Are discussions on faith and science two different catagories?

[AV1611VET]

And won't abandon their Fairie Dust Dark Matter despite 80 years of failed experiments.....

And rely on a conceptual error in the Michelson-Morley experiment to confirm their conceptual errors about space-time.

That's because that's where their hearts are.

Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

They spend so much of their treasures (time & money) on this stuff, it sinks down into their hearts and they get "hooked."

I'm sure the last thing an academian who spent oodles & oodles of money getting his degree in geology wants to hear is a little five-year old tell him he's wrong.

 

[Brightmoon]

In your preconcieved view of how variation occurs it is. but real world studies have found the exact opposite to be true.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...orphological_diversity_in_adaptive_radiations

"The process of adaptive radiation involves multiple events of speciation in short succession, associated with ecological diversification. Understanding this process requires identifying the origins of heritable phenotypic variation that allows adaptive radiation to progress. Hybridization is one source of genetic and morphological variation that may spur adaptive radiation. We experimentally explored the potential role of hybridization in facilitating the onset of adaptive radiation. We generated first- and second-generation hybrids of four species of African cichlid fish, extant relatives of the putative ancestors of the adaptive radiations of Lakes Victoria and Malawi. We compared patterns in hybrid morphological variation with the variation in the lake radiations. We show that significant fractions of the interspecific morphological variation and the major trajectories in morphospace that characterize whole radiations can be generated in second-generation hybrids. Furthermore, we show that covariation between traits is relaxed in second-generation hybrids, which may facilitate adaptive diversification. These results support the idea that hybridization can provide the heritable phenotypic diversity necessary to initiate adaptive radiation."

https://www.researchgate.net/public...n_is_important_in_evolution_but_is_speciation

"... This results from segregation and recombination between the parental genomes ( Arnold et al., 2012;Abbott et al., 2013). Previous studies have shown that hybrids are usually a complex mosaic of both parental morphological characters rather than just intermediate pheno- types, and a large proportion of first and later generation hybrids which exhibit extreme or novel characters ( Abbott et al., 2013;Saetre, 2013). The increased morphological variability, increased number of flowers per plant, and different flower colour variations and mode of presenta- tion, exhibited by Psoralea hybrids in our study possibly account for the observed increase in the number and types of different species of pollinators (Xylocopa and Megachile spp) contributing to the observed higher reproductive success of the hybrids in these populations (Stirton pers. ..."

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ssful_Daphnia_galeata_longispina_Hybrid_Clone

"Hybridization within the animal kingdom has long been underestimated. Hybrids have often been considered less fit than their parental species. In the present study, we observed that the Daphnia community of a small lake was dominated by a single D. galeata × D. longispina hybrid clone, during two consecutive years. Notably, in artificial community set-ups consisting of several clones representing parental species and other hybrids, this hybrid clone took over within about ten generations. Neither the fitness assay conducted under different temperatures, or under crowded and non-crowded environments, nor the carrying capacity test revealed any outstanding life history parameters of this hybrid clone. However, under simulated winter conditions (i.e. low temperature, food and light), the hybrid clone eventually showed a higher survival probability and higher fecundity compared to parental species. Hybrid superiority in cold-adapted traits leading to an advantage of overwintering as parthenogenetic lineages might consequently explain the establishment of successful hybrids in natural communities of the D. longispina complex. In extreme cases, like the one reported here, a superior hybrid genotype might be the only clone alive after cold winters. Overall, superiority traits, such as enhanced overwintering here, might explain hybrid dominance in nature, especially in extreme and rapidly changing environments. Although any favoured gene complex in cyclic parthenogens could be frozen in successful clones independent of hybridization, we did not find similarly successful clones among parental species. We conclude that the emergence of the observed trait is linked to the production of novel recombined hybrid genotypes."

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ypic_plasticity_and_transgressive_segregation

"Phenotypic differences may have genetic and plastic components. Here, we investigated the contributions of both for differences in body shape in two species of Lake Malawi cichlids using wild-caught specimens and a common garden experiment. We further hybridized the two species to investigate the mode of gene action influencing body shape differences and to examine the potential for transgressive segregation. We found that body shape differences between the two species observed in the field are maintained after more than 10 generations in a standardized environment. Nonetheless, both species experienced similar changes in the laboratory environment. Our hybrid cross experiment confirmed that substantial variation in body shape appears to be genetically determined. The data further suggest that the underlying mode of gene action is complex and cannot be explained by simple additive or additive- dominance models. Transgressive phenotypes were found in the hybrid generations, as hybrids occupied significantly more morphospace than both parentals combined. Further, the body shapes of transgressive individuals resemble the body shapes ob- served in other Lake Malawi rock-dwelling genera. Our findings indicate that body shape can respond to selection immediately, through plasticity, and over longer time- scales through adaptation. In addition, our results suggest that hybridization may have played an important role in the diversification of Lake Malawi cichlids through creating new phenotypic variation. "

We could go on and on and on and on and show over and over and over again that your beliefs stem from underestimated and from studies that failed to take into account actual affects of hybridization. That your beliefs are old and outdated and are slowly being replaced by the evolutionary belief that is on it's way to replacing your mutations as the driving cause of evolution.

I now await your double-talk and your ignoring your own definition of species....

. That IS evolution. So what’s your problem? Are you too scared to use the word ? Silly creationist, science is for scientists!
Those hybrid genomes are mutated by the way . (Unbelievable! )

 

[pitabread]

Evolutionist's can't even agree on the definition of species, let alone what constitutes information.

Except that "evolutionists" aren't the ones arguing about information in the genome; creationists are.

It's creationists making specific claims about quantification of information in the genome. Which means the onus is on you guys to provide a consistent definition, quantification and application to DNA in order to support your claims.

Yet that never happens.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Let’s look at this from the point of view of an evolutionary process from within your own theory.

A mutation is a random event. Therefore it is not shaped by natural selection. It is just pure dumb luck that the mutation may be in a form that allows survival or perhaps even success in the existing environment.

Mating on the other hand is a direct result of natural selection. It is the natural causes in the environment that bring two forms together to mate that perhaps never would otherwise. The forms produced are the direct result of environmental factors.

As was shown in finches by food supply and nut size due to drought. It brought birds that would normally not mate into positions where they did so. This caused an increase in fitness in the offspring which was a direct correlation to the environmental factors.

As was shown in the fish, the mice, and the flowers. As is shown in dogs, except that man has replaced the natural causes and accelerated the timescale by bringing together those that might never have mated or have taken hundreds of thousands of years to come together by natural events like famine, geological changes, etc.

But mutations are not tied into natural selection in the slightest. It is just pure dumb luck that the random occurrence just happened to be able to exist in the current environment. Natural selection plays no part in the formation of a mutation.

Mating therefore fits the theory of evolution by natural selection the best. Of course this is first assuming evolution of one species into another is true, which it isn’t. They just can’t follow the scientific definitions they wrote and classify those mating pairs as the same species.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Except that "evolutionists" aren't the ones arguing about information in the genome; creationists are.

It's creationists making specific claims about quantification of information in the genome. Which means the onus is on you guys to provide a consistent definition, quantification and application to DNA in order to support your claims.

Yet that never happens.

Quite the opposite. It is evolutionists that assert a mutation creates new information, not creationists. Therefore it is incumbent upon you to provide the quantification and consistent definition of information and how the mutation qualifies as such.

As evolutionists always argue..... If you claim Gnomes exist, it is not up to me to provide a consistent and rational definition of Gnomes and prove Gnomes don't exist.....

 

[pitabread]

Quite the opposite. It is evolutionists that assert a mutation creates new information, not creationists. Therefore it is incumbent upon you to provide the quantification of information and how the mutation qualifies as such.

Insofar as new genetic information goes we see that every time a mutation results in a novel sequence not present in the original parent genome. It's not a mystery; this is just basic genetics.

Insofar as quantification there are umpteen ways of quantifying things with respect to genomes. It could be total base pair count, numbers of chromosomes & chromosome length, number of genes, and so on. But again, we already know that mutations can affect these various measures in either direction. Again, there's no mystery here about how any of this works.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

. That IS evolution. So what’s your problem? Are you too scared to use the word ? Silly creationist, science is for scientists!
Those hybrid genomes are mutated by the way . (Unbelievable! )

In your fantasy where every change is a mutation. A mutation is an error.........

Why use a false term? There is no evolution of one species into another. Animals that can mate are the same species. It's not my fault they and you won't follow the very scientific definitions that they wrote.... Don't try to blame me for your lack of scientific integrity....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Insofar as new genetic information goes we see that every time a mutation results in a novel sequence not present in the original parent genome. It's not a mystery; this is just basic genetics.

Insofar as quantification there are umpteen ways of quantifying things with respect to genomes. It could be total base pair count, numbers of chromosomes & chromosome length, number of genes, and so on. But again, we already know that mutations can affect these various measures in either direction. Again, there's no mystery here about how any of this works.

So in other words you have no consistent definition of information, except anything you want it to be at any given time, so that no argument can be made against it? That's not a definition, that's silly putty that is so malleable it can fit anything and is no definition at all.

 

[pitabread]

So in other words you have no consistent definition of information, except anything you want it to be at any given time, so that no argument can be made against it? That's not a definition, that's silly putty that is so malleable it can fit anything and is no definition at all.

It's not that I have no consistent definition of information; it's that there is no consistent definition of information in general. And in the case of measuring genomic content, there are simply multiple ways of measuring and/or quantifying things.

No matter how you decide to quantify it, I'm not aware of any explicit quantification of genetic information that explicitly prevents an 'increase' of that quantity.

If you want to argue otherwise, then you need to present your definition as it explicitly applies to DNA and demonstrate it.

 

[Brightmoon]

In your fantasy where every change is a mutation. A mutation is an error.........

Why use a false term? There is no evolution of one species into another. Animals that can mate are the same species. It's not my fault they and you won't follow the very scientific definitions that they wrote.... Don't try to blame me for your lack of scientific integrity....

. EVERY change to genomic DNA is a mutation . Whether a base pair,a few bases,an entire gene ,or a duplicated genome Why would you define this the way you did which doesn’t make any sense. Pointless error really isn’t what’s going on here natural selection sifts these changes so that they enable both species to survive.
Your second point that species don’t split and change is refuted by too many species that have done that but I’m only going to name two . Lions and tigers were once a single species one evolved to deal with forest the other to deal with treeless savanna

If I want fantasy I’ll go re-read Tolkien

 

[Brightmoon]

So in other words you have no consistent definition of information, except anything you want it to be at any given time, so that no argument can be made against it? That's not a definition, that's silly putty that is so malleable it can fit anything and is no definition at all.

. He’s got no consistent definition of any scientific term .

Justa to quote Paul Simon “ who do, who do you think you’re fooling”

 

[Justatruthseeker]

. He’s got no consistent definition of any scientific term .

Justa to quote Paul Simon “ who do, who do you think you’re fooling”

No, I got consistent definitions of every scientific term.

Shall we discuss the rest energy of an electron? The mass of objects? Science has precise and consistent definitions.

The real debate isn’t about consistent definitions, science has those in every science, it’s your irrational belief that evolution is science.

Even when science has been wrong, they had a precise and consistent definition of the subject of the theory.

That you are unable to provide a precise and consistent definition for any of your defining terms such as information, species, etc; just shows it’s really no science at all.

 

[Brightmoon]

No, it’s your ignorant beliefs that evolution isn’t scientific. You haven’t demonstrated how speciation is prevented over the long term so that, for example, the synapsids eventually became mammals . You still don’t have a workable definition of kind The . Morphospecies definition actually works which is When individuals in a species are pretty much identical -like red foxes for example . Yet for a long time the genus name was Vulpes not Canis mainly because of the outdated and inaccurate idea of separate creation. ( which you still haven’t demonstrated a mechanism for) Linnaeus certainly recognized foxes as canids but he had an uphill battle just putting humans in Primates. Even in his private writings, Linnaeus had an inkling of common descent but the cost to him would have been too high because of social religiosity .Darwin wrote about evolution many decades after Linnaeus

 

[pitabread]

Shall we discuss the rest energy of an electron? The mass of objects? Science has precise and consistent definitions.

Except something like "information" is an amorphous concept. What constitutes information varies depending on different contexts. Even within information theory there are multiple definitions and ways of measuring it.

To dismiss it as non-science because things aren't as simple as you want them to be is just silly.

The real debate isn’t about consistent definitions, science has those in every science, it’s your irrational belief that evolution is science.

Nah, what you are stating is part of the core lies of creationism: that evolution isn't science, that it isn't well supported, and has no application.

These are the lies that creationists tell themselves to avoid dealing with the reality: namely that evolution *is* a science, *is* well supported, and has real world application. And consequently, it's not going away no matter how much creationists keep whining about it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's not that I have no consistent definition of information; it's that there is no consistent definition of information in general. And in the case of measuring genomic content, there are simply multiple ways of measuring and/or quantifying things.

No matter how you decide to quantify it, I'm not aware of any explicit quantification of genetic information that explicitly prevents an 'increase' of that quantity.

If you want to argue otherwise, then you need to present your definition as it explicitly applies to DNA and demonstrate it.

We aren't arguing about an increase in quantity. Two apples or three apples you still only have apples. No matter how many times you copy 0 through 9, any combination thereof already exists as a possibility to begin with. 99 already exists as a possibility. 999 already exists as a possibility. 9999^9999 already exists as a possibility. Everything was planned for in the beginning....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Except something like "information" is an amorphous concept. What constitutes information varies depending on different contexts. Even within information theory there are multiple definitions and ways of measuring it.

Exactly, the exact opposite of science where everything has a precise definition, even if in the future it turns out to be incorrect.

To dismiss it as non-science because things aren't as simple as you want them to be is just silly.

Then you wont mind showing me a definition in physics that has several meanings at the same time????

Nah, what you are stating is part of the core lies of creationism: that evolution isn't science, that it isn't well supported, and has no application.

No, that it is science is part of the core lies of evolution. Which is why they have NO precise definitions, because only science has precise definitions.

These are the lies that creationists tell themselves to avoid dealing with the reality: namely that evolution *is* a science, *is* well supported, and has real world application. And consequently, it's not going away no matter how much creationists keep whining about it.

Agreed, these are the lies evolutionists tell themselves to avoid dealing with the reality that science only deals with precise meanings. Without a precise definition, it is no longer science, but every person's opinion on what they want it to mean and chaos and lies run rampart. Oh I agree, evolutionists are not going to stop lying about it being a science no matter how much we might wish it to be so.

 

[pitabread]

We aren't arguing about an increase in quantity. Two apples or three apples you still only have apples. No matter how many times you copy 0 through 9, any combination thereof already exists as a possibility to begin with. 99 already exists as a possibility. 999 already exists as a possibility. 9999^9999 already exists as a possibility. Everything was planned for in the beginning....

Once again you are resorting to completely silly arguments. I'm not even sure how to respond to someone arguing against the fundamental idea of quantification.

 

[pitabread]

Agreed, these are the lies evolutionists tell themselves to avoid dealing with the reality that science only deals with precise meanings. Without a precise definition, it is no longer science, but every person's opinion on what they want it to mean and chaos and lies run rampart.

Show me precisely where in the science handbook it says that everything in science must have a precise definition or it's no longer science.

(You know you're making desperate arguments when you try to claim biology isn't a science but physics is. Bizarre.)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Show me precisely where in the science handbook it says that everything in science must have a precise definition or it's no longer science.

(You know you're making desperate arguments when you try to claim biology isn't a science but physics is. Bizarre.)

And yet I asked you to show me in physics a definition with several meanings and you can't.

I'm not claiming Biology isn't science. Your incorrectly equating evolution as the same thing as Biology. Biology is a field of science. Evolution is a theory.

Physics is a field of science. The Big Bang is a theory. Don't equate the Big Bang as being the same as physics and likewise don't equate evolution as being the same thing as biology.

But we know you are getting desperate when you claim i claimed biology wasn't a science. And then try to claim a theory and a branch of science is the same thing... Desperation indeed.....

That's another one of those lies evolutionists like to tell themselves to confirm their belief system.

Here's a biological definition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron

"A neuron, also known as a neurone (British spelling) and nerve cell, is an electrically excitable cell that receives, processes, and transmits information through electrical and chemical signals."

Precise, not three or 4 different things at the same time, everybody knows what you mean when you say neuron.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart

"The heart is a muscular organ in most animals, which pumps blood through the blood vessels of the circulatory system."

And then we depart from science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"In biology, a species is the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank, as well as a unit of biodiversity, but it has proven difficult to find a satisfactory definition."

It has proven difficult because everybody wants it to be something different so they can be the discoverer of a new species to get their names in a book and promote their false theory.

Now let's look at the lie: "A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. While this definition is often adequate, when looked at more closely it is problematic. For example, with hybridisation, in a species complex of hundreds of similar microspecies, or in a ring species, the boundaries between closely related species become unclear....

[the lie - if they are hybridizing - sexual reproduction - they are the same species, nothing is unclear at all, except you can't incorrectly call them species and evolution theory falls apart]

....Among organisms that reproduce only asexually, the concept of a reproductive species breaks down, and each clone is potentially a microspecies."

[the lie again, if they are clones, they are the same species..... except then you can't call them separate species and evolution theory falls apart].

Lies, falsehoods and deception. Error after uncorrected error is the ToE.

 

[pitabread]

And yet I asked you to show me in physics a definition with several meanings and you can't.

I honestly don't care to go trying to dig up anything, especially since I'm not all that interested in physics to begin with.

I'm not claiming Biology isn't science. Your incorrectly equating evolution as the same thing as Biology. Biology is a field of science. Evolution is a theory.

The Theory of Evolution is foundational to modern biology. On top of that, the definitions you keep whining about are part and parcel to biology as a whole not merely evolutionary theory.

Or do you think the term "species" doesn't get used outside of evolution?

Lies, falsehoods and deception. Error after uncorrected error is the ToE.

You keep telling yourself that. The real world suggests otherwise.