The boat that don't float: CrEvo Rant #78 with Wazooloo

http://wazooloo.com
http://ianjuby.org
In this rant, Ian explains genetic entropy and its application to the ideas of increasing information in the genome, and the age of the earth and life.
I forgot to include the Krondoshov reference in the video:
A.S. Krondashov's 1995 article, "Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: Why have we not died 100 times over?" (Journal of theoretical biology, 175::583-594

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• creation
• evolution
• intelligent
• design
• Ian
• Juby
• Crevo
• rant
• genetic
• entropy
• minigun
• age
• of
• the
• earth
• information
• theory
• 777quip
• Intelligent Design
• Creationism
• Darwin
• wazooloo
• funny

[emsepet]

so...what about a random mutation that gives a male cardinal a much more vibrant coloring, better indicating the strength of his immune system and becoming more attractive to his mate, who benefits from the strong immune system and therefore has increased fitness?

And passing DNA through generations is NOTHING like copying tapes. The vast majority of our DNA doesn't even code for anything so even "negative" mutations in non-coding sequences would have no tangible effects on future generations.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@ItssBrian And you completely miss the point. The point is that a multi-level structure can be built with a series of individual changes.

[ItssBrian]

@TheScienceFoundation Only if every card is the bottom card.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@ItssBrian Yes, it's the irrelevant claim that if you remove a subset of a system it becomes non-functional and it's irrelevant because modular evolution does not work via removing parts and producing non-functional systems.

That's like saying "You can't build a house of cards one layer at a time because once its built then removing a card on the bottom layer means it collapses"

[ItssBrian]

@TheScienceFoundation Not potential non-function. Certain non-function.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@ItssBrian I do, it's an argument from incredulity that claims certain systems were put together as is because of potential non function if one or more part is removed.

[ItssBrian]

@TheScienceFoundation Oh sorry, I thought you knew what irreducible complexity was.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@ItssBrian No, it's not semantics, it's you making completely empty claim and then dodging when you're asked to support it.

'irreducible complexity is evidence for intelligent design.'

No, it's a claim. Evidence would entail an actual mechanism that explains it not just asserting 'its complex, therefore design'

[ItssBrian]

@TheScienceFoundation Yes it is semantics. I said you know the claims of irreducible complexity, and rather than addressing the evidence (irreducible complexity) you looked for fault with the way I phrased it. Yes, claims =/= evidience, so to satisfy your strict need for grammar how about this: Irreducible complexity is evidence for intelligent design.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@ItssBrian It's not semantics so much as you've claimed design and done absolutely nothing to support it.