EVOLUTION 101 AND BEYOND...LEARN YOUR FACTS
Posted on: March 16, 2007 - 7:17pm
Offline
EVOLUTION 101 AND BEYOND...LEARN YOUR FACTS
- Login to post comments
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.
Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
Offline Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
Now that's a good link. I'll have to show it to the creationists at the FreeThinkingTeens message board, they're idiots when it comes to talking about evolution.
Deludedgod knows what I'm talking about.
Atheist Books
Very nice Larry...we can get quite a bit of info from there.
....though I am afraid the ones who need to read it will not.
Now that's a good link. I'll have to show it to the creationists at the FreeThinkingTeens message board, they're idiots when it comes to talking about evolution.
Deludedgod knows what I'm talking about
Indeed I do. Hey, see if he's responded. I'm not going back to FTT because I hate it. I can't bloody stand it. I offered him to move the debate to RRS.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
A fantastic wealth of info Larry.
BUt you know you will not get any theists to respond or even read it. Just like this thread I started here was a total failure: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/5465
Can't let my mind wander to far or start to question! My little sky God wouldn't want it, you know! Besides, people hate clicking on links.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
He didn't respond, you had him beaten from the beginning anyway.
I understand if you don't like FreeThinkingTeens though, the site design is not that special. But it's not about the quality of the site, its the quality of the debates...and winning.
Atheist Books
Of course they wont' respond to that....they're probably reading it and are probably shutting it out like they do the rest of the evidence they can't understand about evolution. Their mind is set in between two walls and they can't seem to escape. It's like a horse with blinders.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Hey, Egann finally responded on the thread with your essay. I told him (on another thread) to come over here to debate, but he said he wasn't debating, only pointing something out. Probably too scared to come here.
Cant find it. Post it here. What did he say.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Here's his response:
Point 1
New information: a gene that has not been in the population before or has recently exited the intron pool constitutes new genetic matterial, but not new information. new information also implies that the protein produced by the gene is functional or fully capable of functionality, even if it is not specifically put to the exact task it would be best at immediately.
New genetic matterial is a net increase of the geneome. New information is an increase in the net used gene pool (not a new aleel, but a new opening for aleells to form.)
New information also has a requirement instated by Intelligent Design: It must constitute a comprehensible net of material enough to not be attributable to chance. While the exact statistical limit for the Universal Probability Bound is still under debate, the present bounds proposed are between 10^50 bits (proposed by Emile Borel) and 10^150 (proposed by Dembski.)
To give you an idea how big these numbers are, 10^64 is the approxamate number of atoms in the galaxy, give or take a few orders of magnitude.
This translates, with the 4 base pairs, though, to a gene of about 30-80 bases, or a really, really, really small gene (someone check my math, please.)
In other words, because genes are so long, all newly introduced functional genes must be concidered new information.
Point 2:
Good mutations will propogate themselves. I know better than to argue with microevolution (ie limited flexibility of the species development.) But the possibilities are inherently limited without new information (as defined earlier.) If all beneficial mutations either diminish or do not increase the information (as is the case with all observed mutations: silent, detrimental, or beneficial) the evolutionary possibilites of the initial bacteria from the primordial goo is severely limited to less and less information only.
Believe it or not, deludedgod did not prove that genome increasing mutations occur above. All he proved was that net genetic increases were possible, not that either they are observed, or that those would eventually constitute new information.
Are we leaving ERV and mtDNA and returning to information theory?
New information: a gene that has not been in the population before or has recently exited the intron pool constitutes new genetic matterial, but not new information. new information also implies that the protein produced by the gene is functional or fully capable of functionality, even if it is not specifically put to the exact task it would be best at immediately.
This is why evolution tends to be driven by introns not exons. Since the only thing that makes a difference in the genome is the nucleobase order, new information arises typically by two methods.
a) In prokaryota, horizontal transfer between bacteria allows for genomic uptake, and any gene which becomes incorporated into a single organism can quickly spread. The new gene typically becomes incorporated by the method I will describe below:
b) Duplicative error. The ribosomal assembly has such a high fidelity rate and thorough elimination of error to make mutations very rare, but during mitosis, if an extra string of the genome is duplicated by accident, it is free to mutate based on random probability. Since there is another copy to serve it's purpose, it doesn't matter. Eventually, this extra copy will strike upon a useful new string. This is when new information is added. These are paralogs, which crop up all over the evolution of the genome.
http://genomebiology.com/2001/2/8/interactions/1002
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/molgen/members/Pilpel/mol-1608.pdf
Good mutations will propogate themselves. I know better than to argue with microevolution (ie limited flexibility of the species development.) But the possibilities are inherently limited without new information (as defined earlier.)But if a good mutation arrives via an extra duplication, then it is new information. If you admit to the existence of good mutations, well, that is new information. Additions to the size of the genome as well as the variance of it can be reconciled if these are the requisites stated for new information.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Do you want me to post the reply on the FTT thread?
No.
I do not understand why this is necessary in any way. Why should I have to go back to FTT. I do not like the FTT. It is poorly organized, not moderated, and uncontrolled. If he wants to debate, let him come here.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Oh, all right then.
Also, how old is that thread?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
The last post before Egann's response today was on the 13th of last month, so it's been two and a half weeks.
I'm the supereditor at FTT, hopefully we can change the look of the site in the future.
We have mods, too and I think it's well-organized.
Atheist Books
Thank you, biologists!
I was raised fundy and now I can't get enough biology and paleontology. Whenever there is a great fossil find, I get all gooey inside.
Is that weird?
I'm still psyched over Effigia and the baby Australopithecus.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
What were the responses to his thread? How many responses? Is the thread dead or still alive?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
AgnosticAtheist1 responded to Egann's post that I posted above. The thread's kind of dead though.