Ring species

[RichardT]

considered from the point of view of information theory, a random sequence of letters possesses the maximum information content, whereas a text of equal length, although linguistically meaningful, is assigned a lower value.

Gitt is saying that just because genetic information contains more base pairs doesn't make it more meaningful. He's saying that the value of 4 base pairs could be greater than the value of 4000 base pairs, as long as the 4000 are nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

He's saying that the value of 4 base pairs could be greater than the value of 4000 base pairs, as long as the 4000 are nonsense.

[bible]1 Corinthians 14:19[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

If you think that's ludicrous, tell me what a kind actually is instead of 'god's taxon' which you left equally ambiguous.

q.v. last paragraph HERE

All God's taxon is is simply a list of all the plants and animals ever created.

 

[Vene]

That's nice. Not particularly informative, but nice. I'm more interesting in a kind actually. Do you deny or accept the thought that a kind could include all organisms? If you deny it, why?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

q.v. last paragraph HERE

All God's taxon is is simply a list of all the plants and animals ever created.

Then your taxon is simply the standard 'tree of life' with an arbitrary cut-off ~6000 years ago. If I understand you correctly, you are hypothesising that life looks as if it evolved as per the standard scientific account, but in fact it was Created, as is, ~6000 years ago with the appearance of common descent. Here, I made you a picture of how I envision your view of biology:

Time is verticle, genetic variation is horizontal. Each black line is one distinct species, and the red line represents the moment of Creation (~6000 years before today).
The solid lines represent evolution that we agree on (i.e., we agree that the two left-hand species were once one single species), and the broken lines represent evolution that we disagree on (i.e., we disagree on whether the two right-hand species just after the Creation event were once once species or not).

That is, the black lines represent the hypothesised evolution of present-day species (i.e., those at the top). The evidence suggests that they have a common ancestor (i.e., the single species at the abiogenesis event).

"God's taxon", then, would be the five species extant at the Creation event.

Now, if I have understood you correctly, you believe that "God's taxon" was created to look as if its members had a common ancestor.

Is this at all correct, or have I just wasted my time (and artistic talents )?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's nice. Not particularly informative, but nice. I'm more interesting in a kind actually. Do you deny or accept the thought that a kind could include all organisms? If you deny it, why?

I don't know what you mean by "all organisms," but to give you an example of what I mean ---

Let's say the Flood occurred today.

To preserve the canines, all you would have to do is take a coyote aboard the Ark.

The coyote, if my memory serves me correctly, is the animal at the top of the taxon for the wolf, domestic dog, dingo, and I think a couple of others.

If you were to err, and take a domestic dog by mistake, that would end it for ever seeing a coyote again; and the domestic dog would become the new entry at the top of the taxon.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is this at all correct, or have I just wasted my time (and artistic talents )?

Half-and-half.

Remember, I'm not a theistic evolutionist.

From your red line and upward is where the earth and universe came into existence - (in that order, btw).

I believe the term to describe what I believe is Punctuated Equilibrium.

The horse that exists today, for instance, had an ancestor that can be traced all the way back to a "common horse" within its genera.

Same for any animal today, and some of those lines, as you're tracing them back, would include such animals as the satyr, unicorn, behemoth, four-legged grasshoppers, hares that chew their cud, etc.

 

[Vene]

I don't know what you mean by "all organisms," but to give you an example of what I mean ---

Let's say the Flood occurred today.

To preserve the canines, all you would have to do is take a coyote aboard the Ark.

The coyote, if my memory serves me correctly, is the animal at the top of the taxon for the wolf, domestic dog, dingo, and I think a couple of others.

If you were to err, and take a domestic dog by mistake, that would end it for ever seeing a coyote again; and the domestic dog would become the new entry at the top of the taxon.

So, you mean common ancestry? In that case would it be incorrect to use the first organism that came into existence and say that since all other species came from it that all living things (organisms) belong to the same kind?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, you mean common ancestry? In that case would it be incorrect to use the first organism that came into existence and say that since all other species came from it that all living things (organisms) belong to the same kind?

The very first "organism" that came into existence (animal-wise), according to the Bible, was a whale.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Half-and-half.

Remember, I'm not a theistic evolutionist.

Depends. What do you mean by 'theistic evolutionist'? Normally I'd leave this be, but you recently classed everyone as a Creationist, so...

From your red line and upward is where the earth and universe came into existence - (in that order, btw).

I believe the term to describe what I believe is Punctuated Equilibrium.

The horse that exists today, for instance, had an ancestor that can be traced all the way back to a "common horse" within its genera.

Same for any animal today, and some of those lines, as you're tracing them back, would include such animals as the satyr, unicorn, behemoth, four-legged grasshoppers, hares that chew their cud, etc.

But do you agree that God's taxon was created in such a way as to look as if its members had a common ancestor?

The very first "organism" that came into existence (animal-wise), according to the Bible, was a whale.

Really? I wonder if God used an improbability drive

 

[Vene]

The very first "organism" that came into existence (animal-wise), according to the Bible, was a whale.

So, then I guess that the whale is at the top of God's Taxon. And why did you put quotation marks around organism?

 

[Vene]

I ask again, what is a kind? How do we know the boundaries that Jehovah/Yahweh set up so we can tell the difference between microevolution and macroevolution?

 

[Patashu]

That's actually true; the information content of a string is defined as the minimum amount of bits required to uniquely describe it. A random string is harder to define than an an ordered string or an English sentence and so it contains more information.

It's counterintuitive, but there is no metric for 'meaning'.

 

[Aggie]

That's actually true; the information content of a string is defined as the minimum amount of bits required to uniquely describe it. A random string is harder to define than an an ordered string or an English sentence and so it contains more information.

It's counterintuitive, but there is no metric for 'meaning'.

Caravelair’s essay here includes the definition of information used by one creationist who’s made the “mutations can’t increase information” argument:

Dr. Lee Spetner has been more cooperative than other creationists in defining information. In an online exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max, Spetner says “I thought it rather obvious that a mutation that destroys the functionality of a gene (such as a repressor gene) is a loss of information. I also thought it rather obvious that a mutation that reduces the specificity of an enzyme is also a loss of information.” This gives us an idea of what is considered to be a gain of information. If the loss of gene functionality is a loss of information, surely gaining a new functional gene would be a gain of information.

Of course, using Lee Spetner’s definition, the argument that mutations can’t increase information is wrong. There are several known mutations that give genes functions they didn’t have before, some of which are listed in that essay.

I’ve also seen at least one creationist give a definition of “kind” that doesn’t depend on an undefined term such as “God’s taxon”. The definition was something like “A group of organisms that have the same body plan and all of the same organs, all of which serve the same functions as those of its ancestral group, or fewer functions.” So in other words, a new species within a “kind” could lose a function of one of its organs and still be considered the same “kind”, but it couldn’t evolve a new function of one of its organs, or an entirely new organ.

Is anyone aware of any observed examples of evolution occurring in the present that would produce a new “kind” according to this definition?

 

[NailsII]

The horse that exists today, for instance, had an ancestor that can be traced all the way back to a "common horse" within its genera.

Same for any animal today, and some of those lines, as you're tracing them back, would include such animals as the satyr, unicorn, behemoth, four-legged grasshoppers, hares that chew their cud, etc.

Are you for real?
unicorns?
* shakes hs head *
No wonder the muslims believe in a bloody flying horse.

 

[Split Rock]

The very first "organism" that came into existence (animal-wise), according to the Bible, was a whale.

How do you know God only created one whale "kind?" The KJV Bible says: " And God created great whales." Maybe He created several different whale "kinds." You don't even know how many He created.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know God only created one whale "kind?" The KJV Bible says: " And God created great whales." Maybe He created several different whale "kinds." You don't even know how many He created.

I think He did too --- either way, the first animal on the earth - (or in it, however you look at it) - was a whale.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Same for any animal today, and some of those lines, as you're tracing them back, would include such animals as the satyr, unicorn, behemoth, four-legged grasshoppers, hares that chew their cud, etc.

so every animal that existed only in mythology was there on creation week? i get it. why dont we have their fossils? wouldnt the flood have fossilized them?

 

[AV1611VET]

why dont we have their fossils? wouldnt the flood have fossilized them?

It would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

There's more of a chance in finding an ante-diluvian skeleton than there is finding an ante-diluvian unicorn.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

It would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

There's more of a chance in finding an ante-diluvian skeleton than there is finding an ante-diluvian unicorn.

"no evidence" is a shield of paper not bronze. on the one hand no once can disprove the existance of such creatures but without evidence there is no reason to accept their existence. no evidence means your claim is the result of speculation on your part or from wherever you got your idea from.