Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sour grapes.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.
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.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.
You have totally missed the point.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.
It demonstrates that there isn't a problem to address.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.
Then ask.Since your interpretations are frankly incomprehensible, one cannot differentiate whether you are being serious or joking.
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.Well they are genetic scientists, are you?
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.
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?Sour grapes.
Even some Christians have doubts about the miracles of the Gospels. But Jesus walking on water is a minor miracle.
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.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.
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.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.
Actually it is if done to excess.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.
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.Well they are genetic scientists, are you?
I'm not reading any apologists.... I'm reading what Sanford himself says.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.
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.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. How can the amount of genetic information in a pumpkin make a prince?If there's such a thing as this mysterious not increasable genetic information,
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?