PROOF against evolution

I think the discussion of information is seriously flawed and won't get into it other than to say that DNA can certainly be considered a medium for the communication of information. In fact, information theory holds that the less predictable a bit stream is, such as might be the case with junk DNA, the more information is potentially communicated. In other words, I disagree with crashfrog, which isn't to say I agree with Buzz.But it's the Washington Post article about junk DNA I wish to discuss. First, as crashfrog notes, Buzz has misinterpreted the article, though in Buzz's defense I have to say the article not only lends itself to misinterpretation, it encourages it. If you go to the Washington Post site for the article ('Junk DNA' Contains Essential Information) you'll see that Justin Gillis is a staff writer, not a science writer. He seems to have incorrectly focused on junk DNA as the significant finding. Crashfrog correctly notes that though the opening paragraph seems to be saying that it's been discovered that most junk DNA actually has a purpose, if you read the rest of the article you'll see that all they've done is discovered that some junk DNA *may* have a purpose. Hence, as crashfrog says, less DNA may be junk than we previously thought, but just a little less, not a lot less.It might help to read an article on the exact same topic by a science writer. This article is from Science News (Mining the Mouse: A rodent's DNA sheds light on the human genome), which isn't public but I've put a copy in the EvC Forum archive, and it has the proper focus, barely mentioning junk DNA.And if you read this short summary of the same research from Scientific American (Mouse Genome Sequenced), where junk DNA is referred to as "non-protein-encoding sequences" near the end of the article, you'll see where they quantify the finding and note that the number of sequences involved is a mere 2,262. The total number of such junk DNA sequences is easily above 100,000, so as crashfrog already noted, this reduces the number of junk DNA sequences by just a small amount, only 2% or 3%. Just to be absolutely clear, Buzz is therefore incorrect to claim that all junk DNA is useful information when he says: But there are several more important points. First, Buzz seems to have misinterpreted what it means to discover something new when he says in Message 57: And in Message 59: Well, yes, Buzz, we *are* interested in truth, or at least in being accurate, and so it's important to repeat that you've misinterpreted the article (again, it's easily misinterpretable, please read the other higher quality articles provided above). This research has added a little bit to our knowledge of genetics, not "upended the DNA applecart" or "retooled their instruction on it." Everything we already know about DNA remains true. What they've uncovered is evidence that some DNA sequences previously thought to be non-coding may actually have a purpose. We don't know what that purpose is, though it is speculated it may be related to turning genes on and off. And whatever it does, we don't know what the mechanism is, since it doesn't seem to follow the familiar DNA=>RNA=>protein process.Secondly, and more importantly, even if the DNA applecart had been overturned revealing new processes previously unimagined, have you given any thought, Buzz, to how this would in any way support your views? Other than discovering that DNA really isn't the basis of inheritance, how could any new discovery about the mechanisms of genetics help you?Thirdly, and even more importantly, Buzz seems to be forgetting that tentativity is foundational to science, that all our scientific knowledge is considered tentative and open to reinterpretation or replacement in light of new knowledge of understanding. In other words, this research is just one little bit of scientific progress improving and extending what we know. Finding out something new that we didn't know before is what science is all about. Buzz seems to think that this is a weakness of science when it is actually what science is all about.But the other important point is that this diversion into whether junk DNA is actually junk or not is just that: a diversion. If Buzz and crashfrog were originally discussing information then I think they should resume that topic.--Percy

1. It's not off topic as this was used as an argument against RM/NS, i.e. the process of evolution.2. NS is impossible without RM. So the buck stops, so to speak with RM.3. Nancy Pearcy was correct when she said, ".....no known natural forces produce structures with high information content.." In order for natural selection to happen, random information must be mutated and that just ainta gona happen sufficiently enough to produce DNA.4. The recent DNA junk/information discovery is significant in the case against evolution because it involves far more information than random processes, which tend to be repetitive such as sea waves are known to produce.

Congratulations, Buzz, for yet another post that doesn't rebut a single point but simply makes some unsupported assertions. Specifically: As misunderstood by you, it wasn't off topic, but the research actually has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make. Now that the content of the articles has been explained to you, you can either rebut and point out where the explanations were wrong, or you can accept the explanation and withdraw your point. Simply asserting that it was *too* on topic is poor form, not to mention a violation of the guidelines. This is getting so tiresome. We have to explain the science to you, then we have to convince you the science is not made up, then we have to explain, often at length, why your ideas contradict science, then we have to tell you how to debate, then we have to keep reminding you how to debate. Your persistence is not in question here, Buzz. Okay, already, we can see you're persistent. Could you please start replying meaningfully? Yet another meaningless, unsupported bare assertion, and another violation of the guidelines. Bare unsupported assertion and another violation...oh, never mind. And you never said who Nancy Pearcy was. Geez, Buzz, as already explained at length by me in Message 61 and supported by links to two additional articles that explain the research by Dr. Lander's group much more accurately than the Washington Post article, you misinterpreted what you read. You either have to rebut my explanation, or explain how your point still follows from a correct interpretation of the articles. You can't just keep repeating your points.--Percy

Buzz:

quote:

---

2. NS is impossible without RM. So the buck stops, so to speak with RM.
Percy:
Yet another meaningless, unsupported bare assertion, and another violation of the guidelines.

---

As a matter of fact, I used plain old common sense to come up with my conclusion that alleged NS wouldn't happen before alleged RM. So when you debunked it as "unsupported bare assertion", in defense, the support was found very quickly in a search. Consider this from an academic source:

quote:

---

The conventional wisdom suggests that random mutation precedes natural selection, i.e., random mutations that allowed giraffes to reach higher leaves than their competitors fixed in the population.

---

http://www.inside.bard.edu/academic/programs/isrop/researchbuzz:

quote:

---

3. Nancy Pearcy was correct when she said, ".....no known natural forces produce structures with high information content.." In order for natural selection to happen, random information must be mutated and that just ainta gona happen sufficiently enough to produce DNA.

​

Percy
Bare unsupported assertion and another violation...oh, never mind. And you never said who Nancy Pearcy was.

---

I quoted Nancy in post 20 and told who she was there. Her name and comments were discussed in at least two other posts of this thread so I assumed you would know who I was referring to.

quote:

---

Nancy R Pearcey, Fellow and Policy Director of the Wilberforce Forum and coauthor with Charles Thaxton of 'The Soul of Science' (Crossway)

---

You can read the article on DNA here: http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_dnamessage0696.htm

quote:

---

Geez, Buzz, as already explained at length by me in Message 61 and supported by links to two additional articles that explain the research by Dr. Lander's group much more accurately than the Washington Post article, you misinterpreted what you read. You either have to rebut my explanation, or explain how your point still follows from a correct interpretation of the articles. You can't just keep repeating your points.

---

Read it for yourself from the link and argue Nancy's statements. She's more qualified to explain it than I.Percy, are your numerous charges and implications that I'm violating forum rules the beginng phase of some kind of public lynching or something? Is this how you all dispatch opponents who begin to score points here and why you have so few counterparts to talk to?

No, Buzz, it's an attempt to persuade you to begin following the Forum Guidelines, which you agreed to follow when you signed on, specifically rule 2: Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration. Buzz, if your goal is to stymie open debate and cause frustration, then you're scoring plenty of points. Congratulations. But if your goal is to intelligently discuss the issues and give sincere and informed responses to the points raised, then you're deep into the negative numbers.There are tons of examples, but let's just take the latest one, my Message 61 which explained how you misinterpreted the Washington Post article. Why don't we just start there? Either explain how the explanation I provided was wrong (in other words, provide rebuttal), or withdraw your point. So far all you've done is pretend the main ponit of the message doesn't exist. I'm not going to respond to anything else in your message so as to give you no opportunity or excuse to once again avoid the issue (except to mention that you misspelled Pearcey as Pearcy, which is why a search of Pearcy turned up nothing but the message with your misspelling).--Percy

quote:

---

Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.

---

So at this point I guess we need an independent unbiased referee to judge as to whether I've violated the rules. The statements I made which you challenged as in violation were necessary and pertinent to my argument as my responses have clearly shown. Prove otherwise.My apologies for the name misspelling.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-12-2003]

Well, why not ask True Creation to have a look, in his Admin. mode. He's fair, and a Creationist.

quote:

---

Well, why not ask True Creation to have a look, in his Admin. mode. He's fair, and a Creationist.

---

I guess "independent" is not the word. Unbiased should suffice, and that doesn't necessarily need to be a Creationist so long as they're fair. All one need do is read my rebuttals to the posts Percey specified as in violation and one should clearly see that Percey's charges are unfounded. Someone, anyone prove otherwise.

It's implied in the next paragraph when they talk about precisely what they found:

quote:

---

The new results suggest that the genomes of both organisms contain at least twice as much critically important genetic material as previously believed

---

Twice as much "real" DNA still leaves "junk" DNA. The junk still outnumbers the codons. There's just less of it. Speculation. I'd say there's nothing likely about it. I was actually unaware of this article. I was aware that they had discovered unexpected functions for some DNA regarded as "junk", but no one to my knowledge has proposed that there's no junk at all in the DNA. After all, mutation happens all the time. If all DNA was functional, a mutation would always interrupt a necessary function. The junk isn't just there, it has to be there. It's a safety issue.

quote:

---

Is this how you all dispatch opponents who begin to score points here...

---

Oh my God, you ARE delusional.You passed over my post completely asking yo to provide a definition of "information" or "complexity" and to even specify which one you were talking about.I suspect you think I'm being "picky" or something, but being able to clearly define what it is you're talking about is absolutely essential to any discussion about "information", "complexity", and evolution. Creationists typically shift between two (or among three or more!) definitions without, apparently, even realizing it. You seem to be doing the same. Which is why Percipient can say something like he disagrees with crashfrog yet doesn't agree with you. Y'all are mixing up terms and definitions so much the "debate" is useless.So, how about "scoring a point" and clearly defining just what you mean when you say "information"? Not a dictionary definition, mind you, but a definition specific enough that we can clearly declare whether one strand of DNA contains "more information" than another strand, for example.If you do that, then we can stick to this one definition and actually make some progress.

quote:

---

ll one need do is read my rebuttals to the posts Percey specified as in violation and one should clearly see that Percey's charges are unfounded. Someone, anyone prove otherwise.

---

Well, looking at your message #64, I see you completely ignored Percy's points 1 and 4, which were the meat of the matter. For point #3, all you did was provide a name and a link. You did not address the criticism that your original assertion was a mere "bare assertion."Point #2 is the only point you have addressed at all. Although your original claim is deeply flawed, I think you at least justified your stating it.So, as far as I can tell you accept without comment Percy's 2 most damaging points, and missed the point of one of the criticisms you did reply to.

Nancy Pearcey, in the article you link to, uses the following definition:"The information content of any structure is defined as the minimum number of instructions needed to specify it."Is this the definition you wish to stick to for this discussion, Buz?

So Zhimbo, which statement of mine specified by Percey as in violation of forum rules specifically violates forum rules and how?[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-13-2003]

First, it shouldn't be necessary to prove the failure to in any way address an important and significant point to someone qualified to discuss the subject. I don't believe you're dishonest or duplicitous, only that your knowledge isn't yet at a point where you're able to recognize which points are important, even when they're pointed out to you. I think you're rushing into debate with too little knowledge and understanding, another point that I have made several times and that you have ignored each time.Note that your failure to address important points is a common complaint people have about you, most recently Zhimbo in Message 70, and then there's your complete abandonment of the Analysis of Amos 9:11-15 as Prophecy, Frozen Tropical Animals and Buz's seashell claim threads in mid-discussion. Most people you've debated with here have this same complaint. You've established a clear and unmistakable pattern of behavior, Buzz. There's nothing ambiguous about it.Second, proving it is easily done. In Message 61 I explained, at length and using links to two better written articles on the same research from Science News and Scientific American, how you had misinterpreted the Washington Post article. You thought the article was saying that junk DNA wasn't junk, but was actually important, and you used this interpretation to support your rebuttal to crashfrog's Message 50 where he says that most DNA is junk, and so most mutations do not occur where any important information exists . I explained that it was only saying that *some* junk DNA *may* have a purpose, and that it amounted to only 2% or 3% of junk DNA, and that therefore your rebuttal to crashfrog fails, and that his original claim that most DNA is junk stands. Instead of replying to this rebuttal by pointing out where it was wrong or mistaken, you ignored it and simply listed a bunch of bare assertions, including a simple repetition of your original assertion about junk DNA in point 4 of your Message 62. In other words, you're ignoring my rebuttal and continuing as if your original point had never been challenged. This is a violation of rule 2 of the Forum Guidelines: Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.EvC Forum was created not to be just another "me, too" Creation/Evolution site, but to provide a place where discussion could actually move forward by including a couple simple but important debating guidelines within the forum guidelines. Achieving this goal is proving more difficult than I would ever have guessed, especially when nice guys like you become so determined to do whatever you damn well please and hang the rules.Please follow the guidelines, Buzz. Score as many points as you like, but please follow the guidelines. If you choose not to, please note the enforcement paragraph at the bottom of the Forum Guidelines page.--Percy

I guess I'll hang out in the free for all sector for the most part. Thanks.