|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4887 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Reproductive Cost problem more devastating than ever | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4887 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
A couple weeks ago Huxter (Scott Page) posted the article "Positive and Negative Selection on the Human Genome" (Justin C. Fay,* Gerald J. Wyckoff* ,1 and Chung-I Wu*. Genetics 158, 1227-1234. 2001), claiming it refuted 'Haldane's Dilemma'. This claim is false, and I have addressed why here:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/page_refutation.htm The key point here is that Huxter's citation actually makes the reproductive cost problem *worse* for those who insist on believing the ape/man ancestry fairytale. Are there any evolutionists here who believe that our ape/man lineage was able to produce 60 offspring per breeding couple? If you have enought sense to recognize this is false, why do you persist in your fairytale?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
I haven't had time to read through your latest yet, Fred. Will it be appearing in Genetics as a rebuttal? What did the editors say when you submitted this?
Cheers,Larry
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Glad you're back, Fred, please can you now answer this old post (slight adjustments), where we left it.
quote: No, I don’t deny it, I made the point in the first place.
quote: The ribosome is not a transmission, it is the product of a transmission. Good point, I should have chosen my words more carefully. I’ll try again. Are there any natural or non-natural examples where the product of a transmission is received by, & decoded by the same transmission product, not involving genetic material?
quote: I know I’m being pedantic, but this definition doesn’t apply to anything other than codons/DNA.
quote: I don’t need to understand all information theory, I’m just after a definition of new information. I’ve checked your links, although interesting, don’t answer my question. This conversation can’t really progress unless we have an absolute definition of what new information actually is. The links you provided don’t even define information, except in a contextual way, let alone new information. Are you really telling me that a single, all encompassing definition of new information doesn’t exist? Or even information, I understand that there are levels of information, but it is still information. Such a definition may have to be general, but can still be accurate. After all, life exists as a single cell bacteria to a blue whale, but life can still be defined in a paragraph. Electrons can be accurately described in such a way that is contemporaneous to the Bohr level, & quantum physical level. Why not "new information"? An absolute definition, that pervades all levels of information would include, how I would recieve new information by Morse code, English text, language, pictures, etc, etc...... Lastly, if I leave my house, open the front gate, & there is a pattern of twigs on the floor that say EAT, I then dutifully carry out this instruction by going inside & fixing a sandwich. How is this not message/information? So, please define new information. Thanks, Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 02-08-2002] [This message has been edited by mark24, 02-08-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
Hm... I really need to read my Biology Book some time... Till then, I'll be wishing I could join it for a more intellent converstaion than me asking you to emphesise including definitions of words or something as insignificant for a discussion as that . I'll hup to it!
------------------------Always On the Ball-- ----=TrueCreation=---- ---------------------- [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-09-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Fred's stupidity is all that is presented here, and doubtless, Fred will not be back here to defend his claims, so don't waste your time. I have emailed the authors of the papers - the ones Fred accuses of 'misleading' readers and such - and am waiting to hear back from them before I present my refutation of Williams' ignorance-based verbal vomit. HINT:I don't think Williams has ever even seen Haldane's paper, much less understands Haldane's model. He certainly fails to grasp simple concepts and, as always, as the undereducated creationist is wont to do - simply casts aspersions and constructs illusory facades to prop up his imaginary evolution-disproving 'intellect.' He is a pathetic propagandist, and his unethical tactics should be an embarrassmnent to all real Christians that hold virtue and integrity in esteem. Scott L. Page, PhD. [This message has been edited by SLP, 02-09-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7914 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
quote: yeah and your the typical egotistical evolutionist that no matter what thinks he is right and has the right to judge others and declare himself better for having devoted himself to a theory without enough evidence to suffienctly satisfy anyone that it is true. ------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
Given Scott and Fred have been having this debate, do you have something substantive to add or not? If not, why don't you save the bandwidth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7914 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
why dont you?
------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
I have. I believe I was the first to respond to Fred. Now, what is your opinion regarding Haldane's dilemna? Either join the discussion which has a history or don't post to it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
KP - I note that you have just posted to 5 diferent topics in a 6 minute span. This would seem to indicate that you are not putting much thought into your responses.
Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Ignoring for now the erroneous conclusions of Williams, in light of Williams' recent embarrassing admission regarding elementary statistics, there is yet another reason to ignore this bilge. We shall recall that Williams has claimed that a 1 in 32 chance means that 31 trials will need to pass before hitting on "the one." With such a basic misunderstanding of simple statistics/probability, no wonder Williams thinks that "60 offspring" are required..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A_Christian Inactive Member |
SLPx:
I've never seen an ape conceive anything but an ape. Some are smartand some are dumb. Some are pretty and some are pretty ugly; however, they are ALWAYS a CHIMP off the old block. Hey, no 2 works of art are ever exactly alike-----are they?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I've never seen an ape conceive anything but an ape. Humans are apes, so what's your point? Anyway, speciation doesn't happen like that. A little research might behoove you before you present personal incredulity as some kind of logically valid argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4581 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
quote:You're right. It's called random mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Thread moved here from the The Great Debate forum.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024