing your math I can submit to you one point of where its wrong , that being "simultaneous v successive genetic occurences"

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

The genome has information whether the species goes extinct or not

How do you propose to tudy the fosil record DNA?? You sound like a guy who used to be here. He insisted we could tell about T Rex ID from DNA. I asked him where we get T rex DNA (for comparisons to its galliformic descendents) , and he would go bugshit and start posting in caps.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

How life arose is irrelevant to the subject of evolution.

. The fact that a living “information management system” can introduce new randomly generated information into the system that leads to complexity is by definition a living algorithm with artificial intelligence capabilities. That is a fact established in the fields of information technology and computer science.

You are making two huge and unsubstantiated assumptions about this artificial intelligence.

1. How a system comes into existence (the ontology of the system) is irrelevant when discussing the system. Otherwise you wouldn’t care which ontology (randomly introduced information or purposely introduced information) is used in the discussion no matter who is discussing it.

Obviously you care or you would agree that all points of view should be discussed and researched at all levels of our educational system.

2. That the complex algorithm we observe as natural evolution does not require an author when you have no evidence of a complex algorithm coming into existence without intelligent origins in recorded history. (If you do provide one please because that would be the replica table data required to support you position.) So, why are you assuming it could happen in prehistoric times?

I at least have the pattern of all algorithms created in historical times requiring a designer and some historical documentation on who the designer is supporting my position.

4 Replies

@brianjakub,

Actually it's you whose invested his entire spiehl on unsubstantiated assumptions. YOUVE PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE AT ALL yet claim that youve gotproof of ID "all in hand" and have done the math". I think you are more or less, blowing it out an orifice other than your mouth.
But thats only my opinion.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

More word salad, more bullsh*t. You're unconvincing and tedious, and you're just making sh*t up as you go along.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

a living “information management system” can introduce new randomly generated information into the system

so can simple organic chemical reactions , adsorption , and surface chemistry. You seem to deny this in favor of an "evidence-free" belief system. Could it be that you have little understanding of what science has been trying to say wrt "generation of new genetic nucleotide sequences ( insert information if you wish)

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

you have no evidence of a complex algorithm coming into existence without intelligent origins in recorded history

you mean that climatology, tectonics, crystallography, petrological sequencing, and in the living world, responses to desertification, responses to ice-out. generation of star spectra that show complx organics, are all computer games?? wow, youve gotta have some really good evidence to pull this outta the air (Or wherever you a fonda pulling stuff out of)

2 Replies

@farmerman,

bj never provides evidence for his claims. His rhetoric belongs in the classic round tub.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

That’s why you guys seem to want to deny the effect that the environment has on the many sister species that litter up the fossil record and how they don’t support”Intelligence over natural selection”

Natural selection works the same whether the new information is randomly introduced or intelligently introduced. We both agree natural selection is the go- no go gauge for evolution. What does that have to do with how new information is introduced into the genome or the sister species?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote the bullshit and why it is bullshit.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

. . . Complex ORGANICSare all computer games??

A computer uses an AI algorithm running on hardware to create complex solutions to problems from random introduction of new information.

Biological evolution uses hardware to operate an algorithm using AI to create complex solutions to problems from random introduction of information.

The main difference is one system was established recently by man and the other was established a long time ago and man is not capable of building the hardware or initiating the algorythm.

This suggests the systems and possibly the authors are similar in nature but, one existed before man and is much more capable both physically and intellectually.

If, you use the philosophical approach of naturalism to determine how a system operates, while using naive realism based on objective idealism to understand why it operates, that the vast majority of our population uses (and most scientists used until the late 1800’s) when interpreting data and developing hypothesis, the evidence i provided is sufficient to proceed with further development and research on the hypothesis suggesting ID.

If all you use is naturalism, the ontology of the system is so skewed (by eliminating how the ontology was established) as to make the ontology become irrelevant thus vastly, limiting one’s ability to interpret the truth from the data because, the spirit of the information is lost.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

You provide more evidence to support my claims than you do for your own. Thank you.

0 Replies

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know