When Rock and Roll along with Top 40s era of music came, it came because America was finally becoming INTEGRATED. If you remember, some of the early R&R had a Black gospel flavor because it was from the spirituals and church along with R&B and C&W, that unfortunantly gave way to Death Metal etc. and the downward slide after 1988---songs are different not styles anymore--to prove it, many teenagers are into WOODSTOCK--compare that to hippies into WW2 music
Music is the ONLY thing taught to students. Even more than sports. Music is also within the number 12 just like the 12 hours of day---12 is the number of 'government'--ever since 1988, musical 'evolution' went downhill--not songs but STYLES and it has gotten more VILE====they just use 80s type melodies, but 'yak' all over them--rock music styles are still basically 80s along with rap--the only thing that has changed is songs which are 'sampled' from other songs--God wont give creativity to filth
The first book of the bible, Genesis indicates the idea that musical ability is genetic - Genesis 4:21 "...His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe".
90%of musicians are Spiritual in one form or a nother problem is most go down the wrong path.I know one athiest drummer and he cant keep time go figure.
So what is a statement like this if not an argument from ignorance? We might not know now, but give science a few decades or years and we'll figure out this seemingly contrary and impossible issue.
@Sickopath333 The "science" of evolution has been generating libraries of excuses for many years and has not succeeded. The time god will never solve this and evolution will always remain a religion.
"At the phenotypic level, the appearance of nylon degrading bacteria would seem to involve “evolution” of new enzymes and transport systems. However, further molecular analysis of the bacterial transformation reveals mutations resulting in degeneration of pre-existing systems."
basically its a superficially "GOOD" mutation. Just like all other examples of evolution.
@jeffblue101 Even if there were such a thing as degradation in evolution, nylonase occurred on a duplicate gene, none of the information on the original gene was affected.
It's a new function on a new gene that didn't affect any extant information in the genome. There is no way to get around this but pure denial.
"The non-randomness and “clockwork” repeatability of the adaptation clearly indicates a designed mechanism that fits perfectly within the limited “variation within kind” model of Theism, and stays well within the principle of Genetic Entropy since the parent strain is still more fit for survival once the nylon is consumed from the environment"
That's the bare assertion that creationists keep making, without ever being able to support. Whether the parent strain is more fit for a different environment is irrelevant, evolution regards the current environment only and nylonase is more fit in an environment which is nylon oligomer rich.
@theinsectmanofwv Hi Karl. They don't have anything to sing about because their gods are dead. I will praise the Lord according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the Lord most high. Psalm 7:17
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Nice video. Evolutionists are looking more and more stupid everyday. I am so glad that I was able to overcome the biases that were foisted upon me by the government brainwashing I received through the government indoctrination centers that I was forced to attend by law. I was a child when this brainwashing occurred and it is sad that it even happens. If only everyone could think for themselves and do what I did. Stand ye like men! Don't be such cowards you evolutionists.
@TheScienceFoundation Micro-evolution exists. Macro-evolution is just a simple lie designed by Satan for the simpleminded. So, which one would you like me to define?
"unscientific bias against accepting evolution on the large scale?"
it not about the size of the change but if the change that is observed can create upward and outward evolution required for common descent. all know random mutations in single and multi-celled organisms always create a lowered fitness cost. random mutations can not create the new information necessary for common descent and DNA can not come about through an unguided process fully equipped with DNA repair
Here's the problem, I literally just had this discussion with you and pointed out how mutation can add information and increase viable function. Now since it's been a few days you seem to just be hoping that was forgotten
So one more time, the addition of genetic information in the form of a new function on a new gene : /watch?v=gJVjTh98aHU
The problem isn't with evolution, the problem is you don't want to learn.
@jeffblue101 Of course traits are environment specific, what do you think natural selection is? Why do you think Polar bears have the appearance of white fur?
Now you're just plugging your ears and literally refusing to even try to understand how this is not a loss in fitness because the mutation occurred on a copy of a gene, no information would've been lost even if the mutation didn't confer a new trait.
regardless of the fact if there is a hypothetical "good" mutation. Evolution still could not work since the accumulation of bad mutations would cripple any organism.
@jeffblue101 If a mutation is recessive then it's not expressed thus does not affect survivability. You also keep trying to ignore the fact that even if beneficial mutations are the lesser by a large margin initially, that they're selected for afterwards.
"If a mutation is recessive then it's not expressed thus does not affect survivability."
correct, the same goes for bad, neutral, and "good" mutations.
"that they're selected for afterwards"
incorrect, the bad recessive mutations also accumulate at a faster than good mutations therefore any good mutations would get overwhelmed by bad mutations. cont...
@jeffblue101 Not sure what you think recessive means, if the bad mutations are recessive, as I pointed out they are not expressed meaning they're technically neutral.
i think you missed my point . most mutations must accumulate in a given population before they can be expressed since both parents must have that particular mutation to be expressed. known bad mutations can not be selected out and therefore are passed on in great numbers when compared to the good mutations. basically what we currently know about genetics shows that we are headed in downhill process not outward and upward.
@jeffblue101 I think you're misunderstanding gene expression. It's not a matter of a lot of mutations accruing as pseudogenes then becoming reactivated. Usually when a gene becomes a pseudogene and moves through a population it's off. Even if it's not then once it's expressed then it can still be selected against.
There is no downhill because evolution is not directional.
remember both parents need to have the mutations present in their genome in order for most mutations to be expressed. so all good mutations would have to established within any given population before it could be expressed. the population would be greatly crippled by accumulation of bad mutations. since bad mutations greatly outnumber good mutations
@jeffblue101 Remember, ignoring/being ignorant of heterozygous dominant traits does not make them go away. Traits can be and are commonly passed on if the allele is carried by only one parent.
Also, ignoring/remaining ignorant of the fact that negative mutations are weeded out and that natural selection still isn't chance any more now than it was the last 7 times I explained it still doesn't make it go away.
"negative mutations are weeded out and that natural selection" i agree with this statement but they are only weeded out if they are expressed. therefore they accumulate in a given population.
"heterozygous dominant traits does not make them go away"
please show me a positive example of a good mutation being autosomal dominant. Just one!!
@jeffblue101 I'm defining it exactly as gene expression functions. If a trait isn't expressed, it's neutral. Your/creation.com's remaining willfully ignorant of the fact that negative mutations are selected against still isn't an argument against evolution.
"Your/creation.com's remaining willfully ignorant of the fact that negative mutations are selected against still isn't an argument against evolution."
so are you redefining terms again. are saying that all recessive mutations neutral therefore don't count. if thats the case then i guess geneticist are to stupid to realize that when they are calculating genetic load
"And if they're not expressed then they're not negative, they're neutral." fine you can define any way you want. it still does not refute the fact that evolution is impossible since all populations of organism would have been bogged down by an overwhelming amount of negative mutations.
creation(.)com/from-ape-to-man-via-genetic-meltdown-a-theory-in-crisis this article explains my argument in much clearer terms.
Also, there's a reason Sanford published a book instead of articles, ignorance of processes that increase useful information and decrease genetic noise doesn't make for good science.
i checked up on this myself. there is not a single peer reviewed paper that has refuted haldane's dilemma. i wonder why? trust if they had the scientist would have received a noble prize for their work.
The renowned evolutionary theorist, G.C. Williams (1992), wrote, "In my opinion the [Haldane's Dilemma] problem was never solved, by Wallace or anyone else
"en.wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Argument_from_authority" no its an appeal to an evolutionist who admits that Haldane dilemma has never been solved by evolutionist. in fact the truth was suppressed when Remine brought it up again for discussion.
refuting talkorgins saintpaulscience(.)com/Haldane.htm not a long read.
@jeffblue101 No, you're quoting someone who is saying something you want to be true. The article I cited refutes the cost of selection problem for the same reasons explained on the TO page.
lol i missed the first refuting. sigh, there is no solution to Haldane's dilemma. the paper you showed me was based on false information on the dilemma. Remine wrote his paper to clarify the issue of "solutions".
@jeffblue101 Information as per information theory is defined as distinguishing characteristics of a system. This is why you're not getting anywhere, you completely ignore my explanations of real science as if I never gave them.
"Information as per information theory is defined as distinguishing characteristics of a system."
all information systems are a result of a mind even when we apply Shannon's definition of information which does not account for the meaningfulness of the message being transmitted. semantics, sytanx, and pragmatics do not come from any physical force of nature.
@jeffblue101 It's like reality said, if that bacteria develops the ability to metabolize a new food source, it will become predominant in a population where that food source is abundant.
"The researchers have not been able to ascertain any putative ancestral gene to the nylon-degrading genes. They represent a new gene family. This seems to rule out gene duplications as a source of the raw material for the new genes"
There's your problem, citing a website that has officially declared to outright reject any evidence that could ever be perceived as contradicting scripture.
They're wrong in general in that respect, and they're wrong specifically in this instance.
@jeffblue101 From the actual article with actual science
Analysis of the published base sequence residing in the pOAD2 plasmid of Flavobacterium Sp. K172 indicated that the 392-amino acid-residue-long bacterial enzyme 6-aminohexanoic acid linear oligomer hydrolase involved in degradation of nylon oligomers is specified by an alternative open reading frame of the preexisted coding sequence that originally specified a 472-residue-long arginine-rich protein.
in the words of Kevin Jackson---------THATS MY RANT!!
49jubilee 10 months ago
When Rock and Roll along with Top 40s era of music came, it came because America was finally becoming INTEGRATED. If you remember, some of the early R&R had a Black gospel flavor because it was from the spirituals and church along with R&B and C&W, that unfortunantly gave way to Death Metal etc. and the downward slide after 1988---songs are different not styles anymore--to prove it, many teenagers are into WOODSTOCK--compare that to hippies into WW2 music
49jubilee 10 months ago
Music is the ONLY thing taught to students. Even more than sports. Music is also within the number 12 just like the 12 hours of day---12 is the number of 'government'--ever since 1988, musical 'evolution' went downhill--not songs but STYLES and it has gotten more VILE====they just use 80s type melodies, but 'yak' all over them--rock music styles are still basically 80s along with rap--the only thing that has changed is songs which are 'sampled' from other songs--God wont give creativity to filth
49jubilee 10 months ago
Comment removed
49jubilee 10 months ago
The first book of the bible, Genesis indicates the idea that musical ability is genetic - Genesis 4:21 "...His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe".
seanmPWH 10 months ago
90%of musicians are Spiritual in one form or a nother problem is most go down the wrong path.I know one athiest drummer and he cant keep time go figure.
korzon 10 months ago
So what is a statement like this if not an argument from ignorance? We might not know now, but give science a few decades or years and we'll figure out this seemingly contrary and impossible issue.
Sickopath333 10 months ago 2
@Sickopath333 The "science" of evolution has been generating libraries of excuses for many years and has not succeeded. The time god will never solve this and evolution will always remain a religion.
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 Creationists have been willfully ignorant for 150 years. Not understanding the evidence will never make evolution go away.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago 2
@TheScienceFoundation
cont...
"At the phenotypic level, the appearance of nylon degrading bacteria would seem to involve “evolution” of new enzymes and transport systems. However, further molecular analysis of the bacterial transformation reveals mutations resulting in degeneration of pre-existing systems."
basically its a superficially "GOOD" mutation. Just like all other examples of evolution.
answersingenesis(.)org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria#fnList_1_77
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 Even if there were such a thing as degradation in evolution, nylonase occurred on a duplicate gene, none of the information on the original gene was affected.
It's a new function on a new gene that didn't affect any extant information in the genome. There is no way to get around this but pure denial.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago 2
@TheScienceFoundation
cont...
"The non-randomness and “clockwork” repeatability of the adaptation clearly indicates a designed mechanism that fits perfectly within the limited “variation within kind” model of Theism, and stays well within the principle of Genetic Entropy since the parent strain is still more fit for survival once the nylon is consumed from the environment"
uncommondescent(.)com
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 'indicates a designed mechanism'
That's the bare assertion that creationists keep making, without ever being able to support. Whether the parent strain is more fit for a different environment is irrelevant, evolution regards the current environment only and nylonase is more fit in an environment which is nylon oligomer rich.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago 3
Christianity is unsurpassed in motivating music. Compare all religions and it is obvious.
theinsectmanofwv 10 months ago
@theinsectmanofwv Hi Karl. They don't have anything to sing about because their gods are dead. I will praise the Lord according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the Lord most high. Psalm 7:17
BereanBeacon1 10 months ago
Anyone who thinks this is a good argument should brush up on the list of basic fallacies, in particular;
en.wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nice video. Evolutionists are looking more and more stupid everyday. I am so glad that I was able to overcome the biases that were foisted upon me by the government brainwashing I received through the government indoctrination centers that I was forced to attend by law. I was a child when this brainwashing occurred and it is sad that it even happens. If only everyone could think for themselves and do what I did. Stand ye like men! Don't be such cowards you evolutionists.
thechessstick 10 months ago
@thechessstick So what is evolution? I ask because I've never met anyone who could adequately define it that didn't accept it.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago 2
@TheScienceFoundation Micro-evolution exists. Macro-evolution is just a simple lie designed by Satan for the simpleminded. So, which one would you like me to define?
thechessstick 10 months ago
@thechessstick So you're saying you automatically have a religious and unscientific bias against accepting evolution on the large scale?
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago 2
@TheScienceFoundation
"unscientific bias against accepting evolution on the large scale?"
it not about the size of the change but if the change that is observed can create upward and outward evolution required for common descent. all know random mutations in single and multi-celled organisms always create a lowered fitness cost. random mutations can not create the new information necessary for common descent and DNA can not come about through an unguided process fully equipped with DNA repair
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 'all know random mutations'
Here's the problem, I literally just had this discussion with you and pointed out how mutation can add information and increase viable function. Now since it's been a few days you seem to just be hoping that was forgotten
So one more time, the addition of genetic information in the form of a new function on a new gene : /watch?v=gJVjTh98aHU
The problem isn't with evolution, the problem is you don't want to learn.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago 2
@TheScienceFoundation
"So one more time, the addition of genetic information in the form of a new function" through genetic engineering
creation(.)com/the-adaptation-of-bacteria-to-feeding-on-nylon-waste
"demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures"
wiki
De novo mutation, a genetic mutation that neither parent possessed nor transmitted
cont...
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 Exactly, neither parent had it, it's brand new.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"Exactly, neither parent had it, it's brand new."
the big problem with evolution is the definition the word GOOD when referring to mutations.
its only environment specific when it should be organism specific. all examples of "evolution" always shows a decrease in fitness in the organism.
like Kent Hovind said if my foot mutated off that would be a good mutation since i would no longer get foot fungus.
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 Of course traits are environment specific, what do you think natural selection is? Why do you think Polar bears have the appearance of white fur?
Now you're just plugging your ears and literally refusing to even try to understand how this is not a loss in fitness because the mutation occurred on a copy of a gene, no information would've been lost even if the mutation didn't confer a new trait.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago 3
@TheScienceFoundation
"because the mutation occurred on a copy of a gene, no information would've been lost even if the mutation didn't confer a new trait."
if you say my assertion of design is invalid than your assertion of duplication is invalid as well since it has not been demonstrated in the lab.
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 Yes, it has
ncbi.nlm.nih(.)gov/pubmed/6585807
They were even able to map the brand new start and stop codons which make the new frame an entirely new gene unto itself.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago 2
@TheScienceFoundation
ncbi.nlm.nih(.)gov/pubmed/6585807
link seems to be dead
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 Search for ;
Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago 2
@TheScienceFoundation
regardless of the fact if there is a hypothetical "good" mutation. Evolution still could not work since the accumulation of bad mutations would cripple any organism.
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 Most mutations are neutral and mutations the negatively affect survivability and reproduction are selected against.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
biggest category of mutations neutral(they are only neutral because we do not know yet the full functionality of the DNA)
second biggest bad mutations
smallest category "hypothetical good" mutations
vast majority of all mutations are recessive. therefore the bad mutations can not be weeded out by natural selection.
trueorigin(.)org/mutations01.asp summary in video below
youtube(.)com/watch?v=Pvjsy_p6eSs i highly recommend you watch this video skip to 3:00.
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 If a mutation is recessive then it's not expressed thus does not affect survivability. You also keep trying to ignore the fact that even if beneficial mutations are the lesser by a large margin initially, that they're selected for afterwards.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago 2
@TheScienceFoundation
"If a mutation is recessive then it's not expressed thus does not affect survivability."
correct, the same goes for bad, neutral, and "good" mutations.
"that they're selected for afterwards"
incorrect, the bad recessive mutations also accumulate at a faster than good mutations therefore any good mutations would get overwhelmed by bad mutations. cont...
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 Not sure what you think recessive means, if the bad mutations are recessive, as I pointed out they are not expressed meaning they're technically neutral.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"as I pointed out they are not expressed"
i think you missed my point . most mutations must accumulate in a given population before they can be expressed since both parents must have that particular mutation to be expressed. known bad mutations can not be selected out and therefore are passed on in great numbers when compared to the good mutations. basically what we currently know about genetics shows that we are headed in downhill process not outward and upward.
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 I think you're misunderstanding gene expression. It's not a matter of a lot of mutations accruing as pseudogenes then becoming reactivated. Usually when a gene becomes a pseudogene and moves through a population it's off. Even if it's not then once it's expressed then it can still be selected against.
There is no downhill because evolution is not directional.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation
"There is no downhill because evolution is not directional."
so are saying every geneticist in world is wrong when they refer to bad mutations.
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
remember both parents need to have the mutations present in their genome in order for most mutations to be expressed. so all good mutations would have to established within any given population before it could be expressed. the population would be greatly crippled by accumulation of bad mutations. since bad mutations greatly outnumber good mutations
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 Remember, ignoring/being ignorant of heterozygous dominant traits does not make them go away. Traits can be and are commonly passed on if the allele is carried by only one parent.
Also, ignoring/remaining ignorant of the fact that negative mutations are weeded out and that natural selection still isn't chance any more now than it was the last 7 times I explained it still doesn't make it go away.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"negative mutations are weeded out and that natural selection" i agree with this statement but they are only weeded out if they are expressed. therefore they accumulate in a given population.
"heterozygous dominant traits does not make them go away"
please show me a positive example of a good mutation being autosomal dominant. Just one!!
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 And if they're not expressed then they're not negative, they're neutral.
The fact that you recognize heterozygous traits as a whole can be passed on completely invalidates your argument.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
Comment removed
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 I'm defining it exactly as gene expression functions. If a trait isn't expressed, it's neutral. Your/creation.com's remaining willfully ignorant of the fact that negative mutations are selected against still isn't an argument against evolution.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation
"Your/creation.com's remaining willfully ignorant of the fact that negative mutations are selected against still isn't an argument against evolution."
so are you redefining terms again. are saying that all recessive mutations neutral therefore don't count. if thats the case then i guess geneticist are to stupid to realize that when they are calculating genetic load
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"And if they're not expressed then they're not negative, they're neutral." fine you can define any way you want. it still does not refute the fact that evolution is impossible since all populations of organism would have been bogged down by an overwhelming amount of negative mutations.
creation(.)com/from-ape-to-man-via-genetic-meltdown-a-theory-in-crisis this article explains my argument in much clearer terms.
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 One bold lie stands out in that article
"no one has ever claimed to have created brand new functions not already coded for on the genome in this manner."
Haldane's dilemma refuted; talkorigins(.0org/indexcc/CB/CB121.html
Also, there's a reason Sanford published a book instead of articles, ignorance of processes that increase useful information and decrease genetic noise doesn't make for good science.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"Haldane's dilemma refuted; talkorigins(.0org/indexcc/CB/CB121.html"
i checked up on this myself. there is not a single peer reviewed paper that has refuted haldane's dilemma. i wonder why? trust if they had the scientist would have received a noble prize for their work.
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 You didn't check very hard
ncbi.nlm.nih(.)gov/pmc/articles/PMC434284/?tool=pmcentrez&pageindex=1
If the link isn't working it's 'Solutions to the Cost-of-Selection Dilemma'
Funny though that now you're harping about peer reviewed papers.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
The renowned evolutionary theorist, G.C. Williams (1992), wrote, "In my opinion the [Haldane's Dilemma] problem was never solved, by Wallace or anyone else
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 en.wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"en.wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Argument_from_authority" no its an appeal to an evolutionist who admits that Haldane dilemma has never been solved by evolutionist. in fact the truth was suppressed when Remine brought it up again for discussion.
refuting talkorgins saintpaulscience(.)com/Haldane.htm not a long read.
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 No, you're quoting someone who is saying something you want to be true. The article I cited refutes the cost of selection problem for the same reasons explained on the TO page.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
no it does not and Remine had his article peer reviewed article by two evolutionary geneticist proving it.
saintpaulscience(.)com/Haldane.htm
TO blatantly misrepresents his work and he provides adequate proof of this.
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 Exactly, there's no peer reviewed article refuting the refutation of Haldane's dilemma, only the reassertion of 1,667 limit.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
Comment removed
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"refuting the refutation of Haldane's dilemma"
lol i missed the first refuting. sigh, there is no solution to Haldane's dilemma. the paper you showed me was based on false information on the dilemma. Remine wrote his paper to clarify the issue of "solutions".
jeffblue101 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeffblue101 Here it is again
ncbi.nlm.nih(.)gov/pmc/articles/PMC434284/?tool=pmcentrez&pageindex=1
If the link isn't working it's 'Solutions to the Cost-of-Selection Dilemma'
'based on false information on the dilemma' Such as?
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
youtube.com/watch?v=i9ue1P50L48&feature=related (the first part deals with mutations not being truly random)
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 That video is just the same ignorance as what you continually spout as if not refuted regarding information.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"That video is just the same ignorance as what you continually spout as"
what parts were showed ignorance. "if not refuted regarding information."
answersingenesis(.)org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp even talkorgins linked to this webpage
wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Hubert_Yockey an evloutionist who has written extensively about information theory.
information is defined as containing a message. Wiki and dictionary(.)com both confirmed what information was.
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 Information as per information theory is defined as distinguishing characteristics of a system. This is why you're not getting anywhere, you completely ignore my explanations of real science as if I never gave them.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheScienceFoundation
"Information as per information theory is defined as distinguishing characteristics of a system."
all information systems are a result of a mind even when we apply Shannon's definition of information which does not account for the meaningfulness of the message being transmitted. semantics, sytanx, and pragmatics do not come from any physical force of nature.
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101 It's like reality said, if that bacteria develops the ability to metabolize a new food source, it will become predominant in a population where that food source is abundant.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago 3
@TheScienceFoundation
creation.com
"The researchers have not been able to ascertain any putative ancestral gene to the nylon-degrading genes. They represent a new gene family. This seems to rule out gene duplications as a source of the raw material for the new genes"
jeffblue101 10 months ago
@jeffblue101
>creation.com
There's your problem, citing a website that has officially declared to outright reject any evidence that could ever be perceived as contradicting scripture.
They're wrong in general in that respect, and they're wrong specifically in this instance.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago 2
@jeffblue101 From the actual article with actual science
Analysis of the published base sequence residing in the pOAD2 plasmid of Flavobacterium Sp. K172 indicated that the 392-amino acid-residue-long bacterial enzyme 6-aminohexanoic acid linear oligomer hydrolase involved in degradation of nylon oligomers is specified by an alternative open reading frame of the preexisted coding sequence that originally specified a 472-residue-long arginine-rich protein.
TheScienceFoundation 10 months ago 3
Thanks for sharing!!
heavenbound45 10 months ago
Birds sing.
hellavadeal 10 months ago