Fake Dr. Sullivan

Sorry to say, I'd have to say that our "Dr." Hovind is a bigger joke than realized before.

The immediate conclusion is to assume we're related right? Homology doesn't prove common ancestry. If I were to walk down the straight and say, "Wow...that pig looks just like you" (God willing would hope that not to be the case), that wouldn't prove you were related to the pig. We have other problems morphologically with apes being similar to us, our DNA structure is only 93% related, which when looking at information theory, thats a significant difference and the fact that the learning curves of apes is significantly lower than that of a parrot. Beyond this, to get back to your question, since the alleged junk dna argument is evaporating in front of us since the similar sequences are being found to have purposes, this has become a nonissue for Creation Science.

I thought I told you I was antagonistic towards Evolution. I'm also antagonistic towards people who misrepresent Creation Science unfairly and critique things without reading the book they are critiquing. Tom Schneider's computer simulation and his organization by the way that you are vastly impressed with can not actually simulate a true biological scenario. Schneider uses 64 living and reproducing organisms with a total and unchangeable genome that is 1/4 the size of a typical gene. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIf such an ancestor, with a genome even smaller than the current 256 bases were to duplicate a “gene", it would waste energy and available material producing unnecessary extra protein during its lifetime and while duplicating its genome. Replication time would be longer than for its competitors and would have greater risk of failure. Even presently unnecessary DNA ballast needed for evolutionary trials and error to produce only a novel binding site represents a significant reproductive disadvantage. This worthless material would represent several percent of the 256 bases assumed for the genome, a very considerable handicap. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWith this alone, his information is about as worthless as Richard Dawkins information. Why should we trust him again?

Think back further....Anaximander and before then. Its original concepts were derived from Hinduism and Buddhistic thought.

WAIT A MINUTE, really? You are going to say that its okay to question a source that I give to you and back up with credentials. But "someone" who randomly writes this article is okay to follow this up here? He doesn't even give Gitt a fair analysis. "When I first wrote this page (2005 May 5) I had not read it (his book), but noted that the comments at Amazon indicate that it is full of holes." So we are going to take someone who misrepresents half of Gitt's arguments by the way, doesn't even bother to read his book, and is not even a cited source as more authoritative than Gitt? I don't believe in Evolution. I believe in Creation Science. As do many other Scientists for that matter.

When it comes to Information Theory? Yes! Because he is a Technical Engineer. I'm curious do you guys ever step back and wonder....what is Evolution not? Hinduism is everything too ya know? Do you know where Evolution originated from?

I understand what Evolution is. The rest of your statement is an attempt at circular reasoning. There is no increase in fitness. Thats the point I'm driving at, we don't observe that. Natural Selection is a conservative process that leads to extinction of species, not a more "meaningful information" driven by an increase in information. This doesn't solve your dilemma because you don't get lost information back. Its not a refined species as you'd like to think, its information that needs to be there for the organism to function properly. It leads to deformities and diseases within an organism's structure. Dr. Werner Gitt is a very credible source. He was the director of the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology and is the head of the Department of Information Technology.

Gitt's Theorem 9 states "Only that which contains semantics is information." By restricting information to a statistical level you fall into the trap of Shannon's Theory. Shannon's information is not a measure of information but a measure of the minimum number of characters/units needed to represent a sequence regardless of whether the sequence is meaningful or not. If the two sequences presented were composed randomly it is unlikely that they would contain any information at all. Also different organisms are affected in different ways too. Basically on your example, it would help to know what the meaning was from a Syntax level, Apobetics level, a pragmatics level and a semantics level. The second point to address is thats not what happens in mutations. When genes are altered the function goes from "This truck is red" becomes "This truck is bed" which is meaningless......or neutral changes in information. We also observe changes in DNA that can lead to negative consequences, which alters the DNA and leads to genetic mutations and eventually diseases within the genome and losses of information. Beneficial mutations would be the equivalent normality of a neutrality of change within the DNA.

Remember I've already demonstrated that this is a strawman argument. Its illogical to assume this happens without a mechanism to do it. If you're to infer that mutations are occurring, the observed cases we have always infer a destruction of the information content. Not to mention, there would still only be already existing information being altered in your example above, so no new information or function being added. Just mutations leading to a decrease in information content as usual, because mutations lead to disease. Otherwise gene duplication is simply duplicating genes. Not that much to it. Really a quack? He at least gets it right that information is stored within genes, and not from some random outside source within the environment. You're making it sound like natural selection is now a creative process. Where did this creative process come from all of a sudden? Nothing about natural selection makes it a creative process. Its a destructive process, and nothing else. This we have tested time and time again in the lab as well as in field research. No examples of how it happens are given.

this is really unfortunate. The structure of the paper, the overtone is very redundant, and there are tons of grammatical errors. This is a doctoral dissertation?

Wow you weren't kidding about the 2nd grade writing level. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I wrote papers better than this in my undergraduate days.

For the first time on this forum, I think we can all agree on this. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I truely haven't read this, I wish I could access it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged rofl

The first point is a bunch of jibber jabber. Just asserting that he's right without evidence. I also don't know any serious Creation Scientist who affirms the mutations are random noise, but rather they are destruction of information. Also the point that Evolution can not increase information is misleading. Thats the whole thing we're trying to prove. Evolution has not shown an increase in information, and information theory has determined that its impossible for increases of information to occur would be a better way of stating the argument. Essentially Talk Origins argument is a strawman, however, we'll proceed. no. 2 refers to gene duplication. Thats just photocopying information. If you ever take a Biology course, and you have a paper on Evolution due, you should ask your professor whether or not turning it into him twice will earn you extra credit. no. 3 refers to Shannon theory, which leaves out a lot of stuff later figured out by Dr. Gitt. It also infers the horrible idea that information can be obtained from the environment.....however thats supposed to happen. Dawkins had the same problem in his explanation on information theory. Nothing new we haven't addressed. no. 4 selection and mutation have never been observed to increase information. Nice assertion, but no evidence to back it up.

I will hope that to be the case.

I see all too often that they liken Hovind's arguments to the extent of what Creation Science is supposed to look like and has to offer. Its not the problem that its facetious, but rather the reason why its conceived as facetious. I consider that many threads regarding Hovind are designed to build strawman argumentations against Creation Scientists, when there are a significant amount of Scientists who are Creation Scientists with better credentials, and better explanations. Its simply misleading how Evolution advocates utilize Hovind's name. And this has already been exemplified by one poster already.