Fake Dr. Sullivan

No.

 

 

 

At the very least, where are some resources? where's the statement of purpose and the methodological proof of said statement? where are the supporting *varying* documents (the bible doesn't count, and multiple versions of it are not 'varying' sources).

 

It's not a doctoral dissertation, which explains why Hovind was reluctant to share it. This, btw, is another red flag; as I'm sure you know, Dr. Sullivan, doctoral dissertations *are* published for all to see, if not in a publication, then at the very least in the university library, and are *available* for anyone that asks.

 

Kent Hovind's dissertation was held secret, no one was able to take it out of the library of the institute or look at it. That's not any form of doctoral dissertation.

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

I've yet to see any creationist who can explain why the retroviral DNA embedded in our DNA looks like the retroviral DNA embedded in other primates' DNA.

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.

Here's the "someone":

 

http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/

 

Plenty of credentials. Now, how do your beliefs about evolution connect to your research?

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:

If 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:

With this alone, his information is about as worthless as Richard Dawkins information. Why should we trust him again?

We'll here is what wikipedia says on the subject:

 

"Evolutionary thought, the conception that species change over time, has roots in antiquity, in the ideas of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Chinese as well as in medieval Islamic science. However, until the 18th century, Western biological thinking was dominated by essentialism, the belief that every species has essential characteristics that are unalterable. This began to change when, during the Enlightenment, evolutionary cosmology and the mechanical philosophy spread from the physical sciences to natural history. Naturalists began to focus on the variability of species; the emergence of paleontology with the concept of extinction further undermined the static view of nature. In the early 19th century, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed scientific theory of evolution."

 

From that I would arge that the first actual concept of evolution was conceived by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Who was a member of the French Academy of Sciences.

 

Just though I would answer that for you to prevent any future confusion by other readers.

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

This despite the fact that someone at the Molecular Information Theory Group at the National Institutes of Health (i.e. someone who actually uses information theory in biology) thinks he's full of crap?

 

http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/gitt/

 

I'm curious, though. How do your beliefs about evolution connect to your research?

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.

An engineer is a credible source on evolutionary theory? Interesting.

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?

It isn't random, though. It's random mutation, filtered by natural selection. By necessity, what is "meaningful," i.e. what leads to an increase in fitness, is what remains. Ergo, more "meaningful information" than you started with.

 

And again, an otherwise unsupported argument from authority is never a valid argument, let alone when the authority has as little credibility as the one you cite.

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.

So you're not going to answer the question? Please define "information," as you are using it. Otherwise your primary claim is literally meaningless.

 

re: duplication, if you accept that information can be copied, and that the copies can be altered independently, then you have already accepted that the total amount of information can increase. Pick 4 random letters. ABCD. Copy them. ABCDABCD. Allow them to freely "mutate." EFGHIJKL. How is EFGHIJKL not more information than ABCD? But then, maybe I'm misinterpreting, since you haven't yet actually said what you mean by "information."

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.

It doesn't sound like jibber jabber to me. In fact, it seems downright illustrated by the fact that you haven't answered the question of how you're defining "information" in the context of evolution. It even offers four potential definitions, with cited examples of each.

 

Remember I've already demonstrated that this is a strawman argument.

 

That's not an apt analogy, though. More like copying the paper, and letting each be altered independently. Obviously you've increased the total amount of information.

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.

 

 

 

Do explain. "How it's supposed to happen" is the simply random mutation filtered by natural selection, surely. And not that I'm familiar with Dr. Gitt's work, but from a cursory search it seems the consensus is that he's a quack. Not that that in itself proves him wrong, but it does make an unexplained argument from authority even less convincing.

 

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.

 

 

The claim is referenced. How is there no evidence to back it up?

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?

Really? You MUST get hold of it.

 

I mean, the opening line is "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind."

Wow you weren't kidding about the 2nd grade writing level.

Merged post follows:

http://c0122981.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/091209KenHovindThesis.pdf

 

Enjoy.

I wrote papers better than this in my undergraduate days.

There's no need to build any false arguments about any other subject here, all one needs to do is read Kent Hovind's dissertation.

 

Hovind insists to be called a "Dr", and when people ignore that ridiculous request (read his "dissertation") he gets very upset, claiming he's got credentials.

 

Hovind dug his own little pothole here.

 

~moo

For the first time on this forum, I think we can all agree on this.

Merged post follows:

...is available online.

 

 

Enjoy.

I truely haven't read this, I wish I could access it.

Merged post follows:

i wonder if they have a football team? Looks like a nice campus though <laughs>, this is a picture from 2006.

 

 

you have to give them credit though, if jesus had build a university during his time, minus the power-lines, this is probably what it would have looked like.

rofl

Sullivan, since your disagreement seems to come down to whether there is ever an increase in "information," it might save some time if you tell us how you are using the term. Specifically, how do you respond to the talkorigins page addressing this argument:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

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 think that in this case, you can rest assured that Hovind is the sole topic of the thread.

I will hope that to be the case.

Dr Sullivan... this thread is almost entirely facetious. Nobody here will take Hovind seriously as any kind of scientific academic.

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.

So why did the bacteria not exhibit the ability at all before the change occurred? Let's quote the original paper by Lenski:

 

 

 

You can see that while citrate could be used internally, the cells had not been able to use outside citrate as an energy source before.

 

Also note:

 

 

This was not just the cell having a small mutation and suddenly using its existing mechanisms to metabolize outside citrate. It was a complex development.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full

Mutations jammed the regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produced citrate transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacterium’s environment (that is, it is permanently switched on). This can be likened to having a light that switches on when the sun goes down—a sensor detects the lack of light and turns the light on. A fault in the sensor could result in the light being on all the time. That is the sort of change we are talking about.

If he's not a scientist, why does he pretend to know so much about evolution and why it's wrong? He develops entire hypotheses about the flood, evolution, geology and so on, trying to explain how it could work with Young Earth Creationism.

 

He does this while having no credentials and no credibility.

Thats correct. I flat out reject a lot of his material. He goes by the name Dr. Dino for crying out loud, and look at all of the legal trouble he's gotten himself into. There are better Scientists out there who are more studied and go into more depth than Kent Hovind.

Merged post follows:

he wants to say he's a scientist that means he must be judged on sciences terms.

I question his integrity about a lot of things myself.

Should we take this guy seriously as a Scientist based on your standard? http://www.alexchiu.com/cell/frame.htm

I attended a lecture just a few weeks ago on observed speciation in mosquitoes, from a team at the University of Texas at Austin.

 

A graduate student took a trek through part of Africa, capturing mosquito samples every few dozen miles. These mosquitoes were all part of one particular species, but of course there were mutations between particular mosquitoes. Specifically, some mosquitoes had part of their DNA "inverted" -- it was in the chromosome backwards. It was a common mutation.

 

Next, they observed the mosquitoes mating between each other. Somehow, that mutation expressed something that the mosquitoes could notice: the vast majority of the time, those with the inversion mated with each other and not other mosquitoes. Now, a few mated with other mosquitoes, but most didn't.

 

What will this lead to? In perhaps just a few hundred more generations, those mosquitoes won't be mating with the other groups at all. They'll only mate with ones sharing their own mutations -- and the group will have developed its own specific mutations and characteristics as well. As we watch, they're becoming a new species.

 

Now, this isn't published yet: when I attended the lecture, the data was just a few weeks old. As for interesting published material, try this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

 

Bacteria suddenly evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, an ability they did not have at all before. A new ability developed in the lab, under our noses.

This is old hat though, the bacteria evolving the ability to metabolize citrate goes back to Richard Lenski. The citric acid, TCA or Krebs cycle generate and utililze citrate in its normal oxidative metabolism of glucose and other carbohydrates. So no new ability has developed at all.

Secondly, not doubting speciation occurs, it does.

Merged post follows:

you seem to have a wrong definition for evolution.

 

evolution is a change in the allele frequency over time. it doesn't require an increase of information(although that can and does happen)

Gee, if thats all it is, then Creation Science and Evolution agree. That doesn't make a lot of sense. Where did you get this definition?

What you've provided is a definition of Variation, not Evolution. This is a common equivocation.

Merged post follows:

I attended a lecture just a few weeks ago on observed speciation in mosquitoes, from a team at the University of Texas at Austin.

 

A graduate student took a trek through part of Africa, capturing mosquito samples every few dozen miles. These mosquitoes were all part of one particular species, but of course there were mutations between particular mosquitoes. Specifically, some mosquitoes had part of their DNA "inverted" -- it was in the chromosome backwards. It was a common mutation.

 

Next, they observed the mosquitoes mating between each other. Somehow, that mutation expressed something that the mosquitoes could notice: the vast majority of the time, those with the inversion mated with each other and not other mosquitoes. Now, a few mated with other mosquitoes, but most didn't.

 

What will this lead to? In perhaps just a few hundred more generations, those mosquitoes won't be mating with the other groups at all. They'll only mate with ones sharing their own mutations -- and the group will have developed its own specific mutations and characteristics as well. As we watch, they're becoming a new species.

 

Now, this isn't published yet: when I attended the lecture, the data was just a few weeks old. As for interesting published material, try this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

 

Bacteria suddenly evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, an ability they did not have at all before. A new ability developed in the lab, under our noses.

Before I forget, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic circumstances with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. There is a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell. The suite of genes is normally activated undera naerobic conditions.

...is available online.

 

 

Enjoy.

I bet this will be hilarious. KENT HOVIND IS A THEOLOGIAN NOT A SCIENTIST! Just so everybody knows why I'll be laughing. Dr. Dino lives.

Merged post follows:

Since creationism and ID has no scientific basis, I think it should be moved out of EM&E. Since it will violate the posting rules for pretty much any subforum due to its misinformation and lack of rigor, I have no idea where it should be moved to.

 

Somewhere with a built-in air freshening device, preferably.

This is nonsense.

Merged post follows:

Did you even READ it? It's groundbreaking stuff that you're trying to censor! You can't handle well-reasoned dissent to your dogmatic religious belief of evolution!

Go online and look up Kent Hovind's scientific credentials. Where are they? Why are you still critiquing someone who has no credentials? This is an obvious strawman.

Merged post follows:

In 1971 he graduated from East Peoria Community High School in East Peoria, Illinois. From 1972 until 1974 Hovind attended the non-accredited Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education (B.R.E.).[3]

Front view of the Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado taken on November 22, 2006.In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind was awarded a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the non-accredited Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado (now Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado which no longer offers this program).[7] Having a website called "Dr. Dino" has provoked some academics to closely look at how Hovind presents his education and credentials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

Where does this say Scientist?

you do know evolution has been observed in the lab right?

Of course all the time

There has never been an increase of DNA information observed in a lab. We have seen Speciation occur. We see Variation occur. And we see Natural Selection occur. But never Evolution.

Hello!

I am a student in Estonia and am currently writing a research paper on how the creationism vs evolution debates and issues are affecting society. I would be grateful if you took the time to fill in a small 10-question survey on this subject. I would use the responses to generate statistical information for my paper.

 

The address is: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/57GMMJR

 

I am sorry if this is considered as spamming, but living in Estonia, it is really difficult for me to get into contact with the target group of my paper (US and UK citizens). Plus, the forum topic seems to be relevant..

I'd really appreciate if you took just a minute or two of your time for this And of course, I'd be happy to share both the survey results and the paper itself once I'm done.

I'd be happy to give you my side being a PHD in molecular biology and siding with Creation Science. Interviews would need to be conducted via e-mail due to my time constraints. Today is an exception to the rule, I have a day off .

(moderator note: Fake Dr. Sullivan is, as the name suggests, a fraud. The real Dr. Sullivan, an evolutionary biologist, speaks out against creation science.)

actually, this is seen all the time.

 

I've been in Biology for over a decade and I haven't seen one. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

 

 

oh really. i'm sure that with your studies of information theory you have come across stochastic optimisation right?

 

you know where there is an entropy source(a random number generator for a computer, mutations for an organism) that allows you to get information about the function, namely the maximum/minimum/zero or whatever you are looking for.

 

same thing applies to evolution. if you cannot see this then i don't believe you have studied information theory at all. or if you have then you certainly didn't understand it.

Well, I've studied what Dawkins or Xia have to say on this......but I highly disagree with their studies. Their counterparts do not supply real models, and their vague hypotheses lack sufficient detail and relevance to real chemistry and biology to permit serious discussion or testable experiments. Your dilemma is false. Just because I don't agree with what you "see" doesn't mean I haven't studied information theory.

Neither of those statements is accurate.

Where then do you suppose is my statement inaccurate?

I've been approached with objections to that statement within my field of study from many different angles and still come to that same conclusion after a further review of the evidence. It has convinced several of my colleagues to undermine their view of Evolution and become Creation Scientists instead.

Merged post follows:

Neither of those statements is accurate.

One thing I notice Evolution advocates like to do is question whether a Creation Scientist is a scientist. So....maybe I should turn the tables here. Are you a Scientist Sisyphus?

Actually, there are a few things we're sure about.

 

First of all, it's a mistake to ever say 'lower life form'. From an evolutionary standpoint, it's just a different life form. Everybody talks about the monkeys, well...forget the monkeys. If you go back far enough, we share a common ancestor with every mammal that exists. The same single ancestor species evolved into wombats and sperm whales and kangaroos and mice and humans.

 

That ancestor species may well be considered more complex--for those who try to determine these things--than some of its descendents. Wouldn't that make it a 'higher' life form?

 

And no, folks using the tool of science cannot say that some magical being didn't wave its appendages and pop the entire universe into existence, as is. But if it did, it took the time and effort to make it look like these things came about over a really long period of time and using nothing but natural and explainable phenomena.

 

Why would it do such a thing? You're going to have to ask the magical being about that, it doesn't talk to me.

 

If we were 'seeded' by some less-than-godlike creature, it must have done so really early, because we sure look like we evolved along with the rest of the flora and fauna on the planet. (With a few exceptions living around volcanic vents and such.)

 

 

The point is, the natural phenomenon called evolution is happening now, we're sure of that. We've seen it happen and have come a long way toward explaining how. And it doesn't have a 'direction.'

 

Bill Wolfe

The DNA theory actually is a solid refutation of Evolution. We see no increases of information that allow a single celled organism to become a different kind of organism. After having studied Information theory, I have become aware of that, and if you'd like may actually be able to refer to you some information that is of value.

Its important to notate that Evolution requires an increase in the amount of information of a genome, and we simply do not see that anywhere.

I'll give you an example that is commonly used for Evolution and is not truely Evolution. Antibacterial resistance. When bacteria becomes immune to penicillin, it doesn't become something new for one, it simply produces a lot of penicilllinase. After the massive amounts of producing the penicillinase, it will become immune to the penicillin, however, when put back into the wild, the bacteria will die off, as it is not fit to survive. The same would be said of the rabies virus if your example were to actually occur.