Why do creationists redefine and/or make up words out-of-context?

[essentialsaltes]

Are there living organisms that aren't part of a species ? What possible difference doe it make, other than an opportunity for you to be a smarta*s ?

Because saying 'living organisms came into existence' sounds like they poofed into existence. When, in fact, what is meant is that they descended from their ancestors.

Denigration in any way possible is a favorite tool of evolutionists with those who disagree with them, isn't it ?

I find that it was you who were insulting me by calling me a... um... smartie-pants. I was correcting your misunderstanding about the paper you were citing. The emergence of new species is not a problem for evolution; as I pointed out, that is one of the things Darwin was attempting to explain (and his explanation has stood the test of time and the slings of his detractors).

 

[Clint Edwards]

Because saying 'living organisms came into existence' sounds like they poofed into existence. When, in fact, what is meant is that they descended from their ancestors.



I find that it was you who were insulting me by calling me a... um... smartie-pants. I was correcting your misunderstanding about the paper you were citing. The emergence of new species is not a problem for evolution; as I pointed out, that is one of the things Darwin was attempting to explain (and his explanation has stood the test of time and the slings of his detractors).

If you would have said organisms wasn write, I would have agreed, and said thank you, I accidentally left out SPECIES OF (organisms). I didn´t have a misunderstanding of the paper, I read, I made an error in typing. Your comments about St Charlie and his book clearly demonstrate what your purpose was.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If you would have said organisms wasn write, I would have agreed, and said thank you, I accidentally left out SPECIES OF (organisms). I didn´t have a misunderstanding of the paper, I read, I made an error in typing. Your comments about St Charlie and his book clearly demonstrate what your purpose was.

Is the Human Evolution study the one that you say you read and that you say "has concluded that all taxa extremely quickly came unto existence at about the same time. Further, they concluded that the genetic record does not support the "millions and millions of years" concept of evolution."

If so, could you point out where they refer to 'all taxa' or the genetic record not supporting millions of years of evolution?

 

[HitchSlap]

Your comments about St Charlie and his book clearly demonstrate what your purpose was.

 

[pitabread]

I read the paper in "human evolution". in it, the authors state that A) 90% of all living organisms came into existence in the last 500,000 years.

Oh boy, that's not what it says either.

Here is the article: https://phe.rockefeller.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stoeckle-Thaler-Final-reduced.pdf

What it actually suggests is this:

Similar neutral variation of humans and other animals implies that the extant populations of most animal species have, like modern humans, recently passed through mitochondrial uniformity.
​

First of all, they looked at animals specifically not all forms of life. Second, what they are suggesting points to some sort of bottleneck that may have occurred within the last couple hundred thousand years. It does not mean either that all taxa and/or even 90% of animal species came into existence in that time. At best, it suggests a genetic bottleneck of some kind that occurred in populations, and the paper gives various examples of types of bottlenecks that occur.

Nothing in that paper invalidates anything else we already know about origins of various taxa throughout the Earth's history nor the common ancestry of existing species with one another.

With the deepest respect, your knowledge of genetic information is lacking. Further I wasn't talking about evolution, I was talking about abiogenesis.

Regardless, it's neither here nor there.

First, if you want to make any kind of argument regarding genetic (e.g. DNA/RNA) "information" you first need a concrete, demonstrable definition of information as it pertains to genetics. And this will presumably include a quantifier (i.e. a unit measure) by which information can be measured.

Second, insofar as the "origin" of information in the genome (as per measurements re: information theory), it could be a case of an emergent property of DNA/RNA itself. We already know that chemical compounds can yield emergent properties not explicitly defined in their constituents. And life itself is just complicated chemistry at its core.

I realize that may not be the most satisfying answer, but it could very well be there is no deep mystery to solve. The "information" that we perceive in DNA and RNA may be nothing more than a property of the particular compounds in question.

 

[pitabread]

I believe that should be species. Interestingly, a guy once wrote a book on the origin of species.

It's not even species. At best it points to a genetic bottleneck via a most recent common ancestor (MRCA), but that isn't the same thing as the emergence of a species itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep, one of the most important ideas of modern history. And I have read it. Have you?

No.

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean like Erlich and his fellow scientific travelers did in the 70's ? It appears the world didn't starve to death years ago as their grandiose theory predicted.

If everything science predicted would have come true, we wouldn't be here today.

 

[HitchSlap]

No.

Kinda' takes you out of the running, then.

 

[HitchSlap]

If everything science predicted would have come true, we wouldn't be here today.

Who is this "science" guy? I'd like to meet him.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If everything science predicted would have come true, we wouldn't be here today.

How much more so does that apply to religiously affiliated predictions?

 

[Clint Edwards]

Oh boy, that's not what it says either.

Here is the article: https://phe.rockefeller.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stoeckle-Thaler-Final-reduced.pdf

What it actually suggests is this:

Similar neutral variation of humans and other animals implies that the extant populations of most animal species have, like modern humans, recently passed through mitochondrial uniformity.
​

First of all, they looked at animals specifically not all forms of life. Second, what they are suggesting points to some sort of bottleneck that may have occurred within the last couple hundred thousand years. It does not mean either that all taxa and/or even 90% of animal species came into existence in that time. At best, it suggests a genetic bottleneck of some kind that occurred in populations, and the paper gives various examples of types of bottlenecks that occur.

Nothing in that paper invalidates anything else we already know about origins of various taxa throughout the Earth's history nor the common ancestry of existing species with one another.



Regardless, it's neither here nor there.

First, if you want to make any kind of argument regarding genetic (e.g. DNA/RNA) "information" you first need a concrete, demonstrable definition of information as it pertains to genetics. And this will presumably include a quantifier (i.e. a unit measure) by which information can be measured.

Second, insofar as the "origin" of information in the genome (as per measurements re: information theory), it could be a case of an emergent property of DNA/RNA itself. We already know that chemical compounds can yield emergent properties not explicitly defined in their constituents. And life itself is just complicated chemistry at its core.

I realize that may not be the most satisfying answer, but it could very well be there is no deep mystery to solve. The "information" that we perceive in DNA and RNA may be nothing more than a property of the particular compounds in question.

No, that cannot be the case, because genetic related information is defined as something that leads to an action of two or more possibilities. DNA and RNA cannot be the result solely of chemical reactions because chemical reactions themselves do not contain information. Even if they did, and could randomly create bits of information, this doesn´t address the issue of these thousands of bits randomly ordering themselves in a perfect chain to operate a cell that could not have existed without the cell reading the DNA in the first place. You glossed over the fact that the study in question shows not genetic intermediary connections between species.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, that cannot be the case, because genetic related information is defined as something that leads to an action of two or more possibilities.

That's an incorrect definition. Genes are defined as the segments of DNA that signal the generation of 1 or more protein/s. If I take genetic to refer to the entire genome, it just means the complete set of genes.

DNA and RNA cannot be the result solely of chemical reactions because chemical reactions themselves do not contain information.

-_- we can literally watch them form as the result of chemical reactions. DNA and RNA aren't even close to the largest or most complex molecules that can form as the result of chemical reactions that aren't artificial. This sounds like you are making an argument from incredulity.

Even if they did, and could randomly create bits of information,

Given that RNA shorter than 10 base pairs can have a function, I would say that even at random, the formation of functional RNA would be an inevitability in an environment in which RNA can form.

this doesn´t address the issue of these thousands of bits randomly ordering themselves in a perfect chain

It's not perfect, the process screws up so much that DNA contains tons of sequences that only exist to try to compensate for when it does or fix the problems. And even with those, it still messes up, like typos that pass by hundreds of proof readers because none of them were paying that close of attention.

to operate a cell that could not have existed without the cell reading the DNA in the first place.

Protocells are lipid bubbles that form around RNA, which can replicate itself in addition to performing other functions. This was witnessed in an abiogenesis experiment run by Jack Szostak in 2013. Also, the cells on the whole don't read the DNA. RNA does the bulk of the work even in modern cells, and it has been solidly demonstrated to naturally form outside of cells in the right conditions... which happen to match up with models of early Earth conditions.

 

[essentialsaltes]

No, that cannot be the case, because genetic related information is defined as something that leads to an action of two or more possibilities.

Where did you dig up that definition?

 

[Brightmoon]

As soon as any person is personally antagonistic even on the level of saying "that's basic knowledge anyone can learn in grade school" etc., then you instantly can know they are like a bad tree making bad fruit, and then all you should do is be kind and say something friendly like "have a good day" and let go of that attempt to battle and spend your time better talking to someone else.

Or it’s pointing out that there’s something that you should have learned in grade school . And for some odd reason you didn’t. I remember I was in college before I figured out that America wasn’t really a democracy( its a republic) And I remember being shocked and a little annoyed that I hadn’t realized it earlier. I had certainly heard it. the pledge of allegiance mentions that America is a republic. But until that day it was just a couple of sentences I had mumbled out before starting my class work in elementary school.

 

[Halbhh]

Or it’s pointing out that there’s something that you should have learned in grade school . And for some odd reason you didn’t. I remember I was in college before I figured out that America wasn’t really a democracy( its a republic) And I remember being shocked and a little annoyed that I hadn’t realized it earlier. I had certainly heard it. the pledge of allegiance mentions that America is a republic. But until that day it was just a couple of sentences I had mumbled out before starting my class work in elementary school.

Ah, if you can gain the bits of useful information from the dross of those who are rude, great but one could instead go for good stuff like first rate science writing and best of all the pure joy we find when we start reading through entire books of God's Word. I don't feel I need any kind of rude discussions to reach the best possible things.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Once again, you are making ASS UMPTIONS that aren't warranted. Did I SAY that Darwins idea's are scientifically binding TODAY ? NO ! You just assumed it and stated it as fact.

Then why did you mention it?
You certainly refered to it as if it was supposed to have some impact on the argument.

Did I say that evolution study was locked into a a dogmatic set of "scriptures", NO ! You assumed I did to support your attempt to denigrate my knowledge and reasoning ability.

I based it on you refering to Darwin's supposed ideas concerning the origins of life and how it relates to evolution, as if Darwin is some kind of authority. As in: he said it, so it must be so.

I'm just informing you that this isn't the case at all.
If you didn't mean it like you said it - fine, I got no issue with that.

The point I made remains valid nonetheless. So I guess this means that you agree with my point. Then again, that makes me wonder once more why you even mentioned it at all.
If you agree that what Darwin said about it, isn't really relevant to the point - then why mention it?

A typical evolutionist tactic, plying the "I am superior, you are educationally and intellectually inferior" card.

If you wish to interpret it like that, then I can't stop you.
Based on what you said concerning evolution and the many rather basic things you got wrong in the process, I can only conclude that you don't know much about evolutionary biology or evolution in general. Pointing that out, isn't playing the "i am superior" card.

This tactic is apparent throughout your post. Evolutionists just love to attack those who disagree with them with subtle ad hominems. Destroy the persons credibility, the argument is de facto destroyed. It is all disingenuous tactical bulls**t.

I didn't use ad hominims. I took the mistakes you made, pointed them out and explained why you were mistaken. I very much focused on what you said as the subject of my responses.

I would suggest that unless you are a biologist, microbiologist, or bio chemist, my scientific knowledge is equal to your, so drop the "I am superior" crap.

I am a software engineer. My closest "professional/academic" encounter with evolutionary biology was when I worked on software that used genetic algoritms.

But credentials are not the issue here.
If you're wrong, you're wrong - no matter your acadamic background or lack thereof.

Yes, the terms I used were "made up", they were made up by a Russian atheist evolutionary biologist in a paper written in Germany in 1926. I am surprised that someone with your vast knowledge didn't know this.

1926, ha?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are there living organisms that aren't part of a species ? What possible difference doe it make, other than an opportunity for you to be a smarta*s ? Denigration in any way possible is a favorite tool of evolutionists with those who disagree with them, isn't it ?

 

[Clint Edwards]

Oh boy, that's not what it says either.

Here is the article: https://phe.rockefeller.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stoeckle-Thaler-Final-reduced.pdf

What it actually suggests is this:

Similar neutral variation of humans and other animals implies that the extant populations of most animal species have, like modern humans, recently passed through mitochondrial uniformity.
​

First of all, they looked at animals specifically not all forms of life. Second, what they are suggesting points to some sort of bottleneck that may have occurred within the last couple hundred thousand years. It does not mean either that all taxa and/or even 90% of animal species came into existence in that time. At best, it suggests a genetic bottleneck of some kind that occurred in populations, and the paper gives various examples of types of bottlenecks that occur.

Nothing in that paper invalidates anything else we already know about origins of various taxa throughout the Earth's history nor the common ancestry of existing species with one another.



Regardless, it's neither here nor there.

First, if you want to make any kind of argument regarding genetic (e.g. DNA/RNA) "information" you first need a concrete, demonstrable definition of information as it pertains to genetics. And this will presumably include a quantifier (i.e. a unit measure) by which information can be measured.

Second, insofar as the "origin" of information in the genome (as per measurements re: information theory), it could be a case of an emergent property of DNA/RNA itself. We already know that chemical compounds can yield emergent properties not explicitly defined in their constituents. And life itself is just complicated chemistry at its core.

I realize that may not be the most satisfying answer, but it could very well be there is no deep mystery to solve. The "information" that we perceive in DNA and RNA may be nothing more than a property of the particular compounds in question.

I believe we are talking past one another on the issue of "DNA information." To be exact, I am not speaking of the general definition of genetic information in a current living organism.

I am speaking of the information in DNA , "instructing" RNA to operate the processes of a living organism.

More specifically, I am speaking of the alleged random combination of unknown chemicals in an unknown environment, in unknown combinations, that combined in such a manner to create a living organism with all of the complicated detailed information to support and sustain that organism in healthy fashion.

Abiogenisis, in some ways akin to the ancient concept of spontaneous generation.

The question being, Where did the specific, detailed operation information come from previous to the creation of the alleged organism or at the exact time this alleged organism came alive ?

Does that make it clearer ?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Does that make it clearer ?

It's clearer that you are entirely changing the subject from the study that you brought up.