Darwin - Half Right

[renniks]

You continue to regurgitate creationist apologetics. Genetic entropy and genetic information by Carter and Sanford are ill defined and they do not appear interested in engaging with their critics.

Here is a response by a critic:
Stern Cardinale: Response to Price, Carter, and Sanford on Genetic Entropy

Conclusion
The takeaway here is that this does not read like a serious attempt to engage with the specific, technical critiques of the genetic entropy hypothesis. If PCS were interested in this idea gaining widespread acceptance within the scientific community, the way to do that would be to engage with critics, and make a concerted effort to address their concerns. You can convince me I’m wrong by showing that my math is wrong, not by saying I haven’t thought this through and probably haven’t even read the book I’m critiquing.

But I suspect PCS are not interested in such conversations. I reached out to CMI to invite Mr. Price, Dr. Carter, and/or Dr. Sanford for a conversation about this response. I think face-to-face conversations are the most productive for things like this because we can clarify points of misunderstanding in the moment. None of the authors were interested in such a conversation, despite Mr. Price publicly debating this very topic on YouTube recently. I don’t know what to make of that accept that while PCS seem happy to promote their ideas to nonscientific audiences there seems to be a reluctance to engage with actual scientists in the relevant fields (or perhaps I should have invited the authors for a debate, instead). Of course, nobody is under any obligation to engage with anyone in any specific way, but if PCS ultimately want this idea taken seriously by scientists, they are making odd choices in terms of how they are going about it.​

Sour grapes.

 

[renniks]

Except that "genetic information" as used by Creationists is a meaningless term.

There is not objective method of measuring this information and no metric for it to be measured in.

If something can't be measured then it is impossible to tell if it has increased or not.

Which doesn't address the problem at all. And I'm talking about what a genetic scientist who has made advances in the field is saying, so calling him a "creationist" is rather demeaning, as if that's all he is.

 

[sjastro]

Well, that'll insure you won't grow in discernment, won't it?

Okay, let's try this:

Try asking the person who's making a claim you've never heard before if he is joking or not.

You know, investigate before you communicate?

Here's a thread I started that will help you: Setting the Record Straight

Note specifically Number Nine.

You have totally missed the point.
The harsh reality is you do not understand what the Bible is stating because you are too busy reading your prejudices into it.
Since your interpretations are frankly incomprehensible, one cannot differentiate whether you are being serious or joking.
With the poetic license you employ any random statement can be found in the Bible.

 

[Shemjaza]

Which doesn't address the problem at all. And I'm talking about what a genetic scientist who has made advances in the field is saying, so calling him a "creationist" is rather demeaning, as if that's all he is.

It demonstrates that there isn't a problem to address.

If there's such a thing as this mysterious not increasable genetic information, then must be measurable... if not then it's made up and pointless.

Unless you are lying about their position, no matter what genetic research they may have done... if they use nonsense arguments like "no new genetic information" then they are a creationist.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since your interpretations are frankly incomprehensible, one cannot differentiate whether you are being serious or joking.

Then ask.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Apolipoprotein A-1 Milano (also ETC-216, now MDCO-216) is a naturally occurring mutated variant of the apolipoprotein A1 protein found in human HDL, the lipoprotein particle that carries cholesterol from tissues to the liver and is associated with protection against cardiovascular disease. ApoA1 Milano was first identified by Dr. Cesare Sirtori in Milan, who also demonstrated that its presence significantly reduced cardiovascular disease, even though it caused a reduction in HDL levels and an increase in triglyceride levels.[1]

--

Using the typical scientific definitions of information, all mutations increase information.

A population pool with a particular DNA sequence that looks like:
same
same
same
same
same

has less information than a pool that looks like:
same
safe
samme
same
fame

 

[Frank Robert]

Well they are genetic scientists, are you?

That is so hilariously rich coming from you. You are the one repeats apologetic criticisms of evolutionary scientists beginning with Darwin and stretching to any scientist that your sources disagree with.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You continue to regurgitate creationist apologetics. Genetic entropy and genetic information by Carter and Sanford are ill defined and they do not appear interested in engaging with their critics.

Here is a response by a critic:
Stern Cardinale: Response to Price, Carter, and Sanford on Genetic Entropy

Conclusion
The takeaway here is that this does not read like a serious attempt to engage with the specific, technical critiques of the genetic entropy hypothesis. If PCS were interested in this idea gaining widespread acceptance within the scientific community, the way to do that would be to engage with critics, and make a concerted effort to address their concerns. You can convince me I’m wrong by showing that my math is wrong, not by saying I haven’t thought this through and probably haven’t even read the book I’m critiquing.

But I suspect PCS are not interested in such conversations. I reached out to CMI to invite Mr. Price, Dr. Carter, and/or Dr. Sanford for a conversation about this response. I think face-to-face conversations are the most productive for things like this because we can clarify points of misunderstanding in the moment. None of the authors were interested in such a conversation, despite Mr. Price publicly debating this very topic on YouTube recently. I don’t know what to make of that accept that while PCS seem happy to promote their ideas to nonscientific audiences there seems to be a reluctance to engage with actual scientists in the relevant fields (or perhaps I should have invited the authors for a debate, instead). Of course, nobody is under any obligation to engage with anyone in any specific way, but if PCS ultimately want this idea taken seriously by scientists, they are making odd choices in terms of how they are going about it.​

In further replies about this your interlocutor it was questioned whether you were a "genetic scientist" like these people, but that is frankly irrelevant.

As best I can tell "genetic entropy" is related to "information entropy" as part of an effort to apply "information theory" to genetics. I have yet to see any solid evidence that such efforts aren't at least tangentially driven by an anti-evolution motive.

The physical formulation of entropy can be applied to data and even be useful (for example, certain data compression algorithms perform differently depending on the entropy of the data set, but that DOES NOT mean information entropy can be used in some sort of analogy to thermodynamics. It really shouldn't be. I have a reasonable grasp of what physical entropy is. I even used "isentropic" in a sentence this week. Every time I see it in genetics I get queasy.

Thanks for this info, Frank.

 

[Frank Robert]

Sour grapes.

As usual you have backwards. Regardless what do you call scientists who will not interact with their critics to define and defend their hypotheses and mate?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Even some Christians have doubts about the miracles of the Gospels. But Jesus walking on water is a minor miracle.

Realizing that the Gospel miracles didn't have to be miracles helped break the spell of the NT as truthful information and hastened my exit.

(The walking on water is a minor miracle only because Lake Tiberias doesn't freeze over.)

 

[Frank Robert]

Which doesn't address the problem at all. And I'm talking about what a genetic scientist who has made advances in the field is saying, so calling him a "creationist" is rather demeaning, as if that's all he is.

You fail to understand that the people on here are quoting genetic experts who do not find Carter and Sanford hypotheses credible. Read what scientists are saying not apologists who criticize experts they don't agree with.

 

[Frank Robert]

In further replies about this your interlocutor it was questioned whether you were a "genetic scientist" like these people, but that is frankly irrelevant.

As best I can tell "genetic entropy" is related to "information entropy" as part of an effort to apply "information theory" to genetics. I have yet to see any solid evidence that such efforts aren't at least tangentially driven by an anti-evolution motive.

The physical formulation of entropy can be applied to data and even be useful (for example, certain data compression algorithms perform differently depending on the entropy of the data set, but that DOES NOT mean information entropy can be used in some sort of analogy to thermodynamics. It really shouldn't be. I have a reasonable grasp of what physical entropy is. I even used "isentropic" in a sentence this week. Every time I see it in genetics I get queasy.

Thanks for this info, Frank.

As I understand it, the main problem with "genetic information" is that it has not been defined in a way that it can be scientifically measured.

Sanford does not appear to know what "information" is
A review of John Sanford's "Genetic Entropy"

Sanford makes a big deal about "information". The "news flash" in chapter 2 is "Random mutations consistently destroy information." And yet, he never defines information in the body of the book. He seems to assume that the reader already knows, and I suspect most of Sanford's readers assume the same thing.

The book has a glossary, and this is how it defines "information":

The most useful definition of this word is its plain and ordinary sense – information is “that which is communicated through language”. Biological information takes on many forms, due to the labyrinth of communication networks which enable life.​

​

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can understand why they wouldn't believe it, if they thought like you do.

Cleaning up after yourself is not the same thing as "hiding the flood and planting false evidence."

Don't get me wrong, a thief might clean up after himself, so he won't get caught.

Like wiping fingerprints off of a doorknob.

But on the other hand, a thief wouldn't leave a note detailing what he did, when he did it, how he did it, what order he did it in, how long it took him to do it, and who the eyewitnesses were by name.

Actually it is if done to excess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well they are genetic scientists, are you?

They are scientists that work with DNA at times. That does not make them "genetic scientists". And in this case they are not doing "science". Sanford's work is largely rejected because he could not put it into proper scientific form. He could not define his terms and he could not come up with a proper testable hypothesis. That means the he has no evidence for his beliefs. To be able to claim to do science one needs to follow the scientific method. Sanford did not do so when he came up with "genetic entropy". It is sciency, not scientific. That means that he will only fool lay people and not scientists.

 

[renniks]

That is so hilariously rich coming from you. You are the one repeats apologetic criticisms of evolutionary scientists beginning with Darwin and stretching to any scientist that your sources disagree with.

Nice avoidance.

 

[renniks]

You fail to understand that the people on here are quoting genetic experts who do not find Carter and Sanford hypotheses credible. Read what scientists are saying not apologists who criticize experts they don't agree with.

I'm not reading any apologists.... I'm reading what Sanford himself says.


Biography:

As a Cornell University professor, John conducted genetic research for over 30 years. This research has resulted in more than 100 scientific publications and several dozen patents. In addition to producing numerous new crop varieties, John's research resulted in new genetic engineering technologies. A large fraction of the transgenic crops grown in the world today involved use of the biolistic “gene gun” process, of which John was the primary inventor.

If you don't have a similar resume, why should I listen to you?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So an argument from incredulity ('I can't see how it could have evolved so it couldn't have evolved') is all you have.

And there are beneficial mutations, if you simply look. An increased resistance to malaria in the population of Burkina Faso due to a mutation in the hemoglobin HbS is a brilliant example.

@renniks here's a beneficial mutation for you.

 

[renniks]

If there's such a thing as this mysterious not increasable genetic information,

Seems pretty straightforward to me. How can the amount of genetic information in a pumpkin make a prince?
Or how can the amount of genetic information in a possum result in an elephant, no matter how many billion years you throw in there?
It's like trying to get a Boeing 747 out of a unicycle.

 

[renniks]

@renniks here's a beneficial mutation for you.

Wow, and that some how gets us from a one celled organism to the variety of life we have now? Because bacteria can resist antibiotics or similar small changes?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Wow, and that some how gets us from a one celled organism to the variety of life we have now? Because bacteria can resist antibiotics or similar small changes?

I have a very sneaking suspicion that you are being very deliberately obtuse about the whole thing.

Also, just because you can claim that evolution doesn't work, that does not mean that creation via God is automatically correct.