Evolution: theory for the weak-minded?

---

Mr BLonDe writes:
Yes, but you must remember I am a young earth creationist, so 50,000 years is way beyond 6 - 10 thousand years .

---

If your claim of familiarity with the debate is true, then you're aware that the age of the earth has been dated to around 4.56 billion years old, and that no one on the evolution side believes the earth is so young that it can be dated with C-14 techniques.

---

Percy writes:
Now that you've clarified I'd say that your particular variation seems a bit contradictory since you allow that information can increase but not complexity. How do you reconcile this seeming contradiction?

---

---

Mr BLonDe replies:
What contradiction? I am perfectly aware that it is possible to happen, but I just don't think you're ever going to see a case in nature, in which a mutation adds complexity to the mutant

---

You don't think increasing information and increasing complexity go hand-in-hand? How do you add a book to a library without making it more complex? It requires more shelf space, more room in the card catalog, it's one more book to be checked out and checked in, it contains, possibly, information not previously present in the library.

---

Percy writes:
It proposes two methods by which bacteria may have gained the ability to digest nylon. One of these methods is gene transfer, a form of mutation. The bacterial recipient of the transfer has gained information, ie, complexity.

---

---

Mr BLonDe replies:
But, the information was already present for the recipient to gain.

---

I think you're confusing the creation of new information with the transfer of information. AIG was citing an example of the transfer of information by moving a gene from one cell to another. The cell receiving the gene has gained information and complexity.Think of it this way. Say you read a book and learn something. The information already existed, but now it exists not only within the book but also within your own mind. Now you know it, too. You have gained information. You know more than you did before. You're now a more complex individual.

---

However, it is a common argument among creationists (including myself), that we have no clear-cut evidence of uphill evolution among life on earth. In fact, we argue, things are quite opposite.

---

The direction of evolution is toward improved fitness, not "uphill", whatever that is. Improved fitness could mean being faster, slower, bigger, smaller, smarter, dumber. It could mean gaining eyesight, or losing it (cave fish). It could mean gaining legs, or losing them (whales and some snake-like lizards). Whatever contributes to survival and the passing on of genes to the next generation, that's what evolution chooses. There is no "uphill".That being said, one very important reason why evolution gives the appearance of uphill progress is because of what is often referred to as the arms race. The cheetah evolves greater speed to chase down the gazelle, so the gazelle evolves greater speed and maneuverability to evade the faster cheetah, so the cheetah evolves even greater speed, and so on and so on over the generations. The eagle evolves better eyesight to discern prey on the ground, so they prey evolves better camouflage and evasive techniques (speed, maneuverability, burrows), so the eagle evolves even better eyesight and faster attack capability, and so on and so on.

---

A scientific or religious response was not specified at the time of my reply.

---

I was only asking if you thought you were doing science or religion. This debate is only of interest if you think your religious beliefs should be taught in science class.

---

Again, can you please give me some information as to why you think it is, without doubt, true that those layers represent millions of accumulated years?

---

Nothing in science is "without doubt." That's the principle of tentativity. But the evidence extremely strongly supports an age of the earth of 4.56 billion years.

---

Argon dating link: ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR POTASSIUM-ARGON | The Institute for Creation Research

---

I think you might want to take the plunge and try to understand K/Ar dating for yourself, instead of just posting links. Snelling's work supports an old earth, by the way. He dates young lava flows, less than a thousand years or so, using K/Ar dating, which only applies for lava flows older than millions of years. All he's doing is finding that when the argon is swept from hot lava before it solidifies that some small percentage is always left behind. If you look at his table you'll see that the residual amount of argon can yield a date of a few million years on a lava flow that is only decades old.So if a lava flow from 100 million years ago had residual argon in the amount of, say, 2 million years, that means the lava flow is still 98 million years old, which kind of shoots down the YEC position. Plus modern techniques know how to exclude the original argon, so we'd measure it as 98 million years old anyway. Plus K/Ar dating is only one of many techniques. The Rb/Sr was one of the first isochron techniques which made it possible to determine whether a rock was undatable due to contamination after original formation, and now there are a variety of improved techniques.Here's a table from Brent Dalrymple's book The Age of the Earth on the ages of ancient rocks in Greenland. Notice the variety of dating techniques that have all arrived at similar dates, and are all much older than 10,000 years:http://www.evcforum.net/DataDropsite/greenland_dates.jpgHere's another table for the ages of lunar rocks:http://www.evcforum.net/DataDropsite/lunar_dating_1.jpg http://www.evcforum.net/DataDropsite/lunar_dating_2.jpgNotice the consistency among the dates, the number of samples, the number of different dating techniques, and that the ages are all in billions of years.

---

Do you think it was inevetable? For a cell to pop into existance?

---

You were replying to Dr_Tazimus_maximus, but if I could step in since I addressed the same topic, no one thinks the first cell just "popped" into existence. It had to come about naturally and gradually following the laws of physics and chemistry, which is what I think Dr_Tazimus_maximus was saying.

---

no2creation writes:
Also, where can I find evidence of this human degeneration?

---

---

Mr BLonDe replies:
First, show me some evidence of uphill evolution.

---

As already explained, there is no such thing as "uphill evolution". The question remains, what leads you to believe only in evolution through genetic degeneration?--Percy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr BLonDe:
I didn't deny the existance of benefitial mutations, only the ones in which new complexities arise. (BTW, not having teeth is a bad example, your loosing a complexity - a tooth) We'll get into this later..[/B][/QUOTE]From this argument, if having fewer teeth is 'loosing a complexity' (sic) then it would follow that having more teeth would be gaining complexity.By a simple logical hop, it follows that people with a genetic trait that gave them fewer fingers would have lost complexity, and those with more fingers would have gained complexity.At this point I pass you over to these nice people: http://www.natmedmuse.afip.org/explore/anatifacts/3_poly.html

quote:

---

C.) Old Earth - I can't help but chuckle when my science teacher screams accross the classroom that the earth is billions (4.5) of years old. What proof has he? Carbon-14 dating you say? Read and refute this lovely link before talking about old earth dating methods.

​

Another thing the evolutionists try to convince the weak minded with is the "layer age" theory. Supposedly each layer of the earth represents a different age. This is simply nonsense, and it doesn't take much but a global flood to explain this. Any thing else I'm forgetting? What about more circular reasoning with the geologic column. How do you know how old the fossils are?

​

Response: The layer they are in.

​

How do you know how old layer is?

​

Response: The fossils we find in them.

​

(circular reasoning)

​

To quickly establish a fact: the geoligic column is nothing but nonsense, and DOES not scientifically exist.

---

I'm not up to a personal response to this, but once again I put out my favorite link to a nice introduction to basic geology concepts.Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?
at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.htmlAmongst other things, biostratigrapy is covered.I also recommend going to the "Geologic Column" topic string, and looking at what is there:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=13&p=3Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

​

---

Do you think it was inevetable? For a cell to pop into existance?

---

​

You were replying to Dr_Tazimus_maximus, but if I could step in since I addressed the same topic, no one thinks the first cell just "popped" into existence. It had to come about naturally and gradually following the laws of physics and chemistry, which is what I think Dr_Tazimus_maximus was saying.

---

Actually that is part of what I was saying, the main thrust w.r.t. Hoyles stats though was that he assumed that each protein must have formed into EXACTLY the primary, secondary and tertiary sequence that it did, ie the exact same amino acid sequence ect ect. This is not the case as has been shown by many a molecular biology experiment. There is a great deal of wiggle room w.r.t. amino acid usage in proteins (the amount depends very much on the protein). While there are many reasons that Hoyles calcs are bogus that is one of the most obvious and wide ranging goofs. Another other the goofs in his site was on optical rotation, the D vs L has been shown to be a kinetics issue w.r.t. the polynulceotide sequence propogation ie the rate of formation of homo strands is faster than the rate of hetero strands (I will try to post the paper later).And the beat goes on ------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

ARGGHHH, damn copy post
Had to delete it

​

[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 04-10-2002]

Percy: Thanks for the background change on the graphic. Someday I'll figure out how to do that myself.

quote:

---

They then go on to discuss 'problems' with the method.

---

Speaking of problems, consider the following (directly from the link I gave in my first post):I don’t see how one can possibly know that there are no tiny cracks in rocks that would permit water and gas to circulate. The rates of exchange that would mess up the dates are very tiny. It seems to me to be a certainty that water and gas will enter rocks through tiny cracks and invalidate almost all radiometric ages.

​

Let me illustrate the circulation patterns of argon in the earth’s crust. About 2.5 percent of the earth’s crust is believed to be potassium, and about 1/10,000 of this is K40 which decays to Ar40 with a half life of 1.3 billion years. So argon is being produced throughout the earth’s crust, and in the magma, all the time. In fact, it probably rises to the top of the magma, artificially increasing its concentration there. Now, some rocks in the crust are believed not to hold their argon, so this argon will enter the spaces between the rocks. Leaching also occurs, releasing argon from rocks. Heating of rocks can also release argon. Argon is released from lava as it cools, and probably filters up into the crust from the magma below, along with helium and other radioactive decay products.

​

All of this argon is being produced and entering the air and water in between the rocks, and gradually filtering up to the atmosphere. But we know that rocks absorb argon, because correction factors are applied for this when using K-Ar dating. So this argon that is being produced will leave some rocks and enter others. The partial pressure of argon should be largest deepest in the earth, and decrease towards the surface. This would result in larger K-Ar ages lower down, but lower ages nearer the surface.

​

It is in response to what we were talking about earlier.

quote:

---

Why are you? Is there any evidence that particularly convinced that the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old? Why those particular upper and lower boundaries?

---

Evidence? I see much evidence for a global flood, for one. However, much of it is totally flipped around and intrepeted in a different manner by the Old Earth Evolutionists. The bounderies are obtained from nonother than my bible. Why trust that, assuming it is the absolute truth, you say? Well, if I can see such evidence that revolves around a global catastraphe, and am convinced it was nonother than the great flood of Noah, why not rely on the bible's other lectures about events in the past...particularly the age of the earth? The high years presented by the evolutionary geoligic column could be easily solved when taking account for the flood of Noah. And from that, the only other problem is the bogus dating methods we are currently discussing - which too rely on assumptions that are nonother than blind faith.

quote:

---

Can you describe how information can be added without adding complexity? Or if not that, can you describe what might prevent new information adding complexity - what would be the natural barriers to this?

---

Give me an example where information is added by mutation. Then we'll talk.

quote:

---

The information was not present in the recipient - it gained in both information and complexity.

---

Yet...as I said...the information was already present to hand down. And, if you're asking where this came from, it is explained in the next point/statement.

quote:

---

Evidence? What kind of changes do you see or believe in?

---

By this, what do you mean? I see evidence for change, a general trend towards bad change, but change nevertheless. And, I believe the mechanisms presented by the theory of evolution are responsible. Ironically, it is this tendacy for change that puts evolution to the test. Have we really witnessed any change at all that suggests new species could come out of other ones?

quote:

---

I notice you didn't answer my point that if the understanding of nuclear decay is wrong

---

Thats because I didn't think it was of any importance. Plus, I couldn't tell you if we were in 'great danger' because I wouldn't know. I'm simply suggestioning that there are problems present.

quote:

---

The emergence of life from cell-replicating molecules could itself have been a lengthy complex process.

---

"Could of"? What evidence do we have today that suggests anything to this extreme. Again, how is a life assembled from non-life...by anything other than extreme chance? Show me the evidence..because this is a stunning claim without it.

quote:

---

But you mean "shoulders" perhaps?

---

Yes..the slightest typo can cause the greatest amount of confusion .

quote:

---

Can you show that we are growing less intelligent? Fascinating stuff, if you can.

---

Off of my memory at this point, one instance would be the cranial capacity of older humans. If you would look at the neanderthal, for example, you would notice that they actually have a larger skull, rather than a smaller one as you would expect. Same with others..larger cranial capacities.

quote:

---

In that case doesn't radiometric dating falsify your belief? If there are multiple methods based on radioactive decay ratios that give dates older than 10,000 years, I would say you have a problem.

---

Indeed.

quote:

---

Even C-14 dating, corroborated by other methods, can be used to date materials much older than 10,000 years.

---

Which was what my original point was.

quote:

---

If you would care to provide some evidence that decay rates are constantly changing, then perhaps your argument could have some merit.

---

I could easily flip this around, what evidence do you have to assume that the decay rates must have always been the same? Secondly, don't you find it odd that the rock is assumed to have no gains or losses of isotopes since its formation, yet, when dates are given that fit awkwardly in the old earth timeline, the rock is then concluded to be corrupted, or in other words, invalid! It seems that this dating method is on both sides, which ever one is conveniant.

quote:

---

. Please define "information" in a biological context. Be as specific as possible, and provide examples (if practicable) of you believe constitutes an "increase" or "decrease".

---

Example of decrease: a control gene being thrown out. Although in some cases this could benefit the mutant, it is still a loss of information.Example of increase: still waiting to this day for an example. I suppose I could make one up though...

quote:

---

. Please define "complexity" in terms of a biological system.

---

I'll just give an example I suppose:Lose of complexity - animal loosing its legs, mutant loosing dna information, (as stated eariler) loosing a control gene, etc... We observe this a lot in nature...a lot.Gain of complexity - Still waiting for an example in nature.NOTE: I do NOT consider copying of other information a new complexity. For instance a frog being born with three legs.

quote:

---

However, what puzzles me is your assertion that natural selection is non-existent.

---

Ok, now you're puzzling me. What made you think I denied the existance of natural selection?

quote:

---

I think it has been pointed out that evolution is not linear, nor is it necessarily "progress". Here's a graphic representation of the three recognized "outcomes" of the selection process:

---

Basically what I meant by "evidence of uphill evolution", is any "uphill information". Specifically, change that suggests new species could evolve over time.

quote:

---

Since you have made this assertion, it would be interesting to see what evidence you have for making it. How was it determined that Adam (assuming he existed) was "more intelligent" than, say, Einstein, Schrodinger, Darwin, or Pope John Paul?

---

Again, the only thing I can give you is evidence for downhill evolution (which basically all we observe today), and my bible. It would be pointless to even bother with the latter because it has been stated that faith is not excepted. (although, evolutionists have much of it to present to the rest of us)

quote:

---

We do. Bacteria are capable of adapting to antibiotics in incredibly short periods of time.

---

That isn't positive evidence for molecules to man evolution. This resistance is aquired through nonother than loss, copying, and transfered information. That is--unless you can give a specific example otherwise.

quote:

---

And BlonDe- do you believe that evolution created ecological diversity after the flood, like many creationists believe on this board?

---

You betcha. Micro-evolution, speciation, Natural Selection, (all of the componets of your theory) are responsible for the diversity you see today.

quote:

---

Wouldn't this be considered a VERY beneficial mutation?? I sure think so.

---

Again, I don't deny the existance of the rare benefitial mutations, I deny those that suggest a new species can be the outcome after an accumulation of these types of mutations over time. My motto being: once a dog, always a dog. I'll state this a thousand times, it seems like, but would someone PLEASE give me an example since it is assumed by millions it happens.

quote:

---

Out of all the mutations occuring, and considering that natural selection will proliferate a useful mutation, how can you sustain that argument?

---

Why...the evidence ofcourse. The evidence you need to spin things around has never been confirmed after years of observing. What you are suggesting is so completely implausible, that I, and many others, would consider it IMPOSSIBLE. BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of random mistakes responsible for the creatures we see around us? It simply is nonsense at its zenith. It requires large amounts of blind faith, which, is why you will hear many people, including myself refer to evolution as just another religion.

quote:

---

You don't think increasing information and increasing complexity go hand-in-hand? How do you add a book to a library without making it more complex? It requires more shelf space, more room in the card catalog, it's one more book to be checked out and checked in, it contains, possibly, information not previously present in the library.

---

*EXCELLENT POINT* Except...we havn't seen anything like this. We should be observing new complexity/information mutations millions of times for evolution to be any credible at all, yet, we havn't even seen one example.

quote:

---

I think you're confusing the creation of new information with the transfer of information.

---

Nope. And I can't believe we're still arguing about this:

quote:

---

AIG was citing an example of the transfer of information by moving a gene from one cell to another. The cell receiving the gene has gained information and complexity.

---

Which, I do NOT deny. When have you ever heard a creationist deny this in all of your days of debating (I noticed you were a moderator, by the way )?Point being: the information was already there to give. Where did this information come from? Read the second part of the original quote.Have we cleared this up? AiG has said nothing contradicting to what I have said or believe.

quote:

---

As already explained, there is no such thing as "uphill evolution". The question remains, what leads you to believe only in evolution through genetic degeneration?

---

The evidence suggests so.

quote:

---

I also recommend going to the "Geologic Column" topic string, and looking at what is there:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=13&p=3

​

Moose

---

Will do, the topic looks interesting already =)

[QUOTE][b]Except...we havn't seen anything like this. We should be observing new complexity/information mutations millions of times for evolution to be any credible at all, yet, we havn't even seen one example.[/QUOTE][/b]We cannot provide examples until you will tell us what you consider to be an increase of information. I propose that a new function resulting from a mutation is an increase in information. Do you agree? Also I have not seen "information" defined quantitatively by a Creationist, it is another vague term they hurl around without definition and redefine whenever it suits them. Perhaps you can enlighten us and provide a solid definition of information, and what constitutes an increase in information, in no uncertain terms that we can then clobber you with it and you will have no choice but to admit defeat. Yes, I do have some things in mind, but you're going to have to define the argument first.

I wrote a lengthy reply giving reasons why your criticisms of K/Ar were flawed but the post was eaten.I will simply give you my first point: if samples are absorbing argon from the environment, why are they only being trapped in the volcanics? The sedimentary rocks found amongst the volcanics should have the same concentrations of Ar, but don't. And remember, Ar is an inert gas. For this reason it isn't chemically bonding to minerals in volcanics, it is simply being trapped there when lava solidifies. Therefore there is no reason why volcanics should have a higher concentration of Ar than their surroundings, other than an internal source.

Mr DeBlonde,I notice you did not address my post about Ar-Ar dating. Let me simplify for you. The effects you are arguing might happen are indentifiable using the Ar-Ar method! In fact, this is one of the main advantages of the system. It allows us to identify the disturbances and see through those to the undisturbed part of the spectrum. Funny that you did not mention that. How much experience do you have conducting geochronologic investigations? The reason I ask is because you seem rather naive about how they are conducted. I get the feeling you think a chunk of rock is thrown into a machine, a number comes out and if the geologist doesn't like the number, the age is thrown out. Is this how you think the process works? If so, can you provide evidence of YOUR OWN to support this? If not, how does a scientist proceed from the collection of a rock to the generation of an age spectrum? What methods and procedures are followed in the process?CheersJoe Meert

[b] [QUOTE]I see much evidence for a global flood, for one.[/b][/QUOTE]What evidence do you see for a global flood? For the moment, lets not worry about how others interpret it ... what evidence do you and how do you interpret it?
[b] [QUOTE]The bounderies are obtained from nonother than my bible. Why trust that, assuming it is the absolute truth, you say? Well, if I can see such evidence that revolves around a global catastraphe, and am convinced it was nonother than the great flood of Noah, why not rely on the bible's other lectures about events in the past...particularly the age of the earth?[/b][/QUOTE]Plenty of ancient legends include all sorts of global catastrophes - why pick out this one version of one catastrophe for belief? What evidence does the bible give of the age of the earth?

quote:

---

Can you describe how information can be added without adding complexity? Or if not that, can you describe what might prevent new information adding complexity - what would be the natural barriers to this?
Give me an example where information is added by mutation. Then we'll talk.

---

But you raised a theoretical objection - that's what I want to discuss in this bit - whether information ever has been added is not relevant to whether it can be added. We can deal with that later - we have plenty of time presumably. I always prefer to clear up theoretical considerations and definitions first, otherwise we proceed with too much misunderstanding.
[b] [QUOTE]the information was already present to hand down.[/b][/QUOTE]You're going to have to be very clear about your definition of information and even clearer about your definition of a system to which information has been added! Try this ...If the system is the recipient species then the overall information content of that system has increased, you now have R+I (R(ecipient) and (I)nformation.
If the system is (D)onor and recipient, which seems to be your suggestion as that is the only way in which you can say the information already existed in the system, then the overall information content of that system has increased, because where once you had two species of bacteria, you now have three, the donor, the recipient, and those recipients who did not receive new information: D, R -> D, R, R+I.
If the system is donor and recipient and all recipients receive the new information, then the overall information content has still increased, because you now have donor and recipients all with the information. Even in the simplest notationD,R -> D,R+Iyou simnply cannot reduce the information content of the right hand side of the equation to the same quantity of information as the left hand side. Even if the new information replaces existing information, rather than being added to it, the overall system is still more complex in the scenario you are proposing, because you are suggesting that species remain constant over time - to describe the changed system over time requires more information than to describe the unchanged system: it is more complex.If you think you can show how information can move from one species to another while retaining the same information content of the system then please let me know - I would be very interested to see it.
[b] [QUOTE]I see evidence for change, a general trend towards bad change, but change nevertheless. And, I believe the mechanisms presented by the theory of evolution are responsible.[/b][/QUOTE]Again, what evidence do you see? An interesting point is that you seem to accept the evolutionary mechanism - which is good to see. I'm sure we can demonstrate that information can theoretically be added by mutation, and that there are no barriers to it. Once we have persuaded you of that, and you accept the mechanics of evolution, then I think you will find few problems with speciation by mutation and natural selection.
[b] [QUOTE]Ironically, it is this tendacy for change that puts evolution to the test. Have we really witnessed any change at all that suggests new species could come out of other ones?[/b][/QUOTE]There are lots of examples, which you could search for on the web using Teoma to look for "allopatric speciation" or "sYmpatric speciation." The latter is particularly interesting as it is quite controversial amongst ecologists in particular, so the evidence given tends to be particularly carefully presented.Among my favourites are Rhagoletis pomonella and Pyrophorous plagiophthalamus, studied by Jeffrey Feder (College of Science // University of Notre Dame) The former is particularly interesting as it shows how host selection can lead to sympatric speciation, which exemplifies evolution to exploit new niches rather than evolution as a result of pressure on existing niches.

quote:

---

I notice you didn't answer my point that if the understanding of nuclear decay is wrong
Thats because I didn't think it was of any importance. Plus, I couldn't tell you if we were in 'great danger' because I wouldn't know. I'm simply suggestioning that there are problems present.

---

Well hang on a minute - are you saying your knowledge of radioactive decay is sound enough to understand the issues raised in radiological dating (and moreover, sound enough to be able to judge that experts in the field are mistaken) but that you don't have the knowledge to judge if there are problems in nuclear power and nuclear medicine when they use the same body of knowledge?Let's suppose that you don't know and you are just going along with the arguments of another - do you really not accept my point that radioactive decay is a vital issue for us all as our understanding of it is applied in very dangerous situations (nuclear power plants are proven dangers, and radiological medicine carries known risks) - you think this is of no importance?
[b] [QUOTE]"Could of"? What evidence do we have today that suggests anything to this extreme. Again, how is a life assembled from non-life...by anything other than extreme chance?[/b][/QUOTE]The examples I gave were of self-replicating chemical assemblies - prions and viruses for example - which are so close to being alive that philosophers and scientists alike have considerable difficulty in deciding whether they are or not. We cannot actually draw a clear dividing line - there is no clear barrier between life and non-life to be overcome. And you know what? I think it is stunning - beautiful, mysterious, inspiring and stunning.
[b] [QUOTE]Yes..the slightest typo can cause the greatest amount of confusion .[/b][/QUOTE]You wouldn't be saying it could add new information are you? [b] [QUOTE]Off of my memory at this point, one instance would be the cranial capacity of older humans. If you would look at the neanderthal, for example, you would notice that they actually have a larger skull, rather than a smaller one as you would expect. Same with others..larger cranial capacities.[/b][/QUOTE]You shouldn't rely on cranial capacity alone. For one thing, brain weight is likely more important, and this varies with sex, body size, early-life nutrition, early-life environment and many other factors. I personally suspect neanderthal man was very close to us in intelligence: indeed I wouldn't even argue particularly fiercely from biological evidence that they were noticeably less intelligent, but we can see greatly increased complexity of tools and manual techniques shown by modern man contemporary with neanderthals which is probably indicative of greater intelligence.Finally, a short note on a reply of yours to someone else

quote:

---

I do NOT consider copying of other information a new complexity. For instance a frog being born with three legs.

---

Then you consider incorrectly. The pattern "AAA" is more complex and carries greater information than the pattern "AA" - I cannot see a definition of information that can both accomodate your prior use of the term and the denial of increased information in this case.If you do have such a definition, and can work out examples of its application, it would of course be of great interest to me - and to the information science community in general, I suspect.

quote:

---

Quetzal: Even C-14 dating, corroborated by other methods, can be used to date materials much older than 10,000 years.

​

Mr. Blonde: Which was what my original point was.

---

Then you agree that C-14 methods can be used to date organic materials older than your YEC philosophy states for the age of the Earth? I’m confused — either it can (in which case your premise is falsified), or it can’t (in which case you need to state the evidence that leads you to this conclusion). Please clarify your position.

quote:

---

Quetzal: If you would care to provide some evidence that decay rates are constantly changing, then perhaps your argument could have some merit.

​

Mr. Blonde: I could easily flip this around, what evidence do you have to assume that the decay rates must have always been the same? Secondly, don't you find it odd that the rock is assumed to have no gains or losses of isotopes since its formation, yet, when dates are given that fit awkwardly in the old earth timeline, the rock is then concluded to be corrupted, or in other words, invalid! It seems that this dating method is on both sides, which ever one is conveniant.

---

Not very easily (flipping, that is). The evidence that physical constants remain constant is pretty convincing. This site describes one — of many — investigations into the variation of nuclear decay constants. Another good source explaining a great deal of the physics — and why physicists are convinced that their fundamental postulates are correct — is G. Brent Dalrymple’s Age of the Earth. Dalrymple discusses in detail radiocarbon dating methodologies, their statistical corroboration, and radioactive decay. I’m afraid simply flipping the question around doesn’t work. Once again, since innumerable scientists since at least Dirac have been trying — and failing — to show decay rates and other physical constants can vary, you’ll need to provide positive evidence that they’re missing something. I’m sure they would be fascinated by your contribution to their work.As to your second point, our very own Joe Meert has provided quite a readable explanation that tends to cast doubt on your interpretation of how geologists use/perform radiometric dating. His webpage would be a good place to start seeing why your contention is invalid.

quote:

---

Quetzal: 1. Please define "information" in a biological context. Be as specific as possible, and provide examples (if practicable) of you believe constitutes an "increase" or "decrease". Then, or perhaps even first, please identify which methodology you are using: Shannon Communications Information Theory, Kolomgorov-Chaitan Algorithmic Information Theory, Fisher Information Theory, or semantic information. [reposting the complete question]

​

Mr. Blonde: Example of decrease: a control gene being thrown out. Although in some cases this could benefit the mutant, it is still a loss of information.
Example of increase: still waiting to this day for an example. I suppose I could make one up though...

---

I’m afraid you may have misunderstood the question. I asked you to define your use of the term information and explain its relevance to biology — specifically genetics. I also asked you to indicate which information theory you were using. This last bit is important because what would constitute an increase or decrease is different in each case. Once you clarify your position, then I may be able to provide some insight.I also confess to being unclear as to what you mean by control gene being thrown out. The statement makes no sense to me. Please explain. Thanks.

quote:

---

Quetzal: Please define "complexity" in terms of a biological system. At what level are you using the term (structural, organizational, systemic, etc)? If you are using "complexity" as a basis for a design inference (which may be implied from your posts but wasn't explicitly stated), please specify how this form of complexity can be positively identified in nature. How are you differentiating between natural or "apparent" complexity and designed complexity? [again reposting complete question]

​

Mr. Blonde: I'll just give an example I suppose:
Lose of complexity - animal loosing its legs, mutant loosing dna information, (as stated eariler) loosing a control gene, etc... We observe this a lot in nature...a lot.
Gain of complexity - Still waiting for an example in nature.
NOTE: I do NOT consider copying of other information a new complexity. For instance a frog being born with three legs.

---

Please answer the question. I can’t discuss the issue with you until I understand how you are using the terms. Thanks.

quote:

---

Quetzal: However, what puzzles me is your assertion that natural selection is non-existent

​

Mr. Blonde: Ok, now you're puzzling me. What made you think I denied the existance of natural selection?

---

My confusion arises from the statement I was responding to: Forgive me for the confusion I put upon everyone, but it seemed relevant at the time...I get very angry when people use the non-existant natural selection argument at other places. (emphasis added). Perhaps I misunderstood. What DID you mean by this statement?

quote:

---

Quetzal: I think it has been pointed out that evolution is not linear, nor is it necessarily "progress". Here's a graphic representation of the three recognized "outcomes" of the selection process: [graphic omitted]

​

Mr. Blonde: Basically what I meant by "evidence of uphill evolution", is any "uphill information". Specifically, change that suggests new species could evolve over time.

---

In the first place, there is no uphill or downhill element to evolution as the graphic I posted (and to which you failed to respond) clearly showed. Evolution is not linear. In addition, you have yet to define what you mean by information, so I am unable to respond to your statement.As to the lack of speciation, perhaps we have yet another terminology problem. I generally use the biological species concept when referring to species. Simply put, when two populations of the same organism are in contact yet are incapable of interbreeding, the two populations can (provisionally, at least) be considered distinct species. If you are using the term in a different context, please explain. To be able to substantively reply to your (apparent) contention that speciation does not occur, this definition is important.

quote:

---

Quetzal: Since you have made this assertion, it would be interesting to see what evidence you have for making it. How was it determined that Adam (assuming he existed) was "more intelligent" than, say, Einstein, Schrodinger, Darwin, or Pope John Paul?

​

Mr. Blonde: Again, the only thing I can give you is evidence for downhill evolution (which basically all we observe today), and my bible. It would be pointless to even bother with the latter because it has been stated that faith is not excepted. (although, evolutionists have much of it to present to the rest of us)

---

You have failed to provide any evidence of any kind thus far. I would be interested in hearing some. As to faith — I concur. You cannot use faith to disprove science any more than you can use science to disprove faith — they are completely separate and distinct magisteria.You seem to have missed this bit:

quote:

---

Mr. Blonde: Question - for what? The better? or the worse? Since there is no clear-cut evidence for uphill, than things must be swading towards the worse.

​

As for a christian argument, this would explain the fall of man as previously mentioned.

​

Quetzal: Answer: D. All of the above. You are presenting a false dichotomy here. Even in those instances where "uphill" is not observed (if I'm understanding you correctly), this does NOT axiomatically lead to a supposition that things are getting "worse" for a particular population.

---

Would you care to address the issue of false dichotomy as outlined? I believe gene90 has also requested this explanation.

---

Mr BLonDe writes:
Speaking of problems, consider the following (directly from the link I gave in my first post):

​

I don’t see how one can possibly know that there are no tiny cracks in rocks that would permit water and gas to circulate [etc, goes on for a couple paragraphs...]

---

This is a logically reasoned argument that in the absence of any hard data might make a lot of sense. However, we have plenty of hard data. Your link is correct that there's an ambient amount of argon in the earth's crust, but as an inert gas it is swept out of molten lava. Once the lava solidifies the argon deriving from decaying potassium is locked into the rock matrix. As your earlier citation of Snelling indicated, the amount of argon left in young lava deposits only affects measurements by at most a few million years, and as a few people have now stated, even if K/Ar dating weren't to be trusted, there are other techniques that give the same or very similar dates, such as Rb/Sr, Ar/Ar, U/Pb, Sm/Nd, Pb/Pb, Lu/Hf and more. Argon leaking from within the earth's crust into ancient lava flows sounds reasonable, but it can't possibly be a significant factor because a) K/Ar dating produces results consistent with all the other dating methods; and b) as others have already told you, modern improvements to the techniques are able to determine whether there has been any disturbance to the amount of daughter element.Did you look at the table of dates of ancient rocks in Greenland that I provided earlier? Here it is again:http://www.evcforum.net/DataDropsite/greenland_dates.jpgNotice that K/Ar dating is only used once. Notice that a total of 4 different techniques are used. Notice that the rock samples come from 11 different locations in western Greenland. Notice that all the dates from a given area of western Greenland agree with one another within a very small margin, certainly never larger than 10%. Notice that all the ages are greater than 2 billion years.You can offer reasons out of ignorance all you like for why one dating method or another must be wrong, but you'd be spitting in the wind.There's another reason why we know the earth is an ancient place. There are a number of naturally occurring radiogenic elements with half-lives shorter than 50 million years. If the earth were young these materials would still be present. But over the course of the earth's 4.56 billion year history these elements have decayed to the point of undetectability.How about radiogenic elements with half-lives longer than 50 million years? All have been found on the earth.--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 04-12-2002]

---

Mr BLonDe writes:
Evidence? I see much evidence for a global flood, for one. However, much of it is totally flipped around and intrepeted in a different manner by the Old Earth Evolutionists.

---

I'm afraid you can't blame the age of the earth on evolutionists. The identification of scientific evidence for an ancient earth predates the theory of evolution. Georges Buffon, William Buckland and James Hutton, three groundbreaking geologists whose accomplishments predate even the coining of the term geologist, all died before Darwin even published the Origin of Species.Like most men of their era they were religious men who accepted the Biblical account of the flood, but their investigations uncovered evidence for an earth far too ancient for Genesis to be an accurate account and caused them to change their views.Independent of whether or not the earth is actually ancient, you should at least have an acquaintance with the history of geology before making statements like this.

---

Give me an example where information is added by mutation. Then we'll talk.

---

Give us evidence that you can look up information that is readily available in any library and at many websites on-line, then we'll talk.

---

Yet...as I said...the information was already present to hand down.

---

You've lost the original point somewhere.You originally said that though adding information through mutation was possible, you didn't believe it ever actually happened in nature, and that certainly complexity was never added. The AIG quote that you yourself cited contradicts you when it provides the example of gene transfer, which adds information to an organism. And gene transfer is just one of the means by which information and complexity is added to organisms.

---

Example of increase: still waiting to this day for an example. I suppose I could make one up though...

---

You're referring to an increase in information in an organism. Once again I refer you to your AIG cite, which provides the example of gene transfer adding information to an organism.

---

I do NOT consider copying of other information a new complexity. For instance a frog being born with three legs.

---

That's nice, but your position makes no sense because adding a copy of anything is an additional complexity. I wonder how many extra legs would it take before you'd concede this poor frog is more complex than the normal variety?But we don't have to discuss the problem in abstract terms of information and complexity. The fact of the matter is, no one would deny that your three legged frog is very different from the normal variety, and you can deny all you like that there's no information added and no complexity added, but the frog is still different, and the difference has to be due to something. Why don't you join the rest of us and start using standard English?

---

I see evidence for change, a general trend towards bad change, but change nevertheless.

---

You not only have no evidence for a general trend toward bad change, you have no proposed mechanism for how this change comes about. Natural selection will filter out bad change. Organisms less fit are less likely to pass on their genes, and their "bad change" will be removed from the population.

---

Have we really witnessed any change at all that suggests new species could come out of other ones?

---

Yes, of course. See this list of observed speciation events:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

---

I'm simply suggesting that there are problems present.

---

You're talking about radiometric dating in the above quote, and yes, we know you're suggesting there are problems, but when it comes to being specific about those problems you're silent.

---

I could easily flip this around, what evidence do you have to assume that the decay rates must have always been the same?

---

We have tons of such evidence. When we look off into space we're seeing the universe as it existed thousands, millions and billions of years ago. The nuclear processes we observe in all distant stars and galaxies indicate that the natural processes operating now, including decay rates, were the same in all past eras.To verify the constancy of decay rates you could also look for evidence of greater decay rates in the past. For example, increased decay rates would result in increased heat. In order to cram billions of years of decay into just the few thousand years of YEC the decay rates would have been so high as to vaporize the earth. Since we're still here, the decay rates could not possibly have been consistent with YEC chronologies.If decay rates had been higher in the past it would have meant higher rates of nuclear particle emission, and nuclear particles colliding with genes is one of the causes of mutation. For YEC to be true, mutation rates after the flood would have been astronomical (assuming the earth somehow avoiding being vaporized). There is no indication this was the case, either historically or paleontologically.

---

Basically what I meant by "evidence of uphill evolution", is any "uphill information". Specifically, change that suggests new species could evolve over time.

---

The fossils in the geologic column represent a detailed though sporadic record of the change in species populating the world over time.

---

Percy writes:
As already explained, there is no such thing as "uphill evolution". The question remains, what leads you to believe only in evolution through genetic degeneration?

---

---

Mr BLonDe writes:
The evidence suggests so.

---

In case it wasn't clear, I was inviting you to present your evidence.--Percy