I think it is more because YECs want to equate “Kind” with a category of animals …
when the Bible seems to equate “kind” with any reproductively unique population.
There’s a difference in terminology… where YECs think they can call a group of cattle a KIND,
when in fact, Western cows and african water buffalo most likely can’t reproduce a new Generation
at all. By the definition used in Genesis 1, cows and water buffalo are not ONE kind… they are two kinds.
While I think it has much to recommend it I don’t think his method to measure functional information is applicable in all cases.
I’m repeating myself her but if the theory is that all other life on Earth is descended from LUCA, a single cell microbe with perhaps a few hundred genes, then to get to humans with many types of cells, tissues, and organs and around 20,000 genes then qualitatively there has been an enormous increase in information even if we can’t quantify it.
Since it is the gain of information, functions, features, that evolution must explain that is what I used in my definition of macroevolution.
Obviously other people disagree with this reasoning, and I have tried to explain why they’re wrong
And this is exactly the same trap that causes trouble for so many amateur evolutionists… they equate Evolution with a progression up some imaginary scale of complexity. Certainly things evolve and do become more complex.
But Evolution is ANY change…regardless of complexity.
When snakes evolved from 4 legged reptiles… are you saying snakes should not be considered an evolutionary development… because they are now SIMPLER?
I will accept that I was wrong here! I did not pay enough (any) attention to which creationist position Uncommon Descent was representing. If they really believe that intervention was only required to get so many different kinds of worms during the Cambrian, I remain somewhat baffled but I will not try to further discuss it here.
I would not even go that far. It is the definition of all life that it reproduces something like itself (after its own kind). I think kind can mean most anything the reader wants it to, just like the modern word can. All it’s saying is that there was a huge variety.
Since evolution is explaining that it occurred in many small steps, a proposed definition that claims each step must be both a functional change in the organism and a physical increase of DNA is a very cunning way to make it seem as if there is no such thing as a ‘functional increase of information,’ or if there is it’s very rare.
Or if scientists bring up examples and the response is more or less, ‘No, that’s not an increase in information because . . . well, I don’t know for sure what an increase in information would look like, but I’ll know it when I see it, and that’s not it.’
It’s no surprise that people are not very impressed with this reasoning. If I have understood it wrong, please correct me.
I don’t see why this would be so. If you define information so that it isn’t needed in order for all of these species to evolve then there wouldn’t be an increase in information, as you define it.
It’s a bit like saying that you have to hit the ball 1,000 feet in order to get a home run. Of course, no one has ever hit a baseball 1,000 feet, and yet they are still recording home runs all of the time. If you set the bar too high for what counts as an increase in information then evolution no longer has to increase information in order to produce the biodiversity we see today.
As we have seen with many ID supporters, a gain in information is not needed to produce new functions or features. Whenever we show them the emergence of a new function or feature they say that it isn’t an example of an increase in information (e.g. the Lenski experiment). What the ID supporters have done is argue themselves out of the conversation because evolution no longer needs to produce new information as they define it.
The Durston piece is ridiculous. But it links “functional information” to this PNAS paper by some solid scientists. I think you are referring to a different link, in the sentence following, which claims that “we have a method to measure evolutionary change in terms of functional information” and links to the nearly-uncited paper from 11 years ago.
I like it. That definition of the theory of evolution is perfectly compatible with Young Earth Creation.
Less than 10,000 years ago God created the Universe, the Earth, and all that is in it, including Man, and all the kinds of animals. From the created kinds evolution has produced the many species we have today (and many others that have become extinct) through changes in the genomes of those populations. Some of these changes were flaws in replication of DNA, others were losses during partitioning of the kinds into species.
almost 44% of all published manuscripts are never cited. If you have even 1 citations for a manuscript you are already (almost!) in the top half (top 55.8%). With 10 or more citations, your work is now in the top 24% of the most cited work worldwide; this increased to the top 1.8% as you reach 100 or more citations. Main take home message: the average citation per manuscript is clearly below 10!
I also found a great blog post by Scott Weingart, which by restricting his analysis to a single journal, Scientometrics, got very similar results, with 50% of all published papers in that journal having fewer than 4 citations, 70% fewer than 7.