SFT: On Genetic Entropy

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@r_speir

@RonSewell

a slow kill would not segregate the animals.

I say it would. It would do exactly what you claim it wouldn’t based on animal size, agility, speed, eco systems, internal clocks (like hibernation to name one) and internal biological thermal mechanisms.

It’s amazing how the trace fossils - footprints, burrows, sloughed exoskeletons, nests, eggshells, lost teeth etc - all had the exact same size, agility and speed as the animals that produced them. Also amazing how all the animals of each species, including any that were young (or eggs!), injured or dead, also all had the same size, agility and speed. Even more amazing how the plants all had the same size agility and speed. How did all those mangrove trees manage to reach higher ground…?

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@r_speir

@Roy

It is impossible for desert sands to be deposited during a flood. It is impossible for vertical strata to be deposited during a flood. It is impossible for incised meanders, raindrop impressions, dessication cracks, multi-level burrows, extremely fine silt, stacked forests, scree slopes, salt flats, subaerial lava flows, inverted footprints, block faults, stalactites/stalagmites, coprolites, hardgrounds, coral mounts, annual varves, unconformities, or the remains of more organisms than the planet could support simultaneously to be deposited during a flood.

This is a list of anomalies that seem to defy our intuition about what a flood would and should produce. Now, what we must do is first realize that we are dealing with an unprecedented event a scale that our intuition cannot begin to contain. Then, one by one, we must deal with these kinds of anomalies and start thinking outside the box about how a global flooding event might have left stray indications that defy explanation.

1. they are stray events
2. the global flood was and is unprecedented
3. some of these have already been well-explained. We need to sort this list
4. the remainder? Well, we still have some work to do…but one thing we know for sure

…these anomalies exist and surprisingly, they exist after and largely due to Noah’s Flood. Sounds like fun research to me.

They aren’t stray events - features like these are widespread.

Try posting or citing explanations for them. Vague hints that explanations for some of them might exist somewhere are useless.

[T_aquaticus]

@Giltil

It seems that you don’t understand FI

It seems that FI can’t be measured.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

Please don’t derail this thread with this FI stuff, it’s simply not relevant to the concept of GE. And it’s wrong that FI can’t be measured, it can for sufficiently simple systems. It just becomes hopeless for very long sequences.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@T_aquaticus

It seems that FI can’t be measured.

Wrong. See @gpuccio’s work.

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@PDPrice

Again, I still don’t think you read it. In the article, we stated that you cannot directly measure information, but that nonetheless we can know that such information can increase or decrease; there can be more or less of it.

If you can’t directly measure information, then you can’t know that the fieldmouse genome contains more information than the human genome. Your ‘facts’ are not facts.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

Wrong. See @gpuccio’s work.

Gpuccio’s work is absolute nonsense as has been explained to you innumerable times.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Rumraket

Gpuccio’s work is absolute nonsense as has been explained to you innumerable times.

I disagree. As far as I can tell, your trick for refuting gpuccio’s argument is to assume that functionally complex proteins are abundant in sequence space. But this assumption is evidenceless. And as a matter of fact, the evidences more powerfully point to the opposite, ie, that functional proteins are rare in sequence space.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

Is it at all possible that the source of the explanation was a tad bit biased?

It was quite a bit biased in favor of honest science and reality. Pity ID-Creationists never try that approach.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Timothy_Horton

It was quite a bit biased in favor of honest science and reality. Pity ID-Creationists never try that approach

Are you claiming that you are an objective unbiased source of information with the depth of knowledge to speak from authority on this subject?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

I disagree. As far as I can tell, your trick for refuting gpuccio’s argument is to assume that functionally complex proteins are abundant in sequence space.

I have not anywhere needed to make such an assumption to point out the numerous flaws with Gpuccios nonsense.

@colewd

Is it at all possible that the source of the explanation was a tad bit biased?

Genetic fallacy. How biased I may be as a person is irrelevant to the merits of my explanations.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@colewd

Are you claiming that you are an objective unbiased source of information

Ahh, objective and unbiased sources of authority. That’s all those on your team of course, and nobody on the other side.

Silly.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Rumraket

Genetic fallacy. How biased I may be as a person is irrelevant to the merits of my explanations.

Your explanation was based on your biased opinion. You made an assertion that Gpuccio could not measure functional information and this is nonsense.

You made the argument that because you could not count all the sequences you could not estimate functional sequences. This would make all election polls invalid. What authority do you think you have on statistical methods?

You guys argue from authority that you don’t have.

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

Are you claiming that you are an objective unbiased source of information with the depth of knowledge to speak from authority on this subject?

Why is it not surprising you would object to using scientific honesty and reality?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

“You asserted”
“Your opinion”
“You don’t have authority bla bla”
“You’re biased”.

You know, I think I’m just going to sidestep another totally meaningless back and forth with Bill.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Rumraket

You know, I think I’m just going to sidestep another totally meaningless back and forth with Bill

Thats great. Please just refrain for arrogant statements like below. You can disagree with his methods but you have no authority to label them as nonsense.

@Rumraket

I have not anywhere needed to make such an assumption to point out the numerous flaws with Gpuccios nonsense.

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@colewd

You made the argument that because you could not count all the sequences you could not estimate functional sequences. This would make all election polls invalid. What authority do you think you have on statistical methods?

(The following is based on my memory of the argument) The statistics involved are not comparable with election polls and election outcomes. The sample sizes of polls vs the electorate are likely orders of magnitude larger than the proportion of functional sequences analysed vs all that exist. The problem, as I recall, was that the analysis basically assumed that the functional sequences we find in organisms today are basically all of the functional sequences that can possibly exist.

To go back to the election poll analogy, this would be rather like parachuting randomly into a landmass, polling all the people within one square mile of where you land, and predicting the election based on this sample, without any other information about the size or population of the country.

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

Thats great. Please just refrain for arrogant statements like below. You can disagree with his methods but you have no authority to label them as nonsense.

It’s always interesting to note how often creationists resort to discussions on topics like authority and bias when their claims have been refuted by clear objective arguments and evidence. I suspect this is simply a reflection of the fact that they realize they have insufficient understanding of the issue themselves and are at the mercy of whichever “authority” they choose to believe.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Faizal_Ali

It’s always interesting to note how often creationists resort to discussions on topics like authority and bias when their claims have been refuted by clear objective arguments and evidence

This is a statement of authority Faizal. On what basis do you claim authority in the evolution creation debate? Ie How do you know they are refuted? How do you know the arguments come from clear objective evidence?

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

This is a statement of authority

How is it a statement of authority?