Evolution and Probability

The example I gave is closer than the idea of many people buying a ticket. I thought that I had made it quite clear that according to your there are a good many more steps available in the langur example than the nine your calculation assumes.Evolution does not depend on strict sequences of mutations - typically different traits are evolving at the same time. So many different sequences will give the same result. And evolution does not even have a fixed goal so the number of paths that produce significant evolution is even greater.Your objection is redundant - beneficial mutations will deal with the enviromental needs by definition. The pleiotropic effects of some mutations also come out in the wash - if they are beneficial overall. As for your assertion that evolution "almost always relies on related mutations" perhaps you would like to explain it. Related in what way ? And how much if it is - again - a question of which changes are beneficial ?The first step in improving either calculation is to get an estimate of the number of attempts available. Assuming only a single attempt for each success is obviously wrong.
And for Parker's calculations we also need to consider that the probability of getting two related mutations is the sum of the probability of ALL possible related pairs - not the probability of getting a specific pair.

Evolution does not always preserve species so we don't need a certain success. Predator-prey relations are more typically an "arms race" than one species obtaining an overwhelming advantage - likely because every advantage is in fact a trade-off and there are diminishing returns in pushing past the optimal point.Just off the top of my head, your hypothetical bees might survive by improving speed, manoueverability or by changes to the venom in their sting. And the changes only have to keep the losses to predators down to an acceptable level. So even in your example - which certainly does not seem typical - the situation is not as bad as you suggest.The situation you describe is most likely to happen when a new predator is introduced to an environment. And to the best of my knowledge extinction IS the most likely result (how many island species are driven to extinction or endangered by the introduction of rats ?) . So I don't see why evolution should be expected to deal with it at all. It sounds more like a problem for Spetner's non-random mutations which SHOULD be more effective in dealing with that sort of situation.

I am going to try and summarize some of the key points. Dillan, if I didn’t address something you felt was important, please bring it up again.The mutation rate came up several times in your post, so I will just address it a single time here: Whether it is 64, 100, 128, or 175 is clearly uncertain. The rate will vary across the genome and from individual to individual. These are different estimates based on different studies. It just so happens that the two most recent ones are 128 and 175. But there is still no way of knowing that this is representative of the entire genome, and is a good number to use as a long term average. All we can say is that this range poses no problem for the example of lysozyme convergence. If the actual mutation rate was 1/10th this, then it could pose a problem.Dillan: Okay, in the future I will perhaps discuss Fred's 'misconceptions'. However if Fred represented the authors of the Wu paper correctly, then this could have severe consequences for evolutionary theory-namely that there must be 60 births per individual just to maintain genetic equilibrium!FK: But Fred did not represent the authors correctly. The 60 births per individual comes from an error that Fred made which lead to a faulty conclusion. We can get into it if you like, but the findings of the HGP nullify Fred’s claim.Dillan: Well, if I am to challenge something I need the original source to refer to. What source said the selection coefficient was .53?FK: You were given the source, an actual literature reference if I recall correctly, at NAIG. You should have saved it. Or, you could try to find some actual experimental evidence to suggest that 0.1 is a good selection coefficient to use in this case. It doesn’t really matter, because convergence in this case is not a problem even if the selection coefficient is 0.1. It would only become a problem if you reduced it to 0.01, but you have no justification for doing so (other than you need to).Dillan: In langurs, the entire population has the nucleotides that converged on lysozyme.FK: Do you have a reference that says the entire langur population has all 9 nucleotides? I am surprised that someone has sequenced the entire langur population. That must have cost several trillion dollars. But even if they all did have the 9, that would argue for a larger than average selection coefficient. You do understand that the selection coefficient will be larger when the mutation is more beneficial than average?Dillan: However if convergence is so likely, as you suggest, why do we not see more cases of it? I am only aware of a few examples of genetic convergence.FK: It is going to depend. Here we are considering 9 nucleotides. We can see that this would take a few million generations to have a decent chance of convergence. But if we assumed 15 nucleotides, the number of required generations goes way up. But if you have the same initial conditions as in the langurs, convergence would be a fairly likely occurrence for a small number of nucleotides, just not a long string of nucleotides. I doubt that many studies have been done looking for small strands of convergence among various species.Dillan: I would say it is likely that the Eyre-Walker estimate is closer to being correct since the authors of the paper that was written post-HGP used it. If it had been incorrect, or if somehow the HGP suggested that the number was wrong, then I do not know why they would use it.FK: That’s a pretty weak argument. There are all kinds of reasons they could have used the older estimate. The main reason they probably used it is they weren’t aware of the other estimates. Also, as far as most people are concerned there is not that much difference than approximately 100 and 128. It just turns out in the case we are arguing that it makes an order of magnitude difference in the probability calculation.Dillan: I do not see a problem with me using the 100 estimate.FK: I bet you don’t, since it lowers the probability (given all the other assumptions) from about 25% (in the case of 128) to 2%. I would use that estimate too if I had interest in merely trying to win an argument as opposed to getting to the truth of the matter.Dillan: I thought that the mutation rate was around 1 copying error every 10 million replications. However Nachman (whose estimate you like) estimated "The average mutation rate was estimated to be approximately 2.5 x 10(-8) mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation."FK: The phrase 1 copying error every 10 million replications is nonsensical in the context in which he used it. If he had written 1 copying error every 10 million nucleotides then the statement makes more sense. But the original phrase that you wrote, They occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule is completely incorrect. The correct phrasing is that there are lots of mutations during every duplication of a DNA molecule. A reading of the paragraph you posted indicates that this guy doesn’t know what he is talking about and no business critiquing genetics.FKP.S. Your "number of conceptions" argument is really steering the topic in a different direction. I would prefer to focus on one subject at a time, or at the very least dedicate another thread to that argument.

You were writing to PaulK here, but let me throw in a couple of comments.Dillan: The only problem that I have with this is that evolution depends in nearly every evoluitonary sequence of some kind of pattern of mutations. For one thing nearly all of them must be beneficial.FK: Profoundly untrue. Do the terms genetic drift or neutral theory mean anything to you?Dillan: For example, ReMine states, "...in flies there is a gene affecting eye color that also afects the reproductive organs."FK: I would take anything Remine says with a grain of salt. He has made some fundamental errors in his book, perhaps because he is unqualified to write about biology. He is an electrical engineer, for crying out loud. When you have no training in a specific area, it is quite easy to make mistakes if you are attempting to critique it. I am just trying to say that you should be careful when putting Remine out there as an authority. His musings will carry no weight with the scientifically literate.Dillan: Since evolution almost relies on related mutations, it is the rule rather than the exception.FK: You really have some serious misconceptions about evolutionary theory. I recommend that you take a break from the Creationist literature and read an actual mainstream science book about evolution. You don't have to accept it or agree with it, but at least you might understand it.FK

Thank you for the replies PaulK and FK. Right now, it looks as if FK may have been correct in his criticism of my original calcualtions. I know that I have drug out this debate for a very long time, but I wanted to make sure your logic was consistent. I am not a creationist to hold to dead arguments. In fact, at one time I was opposed to the use of information theory as an adequate argument for design. Just ask Fred Williams or Paul Willis (if Paul remembers). I have since changed my opinion about the matter after reading some material on it. Right now, mine is not a powerful argument at all, and has taken a completely different direction than what I had intended it to go. I intended to email Spetner about the matter but was unable to find an email address. Does anyone here know how I can get in touch with him?As for Parker's number, it may be a powerful argument yet, but I need to develop it some more. As for now, I will say that both of you have indeed given some very powerful criticisms to my model and both of you are worthy opponents. The question now is, where do we go from here? I am going to try to gather some evidence for Parker's calculation. If you would, help me use Parker's number to set up a correct calculation. It is clear that his calculations have no contraints involved.Again, I would like to thank you for the correspondence. I will more than likely post again on the matter, perhaps even in a day or two. I may post on this thread or I may start a new one.

As I read Parker's model he is talking about the probability of a point mutation at a specific location in one birth (it's about the right order of magnitude). So Parker is assuming that there are two specific births and in each one a specific mutation must occur. In reality there will probably be multiple generations available for each and many possible mutations (Parker even implicitly assumes that each mutation can only have ONE related mutation). As it stands Parker's calculation is worthless - the assumptions that need to be made for it to apply are far divorced from reality.To get probability theory to work you have to be VERY specific about what you are working out. Parker is working out the probability of a specific sequence of events of probability 10^-7 occurring with only one attempt for each. That's the wrong thing to calculate - if evolution really did work in a way where that calculation would apply Darwinian evolution would be out by now, without Parker needing to do a thing.Personally I don't think the argument can be saved. The basic concept might stand a chance, but to do it right would be a lot of work even if the numbers are available.Start with this question. To what extent are related mutations needed ? Could the observations that idea is based on be better explained by selection bias (we notice related clusters) and natural selection (if a particular mutation improves fitness related mutations will be more likely to improve fitness) ?

While information theory has been mentioned in passing several times in this thread, it did not seem to me that you were using an argument based on information theory but rather on probability. If you think you're using an information theory argument then I'm somehow just not seeing it. Maybe the thread title led me astray.The Creationist information theory argument, as I understand it, goes something like this:

1. Rather than using the mathematical definition of information introduced by Claude Shannon and upon which modern information theory is based, introduce a different definition of information that purports to somehow measure semantic meaning or knowledge.
   ​
2. Assume that the equations of modern information theory still apply to this alternative definition of information.
   ​
3. Present as an axiom that this type of "information" can only be created by intelligent beings such as ourselves.
   ​
4. Conclude that since mutations are the result of a random process rather than of intelligent beings that mutations cannot create new information.

All these points are invalid. The first point is invalid because you can't redefine information to include semantic meaning or knowledge and still call it information theory. As Shannon points out in his paper right on page one: The second point is invalid because you can't take the equations of actual information theory and apply them to an alternative definition of information that includes semantic meaning. It would make as much sense as applying the rules of football or cricket to a game of chess.The third point is invalid because it must be demonstrated that only an intelligent being can create semantic information. It can't just be an axiom.The fourth point is of course valid only if the first three points are valid, but they're not, so this point also fails.In contrast to Creationist arguments based upon information theory, I think the probabilistic arguments have at least the potential for pointing to valid conclusions, but as I think this thread is demonstrating, probabilistic arguments are fraught with potential missteps and miscues. Many aspects of statistics are counter-intuitive and present conceptual stumbling blocks and pitfalls, especially so when too many numbers have to be estimated or assumed because of a lack of hard data. This isn't to in any way imply the approach is invalid, only that, especially for amateurs like ourselves, obtaining valid results, if such are possible given the available data, might take a bit of work.I think the biggest problem for the probabilistic argument is that it is attempting to demonstrate that a ubiquitous process we can actually observe and measure under controlled laboratory conditions, namely mutation and selection, nonetheless did not play any significant role in evolution, as if somehow outside the lab the process is almost irrelevant. I understand that what you're actually trying to demonstrate is that the process is insufficiently fast for the time available, but given the uncertainty in the numbers it seems appropriate to simply explore these important and pertinent questions. Concluding the process is insufficient doesn't seem possible using the data I've seen in this thread so far.--Percy

Dillan: As for Parker's number, it may be a powerful argument yet, but I need to develop it some more. As for now, I will say that both of you have indeed given some very powerful criticisms to my model and both of you are worthy opponents. The question now is, where do we go from here? I am going to try to gather some evidence for Parker's calculation. If you would, help me use Parker's number to set up a correct calculation. It is clear that his calculations have no contraints involved.FK: I am not really sure why you think Parker’s argument is meaningful. First, based on the excerpt you provided, he knows very little about genetics. 2nd, I looked up his book and it was published in 1980. If he is using mutation estimates that are that old, they are frankly worthless. 3rd, he is obviously a Creationist with an agenda. I don’t trust those types of sources.There could be a simple solution to all of this Dillan. The reason that these Creationists arguments fall apart under the microscope is because evolution really happened. Don’t you think there are mathematically competent scientists working in the field? Do you know what a coup it would be to disprove evolution? It would have enormous implications. I would love to publish a paper along those lines; it would make me rich and famous. But the fact is that you only see Creationists doing so, because Creationists have an agenda to protect.I would recommend that you go to the primary literature and develop your own argument. Even though his argument has been superceded by more recent data, I think that’s what Fred Williams did with his work on U and the number of required births. But you are never going to get anywhere with the approach you are taking, especially if you try to develop an argument now based on Parker’s number. You are once again starting off with an incorrect premise.Good luck. I sincerely mean it when I say I think it would be cool if one of these mathematical arguments ever held up to close scrutiny, but I don’t see it happening. There is just too much evidence from too many fields that indicate that evolution is true.FK

Thank you all for the replies.PK: As I read Parker's model he is talking about the probability of a point mutation at a specific location in one birth (it's about the right order of magnitude). So Parker is assuming that there are two specific births and in each one a specific mutation must occur. In reality there will probably be multiple generations available for each and many possible mutations (Parker even implicitly assumes that each mutation can only have ONE related mutation). As it stands Parker's calculation is worthless - the assumptions that need to be made for it to apply are far divorced from reality.
To get probability theory to work you have to be VERY specific about what you are working out. Parker is working out the probability of a specific sequence of events of probability 10^-7 occurring with only one attempt for each. That's the wrong thing to calculate - if evolution really did work in a way where that calculation would apply Darwinian evolution would be out by now, without Parker needing to do a thing.Personally I don't think the argument can be saved. The basic concept might stand a chance, but to do it right would be a lot of work even if the numbers are available.Start with this question. To what extent are related mutations needed ? Could the observations that idea is based on be better explained by selection bias (we notice related clusters) and natural selection (if a particular mutation improves fitness related mutations will be more likely to improve fitness) ?Dillan: Are you suggesting that you have read Parker's model before? I found it in his book, Creation: Facts of Life. I do agree that the probabilities need some constraints. In addition to your questions, some more may inclued: How many mutations can one specific mutation be related to? Are related mutations necessary? How much time is available and how many mutations have occurred?I will seek to answer these questions, but I doubt that the information is out there. I think that Parker got his information from the book Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (at least I think that this is the title). If anyone here has read the book, or if anyone knows how I can get ahold of it, I would appreciate it if you would tell me. Just because a book is old doesn't make its' contents any less truthful.Percy:"dillan writes:
In fact, at one time I was opposed to the use of information theory as an adequate argument for design.While information theory has been mentioned in passing several times in this thread, it did not seem to me that you were using an argument based on information theory but rather on probability. If you think you're using an information theory argument then I'm somehow just not seeing it. Maybe the thread title led me astray."You misunderstand. This thread had nothing to do with information theory-I was just saying that I try not to hold to dead creationist arguments. However I feel that information theory is a very strong argument for design."The Creationist information theory argument, as I understand it, goes something like this:Rather than using the mathematical definition of information introduced by Claude Shannon and upon which modern information theory is based, introduce a different definition of information that purports to somehow measure semantic meaning or knowledge."Right now there is no formula to measure semantic meaning or quality. A book may contain many pages, but the actual information content may be very low. However another book may contain few pages, but the information content may be very high. What Gitt is trying to do is set up a pattern for detecting design. This is not a different definition of information, but rather an extention of Shannon's. However, Shannon's definition constitutes the lowest level of information."Assume that the equations of modern information theory still apply to this alternative definition of information."Shannon's definition may be used for transmission and storage. In fact I think that Gitt used it to determine that cells have the highest compact information storing density around. However his equations are useless when determining the quantity of, or detecting the prescence of, semantic information (or pragmatic or apobetic)."Present as an axiom that this type of "information" can only be created by intelligent beings such as ourselves."Nope-information comes from information. For example, when cells divide, there is no intelligence involved. The only factor is that one information system gave rise to another. The ultimate origin, however, is always linked to intelligence and volition."Conclude that since mutations are the result of a random process rather than of intelligent beings that mutations cannot create new information.
All these points are invalid. The first point is invalid because you can't redefine information to include semantic meaning or knowledge and still call it information theory. As Shannon points out in his paper right on page one:"Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem."
The second point is invalid because you can't take the equations of actual information theory and apply them to an alternative definition of information that includes semantic meaning. It would make as much sense as applying the rules of football or cricket to a game of chess.The third point is invalid because it must be demonstrated that only an intelligent being can create semantic information. It can't just be an axiom.The fourth point is of course valid only if the first three points are valid, but they're not, so this point also fails."I really do not want to address this topic in this post. However, I have had a discussion with Fred Williams on the matter. Look at his guestbook at The Evolution Fairytale .
Briefly, some quotes form biology and information scientists:Karl Steinbach, "The classical theory of information can be compared to the statement that one kilogram of gold has the same value as one kilogram of sand."Ernst von Weizacker, "The reason for the 'uselessness' of Shannon's theory in the different sciences is frankly that no science can limit itself to its syntactic level."G. Oshe, "While matter and energy are the concerns of physics, the description of biological phenomena are typically involves information in a functional capacity. In cybernetics the general information concept quantitatively expresses the information content of a given set of symbols by employing the probability distribution of all possible permutations of the symbols. But the information content in biological systems (genetic information) is concerned with its 'value' and its 'functional meaning', and thus with the semantic aspect of information, with its quality."Shannon's definition constitutes part, but not all, of the definition for meaningful understandable information. I suggest reading Gitt's book before making claims like yours. He devotes an entire section of his appendix to discussing Shannon's theory. I have read the article by Baldwin, but after doing some research on my own I do not think that his arguments truly stand up to scrutiny. The fact is that there has never been an example of the type of code Gitt talks about forming by chance or physical processes. For a code to truly form this way, you must show co-variance between two phenomena that exhibit statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics. It must be specified and complex. Also it must have some sort of representational function. In addition, it cannot be due to the inherent physical properties of the system. Sound waves have no inherent property to make them align in such a way that it seems as if a person of the same language is talking to you, when in actuality it is just natural forces at work. Random bits of metal do not construct computer programs, because it is not inherent to the properties of the material carrier. Likewise life's chemicals have no inherent property to make them align in such a way to maintain functional organization. As Yockey warns: "Attempts to relate the idea of order . . . with biological organization or specificity must be regarded as a play on words which cannot stand careful scrutiny. Informational macromolecules can code genetic messages and therefore can carry information because the sequence of bases or residues is affected very little, if at all, by [self-organizing] physico-chemical factors." As chemist Michael Polanyi has said: "Suppose that the actual structure of a DNA molecule were due to the fact that the bindings of its bases were much stronger than the bindings would be for any other distribution of bases, then such a DNA molecule would have no information content. Its code-like character would be effaced by an overwhelming redundancy. . . .Whatever may be the origin of a DNA configuration, it can function as a code only if its order is not due to the forces of potential energy. It must be as physically indeterminate as the sequence of words is on a printed page." Books do not write themselves. Rather, it takes an intelligence to do this. The very existence of a SETI program is, in my opinion, enough to justify the notion that more than likely life originated from an intelligent origin.Gitt says that functional information is invariably associated with five levels of information, which is in turn associated with an intelligence. I cannot demonstrate that an intelligence is always needed, because I would then have to prove a non-existence. I am just going on the data I have. Likewise you cannot prove that energy is conserved-you only rely on observational data.As I have said, I really don't want to discuss information theory in this thread. Perhaps in another I will.FK, "Dillan: As for Parker's number, it may be a powerful argument yet, but I need to develop it some more. As for now, I will say that both of you have indeed given some very powerful criticisms to my model and both of you are worthy opponents. The question now is, where do we go from here? I am going to try to gather some evidence for Parker's calculation. If you would, help me use Parker's number to set up a correct calculation. It is clear that his calculations have no contraints involved.
FK: I am not really sure why you think Parker’s argument is meaningful. First, based on the excerpt you provided, he knows very little about genetics. 2nd, I looked up his book and it was published in 1980. If he is using mutation estimates that are that old, they are frankly worthless. 3rd, he is obviously a Creationist with an agenda. I don’t trust those types of sources."1). Parker is a PhD in biology. He has had his fair share of genetics and discusses this area a bit in his book. 2). Creation: Facts of Life was published in 1994. While this is not recent, it is not as old as you would suggest. (And I am absolutely positive about this date because I own his book). 3). He is a creationist, but also a former evolutionist. In fact, he says in his book that all the evidence does not support creation. He thinks that you must weigh the evidence."There could be a simple solution to all of this Dillan. The reason that these Creationists arguments fall apart under the microscope is because evolution really happened. Don’t you think there are mathematically competent scientists working in the field? Do you know what a coup it would be to disprove evolution? It would have enormous implications. I would love to publish a paper along those lines; it would make me rich and famous. But the fact is that you only see Creationists doing so, because Creationists have an agenda to protect.I would recommend that you go to the primary literature and develop your own argument. Even though his argument has been superceded by more recent data, I think that’s what Fred Williams did with his work on U and the number of required births. But you are never going to get anywhere with the approach you are taking, especially if you try to develop an argument now based on Parker’s number. You are once again starting off with an incorrect premise.Good luck. I sincerely mean it when I say I think it would be cool if one of these mathematical arguments ever held up to close scrutiny, but I don’t see it happening. There is just too much evidence from too many fields that indicate that evolution is true.FK"I cannot base my belief in creation on just one case where evolution is shown to be within the realm of possibility. For one thing, I think that there is more evidence out there than this. For another thing, my belief has nothing to do with the science involved. I would believe in God and creation even if it seemed very nonsensical. Is that an a priori assumption? Yes, but others make the same a priori assumptions.

I'm deriving my understanding of Parker's model from your description. It is certain that he has some very specific event of probability 10^-7 in mind and that is about the right probability of one particular nucleotide to mutate in a single birth. If he does not actually say what the number represents then his argument is even more worthless than I had supposed (it really is essential information). I am sure that he did not get the idea that that probability could simply be multiplied together from any reliable source.As for Gitt's "information theory" I've tried to discuss it here more than once - just couple of days ago in the "Faith and Belief" forum topic about a webcast (see the link to an earlier post there). So far nobody seems able and willing to address the points I have raised.

Dillan: 1). Parker is a PhD in biology. He has had his fair share of genetics and discusses this area a bit in his book.FK: What if I told you that I have a PhD in math, and then proceeded to make incorrect factual statements about the Pythagorean Theorem? Would you believe that I know what I am talking about? If the statement above about the frequency of mutations was actually written by Parker, then that tells me that he knows very little about this area.Dillan: 2). Creation: Facts of Life was published in 1994. While this is not recent, it is not as old as you would suggest.FK: I got 1980 from Amazon.com. I plugged in the title and got back Publisher: Master Books; (January 1980). Now he might have published another version in 1994, but that’s still well before most estimates of mutation rate became available.Dillan: 3). He is a creationist, but also a former evolutionist. In fact, he says in his book that all the evidence does not support creation.FK: Have you ever seen the recent quote by Kurt Wise? I publicized it over at Theology.Web. Dr. Wise is a Creationist who studied under Stephen Gould. Here is what he wrote about the majority of the evidence: I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant.Dillan: I cannot base my belief in creation on just one case where evolution is shown to be within the realm of possibility. For one thing, I think that there is more evidence out there than this. For another thing, my belief has nothing to do with the science involved. I would believe in God and creation even if it seemed very nonsensical. Is that an a priori assumption? Yes, but others make the same a priori assumptions.FK: You misunderstand what I was saying. I am not suggesting that you abandon Creationism based on this case. I am suggesting a reason that these Creationist arguments never work out. They are not grounded in reality. It would be like trying to prove that the earth is the center of the universe. You could certainly attempt an eloquent proof, as people have, but the proofs always fall apart under scrutiny because what they are attempting to prove is false.FK

Hi Dillan,Do you think you could use the UBB codes for quoting, or at least some system to tell what you write from what you're quoting? There's a link to the left of the message reply box called *UBB Code is ON that takes you to a page that explains UBB codes. They're not too difficult to use.I didn't mean to hijack this thread into a discussion of information theory. The last time it was discussed here was I think last year with Fred in the Information and Genetics thread. I've posted a reply there at Message 65.--Percy

After you said Gary Parker has a Ph.D., I decided to do a little digging because I couldn't imagine a Ph.D. making the comment he made. It turns out that he does not have a Ph.D., he has an Ed.D. There is a world of difference there. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/g_parker.aspThis may explain why he repeats some soundly refuted Creationist claims like Gish's bullfrog affair. See skepticAlso, I found a different version of his conversion than what he describes in his book (as told by AIG):http://www.theistic-evolution.com/parkerdebate.htmlFK

Thank you everyone for the replies. To PK, you are correct. Parker's numbers do need some readjusting. I will try to correct them, but I doubt that I will be able to. What were your points with Gitt information?To Percy-I may reply to you in the information thread.To FK-Parker's book was written in 1994. Take a look at this:
http://www.amazon.com...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}You were correct about Parker's degree. I don't think that we should automatically discard everything he says because of this though.Regards,dillan[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-30-2003]

If you need a link the latest Gitt thread is here
EvC Forum: Information Theory webcast from Dr Werner Gitt