Re: The Heresy of Scientists


<cafeinst@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1137170267.770590.306900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Ross Langerak wrote:
> > <cafeinst@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1136926596.425557.234790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > Gene Poole wrote:
> > > > On 9 Jan 2006 08:40:46 -0800, cafeinst@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > [SNIP]
> > > > >Gene Poole wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [I tried to post this in response to another sub-thread, but it
seems
> > to
> > > > >> have gotten lost. It fits here just as well]
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I have a couple of questions for you regarding this nebulous
> > information
> > > > >> thing.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> First, we now know the genomes of both human and chimp. There is
a
> > 100%
> > > > >> correspondence of genes, meaning that for every protein in the
chimp
> > > > >> genome, there is a corresponding protein in the human genome.
They
> > may
> > > > >> be slightly different in exact sequence due to mutations, but it
> > seems
> > > > >> to me that using Spetnar's definition, both genomes would have
> > identical
> > > > >> information content. Do you agree? Why or why not?
> > > > >
> > > > >Assuming that
> > > > >1) There is a 100% correspondence between the genes of a chimp and
> > > > >genes of a human.
> > > > >2) All of the genes are used to define the organisms. (There are no
> > > > >"junk" genes.)
> > > > >3) There is no way to compress the genetic codes of each of the
> > > > >respective organisms into a smaller sequence.
> > > > >4) There are no other factors which define the organisms.
> > > > >
> > > > >Then yes, they would have identical information content. However,
> > > > >proving something like this would be difficult.
> > > >
> > > > Then, granted that these assumptions are true, there is no problem
for
> > > > neodarwinian evolution with respect to Spetner's "information." (I
> > > > assume you consider chimp/human decent from a common ancestor as
> > > > qualifying.)
> > >
> > > That is correct.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > May I be so presumptuous, then, as to assume that you disagree with
one
> > > > (or more) of these assumptions?
> > >
> > > I really don't know whether any of the assumptions are true. Another
> > > poster argued with 3).
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >Assuming that
> > > > >1) There is a 100% correspondence between the genes of a chimp and
> > > > >genes of a human.
> > > >
> > > > Since we have both genomes, and I would tend to regard this as a
fact.
> > > > Do you disagree? Why?
> > >
> > > See http://www.genome.gov/15515096. It says that there is a 96%
> > > correspondence. How do you define correspondence? Also, humans have 23
> > > chromosomes. Chimps have 24.
> >
> > Chimps have 24 chromosomes because one of their original chromosomes
split.
> > If you put those two chromosomes together, they match up with the
> > corresponding human chromosome gene for gene.
> >
> > Ironically, in order to salvage the global flood/ark story in the Bible,
> > many creationists claim that Noah only had to bring "kinds" aboard the
ark.
> > The various species then evolved through microevolution from these basic
> > kinds. Presumably, there was a horse kind, but if we look at the DNA of
> > horses, we find that the number of chromosomes varies dramatically from
> > species to species. One can't help but wonder why a difference of a
single
> > chromosome should block evolution in apes, but it is perfectly
acceptable
> > for the number of chromosomes in horses to nearly double in the course
of
> > their "microevolution"? One also can't help but wonder what we would
find
> > if we looked at the chromosomes of other kinds: like the cat kind, and
the
> > dog kind, and the reptile kind?
>
> There are horses that have more or less than 32 pairs of chromosomes?

Ernest Major has already presented the data on horse chromosomes. This data
tells us that differing numbers of chromosomes are not an obstacle to either
evolution or reproduction. Most, if not all, of the species of horses
listed can interbreed.

But the question I am most interested in, is why you didn't do the research.
The information is readily available on the web. I suspect that you believe
that creationism is true and therefore, that the evidence must fit creation.
The problem is, as we can see from the data on horses, the evidence does not
fit creation. You simply were not aware of the evidence, so you came to a
false conclusion.

Which brings up another question: how many other false beliefs do you hold
because you are unfamiliar with the evidence? Maybe you should start doing
some research?

> > > > >2) All of the genes are used to define the organisms. (There are no
> > > > >"junk" genes.)
> > > >
> > > > You'll have to define "junk gene." It is a non-standard term as
best I
> > > > can tell. There is, of course, "junk" (non-coding) DNA but since it
is
> > > > non-coding, then by definition it does not contain genes.
> > >
> > > It's like a hard-working person who happens to have a job in which had
> > > that person not come to work one day, nobody would care. The person
> > > gets a lot of work done but still the work is meaningless. Sort of
like
> > > the research of the average university professor.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >3) There is no way to compress the genetic codes of each of the
> > > > >respective organisms into a smaller sequence.
> > > >
> > > > You'll need to expand on this one a bit too. If I take this at face
> > > > value, then indeed, both genomes are very "compressible." Only 1.2
% of
> > > > either genome actually codes for proteins. What does this have to
do
> > > > with the argument? Which genome do you think is more compressible
and
> > > > why?
> > >
> > > If I had to guess, I would think the chimp genome is more compressible
> > > than the human genome since the human is able to solve more difficult
> > > problems than a chimp and therefore would have a more complicated
> > > structure which requires more information to specify. But of course,
> > > the chimp could have "junk genes" as I defined above. Such a case
would
> > > be analagous to a human genius and an human idiot. They might have the
> > > same genome, but the human idiot has more "junk genes" than the human
> > > genius.
> >
> > Hold on! If we go back and look at Spetner's criteria for an increase
in
> > information, we find that chimp DNA contains more information than human
> > DNA. Remember, information is a function of specificity. Humans live
all
> > over the world in different types of environments. Chimps live in a
> > specific environment in Africa. Chimps have more specificity than
humans.
> > Therefore, by Spetner's reasoning, chimps require more information than
> > humans.
>
> Cute.

You made the claim that humans require more information than chimps. I used
Spetner's criteria to establish that chimps require more information than
humans. You can't both be right, so which of you is wrong?

> > > > >4) There are no other factors which define the organisms.
> > > >
> > > > This is yet another vague concept. What does it mean to define an
> > > > organism? Obviously there is much more to it than just the genome.
> > > > Nonetheless, it would seem that you are now abandoning Spetnar's
line of
> > > > reasoning since he is only concerned with information as it applies
to
> > > > the genome of an organism.
> > >
> > > Everyone seems to be convinced that DNA contains all of the
information
> > > which makes us tick. What if there is more information than DNA which
> > > causes us to be what we are? How do we know that DNA is everything?
> > > What if someone discovers something else which specifies
> > > characteristics of life.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Tangentially to our discussion, could you share your view on the
> > > > human/chimp relationship? Do you consider the two related by
decent?
> > >
> > > No, I don't think they are related by descent. And if they are, then
> > > the chimps came from humans and not the other way around. This is all
> > > somewhat consistent with Spetner's ideas. But this belief is based on
> > > my religion though, not Spetner's ideas.
> > >
> > > As a scientist, I don't think it's possible to know what happened
> > > millions of years ago without time travel. Extrapolation is a very
weak
> > > form of inference, as it's not even testable. Scientists are doing it
> > > all the time, yet it is not real science. Science cannot answer
> > > questions like this. The only reason scientists are doing it is
because
> > > they want answers to questions like how did we get here, yet most
> > > scientists are atheists and since traditional religions for them
cannot
> > > answer these questions, they make "science" their religion.
> >
> > Past events leave evidence. A car accident leave evidence. A civil war
> > battle leaves evidence. An animal living a million years ago leaves
> > evidence. A volcano erupting 100 million years ago leaves evidence. We
can
> > investigate past events by looking at the evidence that they left for us
to
> > find today. The purpose of science is to explain the available
evidence.
> > The explanation that best fits the evidence is considered the best
theory.
> > That is the way science works.
> >
> > You are making the common creationist mistake of ignoring the evidence.
You
> > are trying to equate evolution with atheism and attack the motives of
> > scientists instead of dealing with the evidence. The motives of
scientists
> > don't matter. The can be hypocrites, they can be jerks, they can be
biased,
> > and it's all irrelevant. The only thing that matters in science is the
> > evidence. Until you learn to deal with the evidence, you won't make any
> > headway with scientists.
>
> That's just the official party line. If it truly dealt with evidence,
> they would recognize the ridiculousness of the hypothesis that life
> developed randomly by accident as a result of some chemical soup which
> evolved over time and come to the conclusion that life can only be
> possible if it was directly designed by G-d. They would accept Paley's
> watchmaker argument.

The origin of life was a chemical process. It was no more random than the
burning of the air-fuel mixture in your car or the oxidation of iron when
left out in the rain. Evolution started after the origin of life ended.
Evolution does not occur just by random chance. Anyone who has spent any
time at all investigating evolution knows that it occurs through random
mutation AND natural selection. You can't present an honest or valid
argument by misrepresenting your opposition.

Paley's argument doesn't work. If we can recognize design in nature in the
same way that we recognize design in a watch, then how do we know that the
watch didn't occur naturally? How do we know it didn't grow on a tree?

We recognize a watch as the result of human activity. We know of people who
design and build watches. We know that watches don't grow on trees. We
know that the materials that make up a watch are not found in nature. The
fact that we can recognize a watch as man-made, suggests that there is a
difference between human design and nature. And when we do find a criteria
that might allow us to recognize design in nature, it doesn't fit. Life
does not appear to be designed.

> > > > >The notion of information is very simple. However, quantifying
> > > > >information content is very complicated and in many cases
impossible.
> > > > >Nevertheless, the concept is very relevant for evaluating whether
> > > > >neo-Darwinism explains how we got here.
> > > >
> > > > Please explain how your conclusion follows from those premises.
> > >
> > > I'd be wasting my time explaining it, as the reasoning all comes from
> > > Spetner's book and the trueorigin.org section about Spetner.
> > >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > > >
> > > > [SNIP]
> > >
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... ancestors once were littoral & until very recently ... - You think bones & stones are hard evidence of our past, ... > not have DNA or blood from either chimps or an ancestor at 5 My. ... Again, stone tools ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: The Heresy of Scientists
    ... >>>genes of a human. ... Chimps have 24 chromosomes because one of their original chromosomes split. ... A car accident leave evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How utterly scientific of you guys! {and Ray is Correct btw}
    ... chimps and man are biologically compatible and can mate ... without evidence, since this hypothesis has never been tested. ... chromosomes 4 and 17 are structurally dissimilar, ... you do not have compatability and the hybrid will die out. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Heresy of Scientists
    ... we find that the number of chromosomes varies dramatically from ... > that creationism is true and therefore, that the evidence must fit creation. ... Humans live ... Chimps have more specificity than ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... bones, one has to know skeletal anatomy very well. ... Chimps and gorilla both have thin enamel (you ... is omission, not evidence. ... > - HP/G LCA a bit earlier. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)