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.

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.

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: Consecutive posts merged 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

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: Consecutive posts merged 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: Consecutive posts merged 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.

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: Consecutive posts merged This is nonsense. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged 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: Consecutive posts mergedIn 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?

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.

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.)

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

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: Consecutive posts merged 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?

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.