Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest shiloh357

What is the Evidence of Mutations and New Information

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

So you have no proof and are relying on the unproven work of others.  Typical.

Typical? Are all your proofs of anything your own work? :)

But since all those people were born before me, then they had an advantage.

And their work has been proven and passed several tests. Hawking challenged it and he lost, by his own admission.   Just check the results of the so-called black hole war, to get more information about Hawking challenge to the conservation of information in the Universe.

Unless you are better than him and see a flaw in the unitary form of physical law. 

Which is? I am ready to discuss it with you if you are unconvinced by that.

Is that a problem with the characteristics of the operators? Or with the topological structure of phase space? Or with a physical phenomena that breaks symmetry?

What is it? I cannot debate until you tell me where the possible flaw is...

:) siegi :)

 

 

Edited by siegi91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 3:07 PM, siegi91 said:

Typical? Are all your proofs of anything your own work? :)

But since all those people were born before me, then they had an advantage.

And their work has been proven and passed several tests. Hawking challenged it and he lost, by his own admission.   Just check the results of the so-called black hole war, to get more information about Hawking challenge to the conservation of information in the Universe.

Unless you are better than him and see a flaw in the unitary form of physical law. 

Which is? I am ready to discuss it with you if you are unconvinced by that.

Is that a problem with the characteristics of the operators? Or with the topological structure of phase space? Or with a physical phenomena that breaks symmetry?

What is it? I cannot debate until you tell me where the possible flaw is...

:) siegi :)

Your using theories to prove theories.  That's just sad.  Next, you'll be using your opinions as fact ... oh wait a minute, you're already doing that.  :th_wave:

I was 1 point below Einstein at one point in my life.  But I suspect I'm far below that now.  I don't read as much and my reading material is very selective.  For example, I am studying DNA/RNA at the moment, before that I was studying infectious diseases like Ebola and Hantavirus.  Before that, Jet and Sub Orbital Engines.  Before that Game Theory.  Most of these have nothing to do with my current work which is classified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shiloh357
On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 8:02 AM, one.opinion said:

 

What I have been unable to do is change your mind, which I had no expectation of doing in the first place. I did, however, provide evidence from the fossil record.

The fossil record evidence you provided did not demonstrate macro-evolution.

 

Quote

Incorrect, he had fossil evidence of this, as well. Additionally, the bigger picture of the biogeography of the South American continent (beyond just the Galapagos Islands) was also evidence of macro-evolution.

No, he had NO evidence on the macro level.  There is NO macro evidence in the fossil record.  None has ever been produced.  If it were true, there would be an abundance of evidence.  

 

Quote

Some of Haeckel's contemporaries challenged his work, and it is certainly possible that a bias led to wide-spread acceptance of his drawings - I cannot definitively say, one way or the other. However, the largest piece of evidence contradicting Haeckel's drawings was a publication in Anatomy and Embryology magazine in 1997, by Michael Richardson. This publication contained photographs of different organisms at various stages of embryonic development. These photos clearly showed that Haeckel's drawings were inaccurate. Again, this work was done in 1997, so it is no surprise that only 3 years later, some textbooks still contained Haeckel's drawings. I don't know how quickly textbook authors responded to this new information, but I've never seen a textbook that contained Haeckel's drawings.

That doesn't change the fact that it was used in school textbooks right up to this century, long after it had been debunked.

 

 

Quote

 

I agree, the root cause of the warming is the most open aspect to debate, although some people challenge the warming, as well. I don't know enough about climate science to argue one way or the other, but rely on the field of experts. In my opinion, disagreement with a field of experts would require some pretty solid evidence to the contrary, and I've not seen anything that fits that role.

There are certainly some over-reaching responses, but there are also some good suggestions about how mankind should fulfill the God-ordained role as caretakers of the earth. There is absolutely no harm in recycling programs, research and use of "green" energy, etc. I'm still gonna use plastic straws, though!! 😛

 

The whole thing is a fraud.  The fact that it was used to manipulate what we buy is pretty good evidence of it.  Nothing wrong with being good, responsible caretakers of the earth, but the whole global warming thing was not true from the start.  The evidence is seen in the "experts"  getting all of their predictions wrong.    How many times do the experts have to lie to you, or get their predictions wrong before you start to question if they are really the "experts" they are touted to be.   It seems you are easily impressed with graphs and charts and academic claims.   It's when we take it out of the academic and into the real world that we find the experts are really good at blowing smoke, but they are really just a lot of noise and not much else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The fossil record evidence you provided did not demonstrate macro-evolution.

I think we can agree that you don't find it convincing. But to be honest, there is no amount of evidence that you would consider convincing.

You provided an article that attempted to explain away the away the whale transitional series, and I pointed out substantial flaws in the article. Unless you simply claim that whales and terrestrial mammals are of the same baramin, there is substantial evidence of macro-evolution.

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

No, he had NO evidence on the macro level.  There is NO macro evidence in the fossil record.  None has ever been produced.  If it were true, there would be an abundance of evidence.  

Again, this is incorrect. The fossil record and the South American/island biogeography was indeed evidence of macro-level evolution.

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

That doesn't change the fact that it was used in school textbooks right up to this century, long after it had been debunked.

The biggest debunking was in 1997. Please provide evidence of textbooks that used Haeckel's drawings past 1997. It is entirely possible that editions continued to use them for several years after Richardson's work, but I'd like to see evidence for myself.

 

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Nothing wrong with being good, responsible caretakers of the earth, but the whole global warming thing was not true from the start.

In your opinion, is "the whole global warming thing" untrue, or is only anthropogenic global warming untrue? I've read you argue both ways, and I can't figure out for certain what you actually believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest shiloh357
14 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I think we can agree that you don't find it convincing. But to be honest, there is no amount of evidence that you would consider convincing.

Wrong.  I told you repeatedly what evidence would be convincing. 

Quote

You provided an article that attempted to explain away the away the whale transitional series, and I pointed out substantial flaws in the article. Unless you simply claim that whales and terrestrial mammals are of the same baramin, there is substantial evidence of macro-evolution.

Pakicetus is not where whales came from and there is no evidence for it.   It was simply a land animal that did not transition into a whale. 

Quote

Again, this is incorrect. The fossil record and the South American/island biogeography was indeed evidence of macro-level evolution.

No, it doesn't.  There is zero evidence for macro evolution and everyone knows it.   

Quote

The biggest debunking was in 1997. Please provide evidence of textbooks that used Haeckel's drawings past 1997. It is entirely possible that editions continued to use them for several years after Richardson's work, but I'd like to see evidence for myself.

I showed where Gould was complaining about it being used in textbook into this century.

Quote

In your opinion, is "the whole global warming thing" untrue, or is only anthropogenic global warming untrue? I've read you argue both ways, and I can't figure out for certain what you actually believe.

What is true is that the earth self-regulates its temperature and we go through times of cooling and warming.  I am old enough to remember when the "experts" were convinced we were headed for another ice age.   Now they are worried about the earth getting too warm.  What is untrue is that warming is man's fault, that we are causing the earth to heat up.   That was used to manipulate people to guilt us into "going green" and having to buy "green" technology.  It was all a complete farce.   But Lefists are really gullible and bought into it, hook, line and sinker.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Pakicetus is not where whales came from and there is no evidence for it.   It was simply a land animal that did not transition into a whale. 

You don't know for a fact that it isn't, and I don't know for a fact that it is. When all that is available is fossil evidence, scientists can only postulate on what a transitional series may have been. Pakicetus is mentioned because a hypothetical transition from terrestrial mammal to cetacean would have required a mammal that began to adapt to an aquatic lifestyle. The fossil evidence does support the hypothesis that Pakicetus was a terrestrial animal suited to extensive time in the water. The importance of the Pakicetus finding is not to establish that it MUST BE a progenitor to modern cetaceans, but that an animal like Pakicetus (whether it was actually Pakicetus or some other animal) would have been part of the transition. Basically,  Pakicetus represents the plausibility of the transition, whether or not it was actually part of the transition. What are your opinions regarding Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Rodhocetus, and Dorudon, that exhibit more cetacean-like anatomy and less terrestrial-type anatomy, and whose fossils are aged sequentially?

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

There is zero evidence for macro evolution and everyone knows it.

Please describe who "everyone" is in your opinion. Clearly, "everyone" cannot possibly mean everyone. Repeating the exact same claim that Darwin had no evidence does not make the claim true, no matter how many times you repeat it. Do you mean to say "Darwin did not have any evidence that I find convincing"? Because that would change your inaccurate statement to an accurate one.

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

I showed where Gould was complaining about it being used in textbook into this century.

Yes, you showed a Gould quote 3 years after the Richardson work. But what if Gould was mistaken? I'd really like to see the fruits of your research to substantiate your claim. It would be very important to see how far these errors lasted.

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

What is true is that the earth self-regulates its temperature and we go through times of cooling and warming.  I am old enough to remember when the "experts" were convinced we were headed for another ice age.   Now they are worried about the earth getting too warm.  What is untrue is that warming is man's fault, that we are causing the earth to heat up.   That was used to manipulate people to guilt us into "going green" and having to buy "green" technology.  It was all a complete farce.   But Lefists are really gullible and bought into it, hook, line and sinker.

Ok, so is it safe for me to ignore the arguments I've read that liberals changed "global warming" to "global climate change" because there is no evidence of warming and that polar ice is increasing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2018 at 8:47 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Your using theories to prove theories.  That's just sad.  Next, you'll be using your opinions as fact ... oh wait a minute, you're already doing that.  :th_wave:

I was 1 point below Einstein at one point in my life.  But I suspect I'm far below that now.  I don't read as much and my reading material is very selective.  For example, I am studying DNA/RNA at the moment, before that I was studying infectious diseases like Ebola and Hantavirus.  Before that, Jet and Sub Orbital Engines.  Before that Game Theory.  Most of these have nothing to do with my current work which is classified.

So, what is your challenge to the conservation of information principle?

I am not sure you showed that to us. I hope it is not classified :)

:) siegi :)

 

Edited by siegi91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2018 at 9:59 PM, siegi91 said:

First off, information is physical. Yes, I was also surprised. Information looks like something very abstract that cannot be really grasped. But it is physical. It can be measured in bits, or energy/temperature units if we want.

No, Siegi information is not physical. What is measurable is not the information but the medium upon which information is stored/represented. If Beethoven's fifth symphony is stored (i.e. represented) on a hard-drive it can be measured in bits, if it is played on a piano it can be measured as sound waves, if it is stored on a cassette tape it can be measured as magnetic nodes, if it is written on paper with ink it can be stored as music notation, but none of those mediums ARE the information, they're merely mediums storing a tokenized version of the information. One cannot ask how magnetic Beethoven's 5th Symphony is, because it's not the information that's magnetic but a certain storage medium. etc.

In short then, it seems you're conflating the message with the medium.

Quote

Which is cool. That entails that me writing this post was in principle deducible from the status of the Universe millions of years before my existence. 

This would be true only in a fully deterministic worldview. The problem is that you expect to be paid for the novel work that you do, likewise inventors and artists don't credit the universe (or cause-effect) for the intellectual property they produce, because they know that they, as individual minds, have produced something and that they deserve some credit for it. This is why it's so absurd that Stephen Hawking can in one book espouse determinism and yet miss the irony of then expecting royalties for selling that book.

If the universe is deterministic, are people responsible for anything they do?

 

Edited by LuftWaffle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2018 at 1:16 AM, siegi91 said:

Well, the scientific explanation does not say anything like that. It says that we and chimps split from  a common ancestor about 6 millions years ago.

It also says that we and pigs, rats, carrots, fungi and tree derive from a common ancestor. 

By the way, 99% of all species that walked the earth are now extinct. Would you qualify that as natural order?

Gruss

:) siegi :)

 

Curious, where is your evidence that science says we had a common ancestor with other animals. The fact is that our DNA differs, the theory is that once we had a common ancestor.

 

The evidence required should be

A) in the fossil record:  but there are too many missing links and no convincing fossil trail for any given species to conclude anything other than a bit of adaptation within a clade

B) in the observation of mutation in the DNA, the duplication of a gene that leads to a new function. This hasn't been convincingly observed yet.

 

Surely without either evidence , it is a mere theory?  I am still searching for actual evidence of evolution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

A) in the fossil record:  but there are too many missing links and no convincing fossil trail for any given species to conclude anything other than a bit of adaptation within a clade

It is absolutely true that there are missing links in the fossil record -- a great number of them! However, a majority of experts agree that a really good set of fossils exist that exhibit whale evolution. What do you think of that particular example? You can read more here:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

4 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

B) in the observation of mutation in the DNA, the duplication of a gene that leads to a new function. This hasn't been convincingly observed yet.

A couple of examples I can think of regarding duplication and functional divergence include globin genes and opsin genes. Globin genes, responsible for oxygen transport in our red blood cells, are found in two separate clusters on two different chromosomes. Additionally, the different genes are expressed at different times during development and anemia may result if the wrong version is expressed at the wrong time. The opsin genes are essential for response to light in the rod and cone cells of the retina. The rods (that help with low-light vision) express one version of the opsin gene, and the red-receiving, blue-receiving, and green-receiving cones all have different versions of the opsin gene. Are you looking for an example with a much greater function difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...