Winter Wheat Video Lecture

[renniks]

Apologetics. Information Theory is a mathematical way of characterizing patterns in nature. Any argument against evolution based on Information Theory which doesn't have any math in it is bootless.

Oh, he has lots of math. Read his book.

 

[renniks]

The way serious looking people can talk such
drivel is a mzrvel of nature.

The man is a genetic scientist. Are you?

"His Ph.D. was in plant breeding and plant genetics. While a professor at Cornell, "John has trained graduate students and conducted genetic research at the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station in Geneva, NY. During this time, John bred new crop varieties using conventional breeding and then became heavily involved in the newly-emerging field of plant genetic engineering. John has published over 80 scientific publications and has been granted over 30 patents. His most significant scientific contributions involve three inventions, the biolistic (“gene gun”) process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization. A large fraction of the transgenic crops (in terms of numbers and acreage) grown in the world today were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by John and his collaborators. John also started two biotech enterprises derived from his research, Biolistics, Inc., and Sanford Scientific, Inc. John still holds a position at Cornell (Courtesy Associate Professor)",

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Oh, he has lots of math. Read his book.

If Sanford were right there would be no bacteria since they would have long since mutated out of existence. Instead we have more and more antibiotic resistant bacteria.

 

[renniks]

If Sanford were right there would be no bacteria since they would have long since mutated out of existence. Instead we have more and more antibiotic resistant bacteria.

But perhaps we also have a much smaller time span when bacteria has existed.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

But perhaps we also have a much smaller time span when bacteria has existed.

Now you are just being silly, especially as one who thinks that all living organisms were created in one week. LOL

 

[Hans Blaster]

The diverse plants were there from the start. Algae didn't evolve into redwood trees.

Redwood trees (and other conifers) do not appear in the earliest strata that contain life do not contain conifers. They only appear in the Late Carboniferous era.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh, he has lots of math. Read his book.

In that video he quotes sources giving values of a few to 5 to 10% "decay" (don't remember the exact phrasing) of the human genetic "data" per generation. If it were 10% "decay" then we'd have fallen to pieces genetically since the founding of the US; if 5% since the "discovery" of the Americas; if 2% since the life of Jesus. These numbers either are wrong, or they are not quite the "decay" being claimed as so deleterious in that video.

 

[renniks]

In that video he quotes sources giving values of a few to 5 to 10% "decay" (don't remember the exact phrasing) of the human genetic "data" per generation. If it were 10% "decay" then we'd have fallen to pieces genetically since the founding of the US; if 5% since the "discovery" of the Americas; if 2% since the life of Jesus. These numbers either are wrong, or they are not quite the "decay" being claimed as so deleterious in that video.

Seems like you are assuming uniformity. I could check the book assuming I can find it somewhere in my stacks of books.

 

[Astrid]

Now you are just being silly, especially as one who thinks that all living organisms were created in one week. LOL

tough to parody creationism

 

[Astrid]

Seems like you are assuming uniformity. I could check the book assuming I can find it somewhere in my stacks of books.

Assuming variable speed of light and radioactive decay is vital
to creationism

 

[Hans Blaster]

Seems like you are assuming uniformity. I could check the book assuming I can find it somewhere in my stacks of books.

He seems to be making that assumption (genetic decay is uniform, or nearly so) as part of *his* argument against the build up of genetic information. He scoffs at the notion that the (modern) decay is a reversal of earlier build up, implying strongly that he views genetic decay as a permanent property of living beings. (It also follows the "fallen world" notion that I see *so* often here.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Seems like you are assuming uniformity. I could check the book assuming I can find it somewhere in my stacks of books.

Reminds me of this post:

Post 132

 

[Speedwell]

Oh, he has lots of math. Read his book.

I may, but why can't you present the argument for yourself?

 

[Astrid]

I may, but why can't you present the argument for yourself?

In general the reason for won't is can't

 

[renniks]

I may, but why can't you present the argument for yourself?

Because I don't have the math in front of me. Besides, you get the basic idea. I'm more inclined to believe he has it right than random internet people.

 

[Speedwell]

Because I don't have the math in front of me. Besides, you get the basic idea. I'm more inclined to believe he has it right than random internet people.

Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. If you are not going to defend or even discuss the man's position here then I need not consider it here.

 

[Astrid]

Because I don't have the math in front of me. Besides, you get the basic idea. I'm more inclined to believe he has it right than random internet people.

Random internet people who've demonstrated no particular
competence of their own, citing some unknown " authority"
whose work they cannot explain ....they just might be right but
the probability doesn't invite any attention or respect.

As an argument it's a total fail.

In case you didn't know.

 

[renniks]

Random internet people who've demonstrated no particular
competence of their own, citing some unknown " authority"
whose work they cannot explain ....they just might be right but
the probability doesn't invite any attention or respect.

As an argument it's a total fail.

In case you didn't know.

As opposed to the random internet people supporting evolution by claiming that humans breeding plants proves we all evolved from nothing...Lol.

 

[renniks]

Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. If you are not going to defend or even discuss the man's position here then I need not consider it here.

It's Genetic entropy. Self-explanatory. If you believe he's wrong, prove to me that we are not degrading genetically.

 

[AV1611VET]

Random internet people who've demonstrated no particular
competence of their own, citing some unknown " authority"
whose work they cannot explain ....they just might be right but
the probability doesn't invite any attention or respect.

As an argument it's a total fail.

In case you didn't know.

Translation: the wrapping is more important than the gift.