Dishonesty and ID

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Nah, that's not why, Percy!!

​

Don't most scientists get tenured at around age 40??

​

Then the tenured scientist, like the sea squirt after it finds a secure place in the ocean and permenently attaches itself to a rock, eats it's own brain because it doesn't need it anymore.

​

---

Hey, watch it! I resemble that remark! Besides, after tenure, there's always promotion. Of course, once one is a tentured full professor ...Anyway, it does come down to individual differences. Some tenured full professors are fantastically productive -- some probationary assistant professors are not. And some places have post-tenure review. Come to think of it ... mine does.Scarlet O'hairy
tenured full professor

Gerhard: Since your post appears to have been directed at me (at least you mention my username numerous times), I'd like to try and respond. However, I find it extraordinarily difficult to follow massive paragraphs and stream-of-consciousness writing style. If you'd like me to respond substantively, please try and break your posts down to smaller, focused paragraphs (hint: one topic per paragraph is best). I'm not trying to denigrate your post, merely pointing out that I had difficulty following it. Chalk it up to ignorance or intellectual weakness on my part if you wish, but the fact remains I can't respond because I can't figure out what your trying to say. Sorry.On the one bit that I could parse, you seem to be taking exception to "my" definition of evolution: "change in allelic frequency over time". This is a fairly standard definition (see Futuyma "Evolutionary Biology", Mayr "What Evolution Is", Wilson "Diversity of Life", for example). I admit numerous authors add additional clarifications and statements. However, most of these are subsumed in "change in allelic frequency". For example, "descent with modification", IMO, is an implicit result: change in allelic frequency can lead to speciation and/or phyletic evolution, which is the heart of descent with modification. "Natural selection" and "genetic drift" are both mechanisms of the change. "Random mutation" generates the variability upon which change in frequency is based, etc.As you apparently differ with this definition of evolution, perhaps you'd care to offer your own operant definition? (If you did so in your post, my apologies - I simply couldn't find it. Please restate clearly. Thanks.)

Quetzal, sorry if you did not understand everything. What I was trying to explain to everyone in the first jaunt of my message is that I think we should all argue around the definition, not taking it any further than what it says, or changing it to mean something larger after the discussion begins. If we are going to change the definitions meaning or what it includes, then it might be better to decide what we all really mean by evolution first. I was trying to say I agree with you definition, which is generally accepted anyways, so lets discuss evolution based on what it says. If something falls outside the definition than it should be open to refutation. What I am trying to show is that what we know about information refutes your additives to the definition.That is why I disagree with you on the issue of evolution including speciation. Firstly, because the definition itself does not include anything about speciation. Secondly, I don't think any evidence has been conclusively shown to prove one organism has evolved into a new organism containing information that the old species' genome did not include. If their is no new information in the creature than it has merely adapted and portrayed a characteristic already within it. This is how the allelic frequency of a species changes. It reveals preposessed traits within a population depending on the situation the organisms are in. And also, really close to containing the same information just doesn't cut it. The information in a human that defines major features is extremely similiar to that of a chimpanzee, I think like 99.9 percent of the DNA code is the same. It is the new .1 percent change of information that makes a new species. I should hope you agree that the mental and physical differences between us and chimps are insurmountable. The chimp does not contain information to give him long legs, a handsome face (by human standards), an expansive verbal language, and the ability to engage in technical conversation.Then I asked you to show there were such species observable in nature. Like I said, you have given all kinds of information that backs genetic variation within a species most wonderfully. I am quite comfortable with this evidence. But does this speciation to you, mean that tiny changes in allelic frequency over time can produce complex new information systems and new species and even a new genus? It seems the answer is yes. We might both agree that the amount of information required for life within any protozoan is gigantic, and it is. But the amount, and the type of information that is necessary for protozoan life is very different from the information requirements within a sponge, another fairly simple creature. (as far as organ systems and specialty of cell functions go) No protozoan or byrozoan colony has ever been reported to congregate, specialize, and then develop ostia. They do not begin manufacturing collagen and spicules, to support their structures and so on. Protozoans and bryozoans do not have these properties and they do not contain information in their DNA explaining to ribosomes how to develop these properties. The sponge and the protozoan do extremely similiar things, but they have entirely different sets of information to work with and these differences don't even allow them the same phylum. If the information is different for the sponge and protozoan than I would suggest that the two -- and in fact, because the information in all differing species is quite obviously different-- that the two or any differing species could never, by any process and length of time become the other. This is only true if what we know about information is true. If new information, information that is not reflected at any point in the old species, cannot come into existence without an intelligent source, than the two must be completely independent of each other, but both can come from the same intelligent source. Do you have evidence suggesting a new species gained the required information to become the new him, by completely natural processes? Or perhaps, evidence supporting the idea that all genetic information for every species on earth began in one creature. That is what I am most interested in.-Gerhard

​

[This message has been edited by Gerhard, 05-10-2002]

Gerhard: I greatly appreciate the time you took to restate your position. I am looking forward to discussing it in detail. Unfortunately I'm off to a conference sans computer, and won't be back until Friday. I've copied the two replies you made (this and the other thread), and I do want to discuss them with you, especially about speciation and whether that is implicit in the definition natural selection I use. However, I simply won't have an opportunity until next weekend.Didn't want you to think I was ignoring you.Cheers.

Quetzal: I look forward to discussing speciation's meaning also. But as a sort of preemptive strike, I am going to explain what speciation should mean if we take the nature of information into account. I was thinking more about the definition and it can indeed imply speciation, but only to a certain degree. It is the degree speciation is taken to that will either agree or conflict with the information theorems.I am sure we have all heard the terms micro and macroevolution. Microevolution is evident all throughout nature. It does explain quite well the niche environments in nature and the various adaptations all animals have acquired to live in those evironments. Where speciation fails to be a viable explanatory option begins with speciation that moves beyond microevolution. That is, when speciation begins linking two species with completely unique informational content. For example, evolutionists would like to link us and the primeapes back to a common ancestor. They have also supposedly linked whales to a common mammilian land ancestor- I can't remeber what, but the textbook pictures showed something resembling a dog- and so on. The problem with this kind of speciation, which is really a form of macroevolution, is that the supposed common ancestors of humans and primeapes were unintelligent, with no verbal language and no features of humans. If intelligence, an extremely complicated and varying use of language, and obvious human features are intrinsical to humans than they would have to represent themselves in the common ancestors genetic information. They must be intrinsical features of the ancestors as well. Australopithicenes, and even homo habilis do not have the basic intrisical features of a human. Where then, did they acquire the information to begin displaying these features? There is a difference between showing variances in an intrisic feature (microevolution) and showing a new feature all together. We cannot say that any creature can vary an intrinsical feature slowly until it transforms into something completely new. I realize that evolution in the sense most people on this forum would like to understand it means microevolution/variances in allelic frequency that will eventually lead to new creatures, after millions of minute changes, with completely new features. These new features that appear must undoubtedly be portrayed by new genetic information, and therefore the features cannot occur. I am curious as to why no one has offered an example of a species that has performed the amazing feat of acquiring new genetic information by purely natural, and therefore statistical processes. I joined this forum to see if there were any cases in nature that could show this.Also, why does anyone continue to disagree on a creator/designer if they agree that DNA is an informational medium? What other mental source can there be for the DNA? If someone could explain how they get around this, without explaining information away, I would be very interested.-Gerhard

​

[This message has been edited by Gerhard, 05-13-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by Gerhard, 05-13-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gerhard:

Quetzal: I look forward to discussing speciation's meaning also. But as a sort of preemptive strike, I am going to explain what speciation should mean if we take the nature of information into account. I was thinking more about the definition and it can indeed imply speciation, but only to a certain degree. It is the degree speciation is taken to that will either agree or conflict with the information theorems.

​

I am sure we have all heard the terms micro and macroevolution. Microevolution is evident all throughout nature. It does explain quite well the niche environments in nature and the various adaptations all animals have acquired to live in those evironments. Where speciation fails to be a viable explanatory option begins with speciation that moves beyond microevolution. That is, when speciation begins linking two species with completely unique informational content. For example, evolutionists would like to link us and the primeapes back to a common ancestor. They have also supposedly linked whales to a common mammilian land ancestor- I can't remeber what, but the textbook pictures showed something resembling a dog- and so on. The problem with this kind of speciation, which is really a form of macroevolution, is that the supposed common ancestors of humans and primeapes were unintelligent, with no verbal language and no features of humans. If intelligence, an extremely complicated and varying use of language, and obvious human features are intrinsical to humans than they would have to represent themselves in the common ancestors genetic information. They must be intrinsical features of the ancestors as well. Australopithicenes, and even homo habilis do not have the basic intrisical features of a human.

---

And you know this becuase ... ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gerhard:

Where then, did they acquire the information to begin displaying these features? There is a difference between showing variances in an intrisic feature (microevolution) and showing a new feature all together. We cannot say that any creature can vary an intrinsical feature slowly until it transforms into something completely new. I realize that evolution in the sense most people on this forum would like to understand it means microevolution/variances in allelic frequency that will eventually lead to new creatures, after millions of minute changes, with completely new features. These new features that appear must undoubtedly be portrayed by new genetic information, and therefore the features cannot occur. I am curious as to why no one has offered an example of a species that has performed the amazing feat of acquiring new genetic information by purely natural, and therefore statistical processes. I joined this forum to see if there were any cases in nature that could show this.

---

They have ... you already mentioned whale evolution.We cannot SEE evolution right now becuase it takes time.We can see divergence within species to the point where they
almost but not quite cannot inter-breed (lions and tigers for
example). The accumulation of variation between the two
species, seprated geographically, has led to a situation where
offspring are infertile. This suggests a divergence. We can
interpret this divergence as a trend towards two separate species,
but we will not be able to see this for thousands of years.I know that sounds like a cop-out ... but evolution takes time.No [oops i mean 'new'] species do NOT spring full-formed from their mothers. It requires
a gradual accumulation of differences prompted by environmental
pressures.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gerhard:

Also, why does anyone continue to disagree on a creator/designer if they agree that DNA is an informational medium? What other mental source can there be for the DNA? If someone could explain how they get around this, without explaining information away, I would be very interested.

​

-Gerhard

​

[This message has been edited by Gerhard, 05-13-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by Gerhard, 05-13-2002]

---

DNA is NOT an informational medium.

​

[This message has been edited by Peter, 05-15-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gerhard:
That is why I disagree with you on the issue of evolution including speciation. Firstly, because the definition itself does not include anything about speciation.

---

It really depends on what you are refering to. Evolution as changes over time or evolution as it pertains to the theory of Natural Selection through descent with modification (ie HOW evolution occurs). As evolution (changes over time) was originally discussed it described appearence and disapearence of species; as how evolution occurs (the theory of NS) it does describe descent with modification which means speciation. So when you discuss evolutionary science now you are discussing speciation.

quote:

---

Secondly, I don't think any evidence has been conclusively shown to prove one organism has evolved into a new organism containing information that the old species' genome did not include. If their is no new information in the creature than it has merely adapted and portrayed a characteristic already within it. This is how the allelic frequency of a species changes. It reveals preposessed traits within a population depending on the situation the organisms are in. And also, really close to containing the same information just doesn't cut it. The information in a human that defines major features is extremely similiar to that of a chimpanzee, I think like 99.9 percent of the DNA code is the same. It is the new .1 percent change of information that makes a new species. I should hope you agree that the mental and physical differences between us and chimps are insurmountable. The chimp does not contain information to give him long legs, a handsome face (by human standards), an expansive verbal language, and the ability to engage in technical conversation.

---

First, nothing is ever "conclusively shown" if by that you mean shown beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is just not how science works. You really can not even prove gravity that way. In fact, that area makes up the largest region of dicsussion within the "Philosophy of Science" where people debate Baconian, Popperian, and other approaches in defining what science is. With that in mind, on to your DNA statements. First, I think that the Chimp/Human DNA homology is in the range of 94 to 98%. Estimates of the changes within the genes themselves vary. It is also important to remember that the karyotyping is different as well. Small changes in DNA can actually have profound phenotypic changes if the mutations occur in regions that are part of developmental regulation. For example, Human development is an extreme example of neonateny, ie retarded development and the retention of many child like characteristics of the proposed parent species. Many of the major differences between man and chimp appears to be in developmental timing and that is controlled by a relatively small number of genes.

quote:

---

But does this speciation to you, mean that tiny changes in allelic frequency over time can produce complex new information systems and new species and even a new genus? It seems the answer is yes.

---

The source of this variation is mutation. Changes in allelic frequenct occurs by two major mechanisms, genetic drift of existing genes and their frequencies or mutation followed by neutral or genetic drift or selection based on phenotypic differences.

quote:

---

Protozoans and bryozoans do not have these properties and they do not contain information in their DNA explaining to ribosomes how to develop these properties.

---

DNA does not explain to ribosomes how to develop anything. Ribisomes are merely the scaffold that the proteins are made on.

quote:

---

If the information is different for the sponge and protozoan than I would suggest that the two -- and in fact, because the information in all differing species is quite obviously different-- that the two or any differing species could never, by any process and length of time become the other. This is only true if what we know about information is true. If new information, information that is not reflected at any point in the old species, cannot come into existence without an intelligent source, than the two must be completely independent of each other, but both can come from the same intelligent source.

---

Please review these
http://www.mad-cow.org/moly_phylo.html
http://www.cmbi.kun.nl/~ursing/reprints/PRSLB98_265p2251-2255.pdf
http://biology.uoregon.edu/classes/bi355f00/topics/topic%203%2000
http://www.zi.ku.dk/evolbiology/pdf/evidence_mbe.pdf
these essentially present DNA sequence data (the storage receptical of your information code) that indicates that these animals, the hippo and the whale did descend from a common ancestor. The odds against the insertion sequence being in the same place for these related animals is immense. The nice thing is that the most recent fossil finds in Pakistan back the molecular data up point to point.

quote:

---

Or perhaps, evidence supporting the idea that all genetic information for every species on earth began in one creature. That is what I am most interested in.

---

This was actually proposed as a research point by M. Behe for Intelligent Design. The likely source would be archeobacteria. To date the sequence data from the archeaobacteria back evolution and not ID.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz