Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-19-2019 2:17 PM
25 online now:
Faith, glowby, PaulK, ringo, Tanypteryx (5 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,609 Year: 6,646/19,786 Month: 1,187/1,581 Week: 9/393 Day: 9/30 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gene pool deeper?
JonF
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 3 of 47 (106647)
05-08-2004 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Justin Horne
05-08-2004 3:12 PM


How can this be?

It can't.

Each human can carry at most two alleles (different versions) of a gene. If we assume that all of Noah's sons were adopted (so they shared no genes with Noah or his wife), and that the eight people on the Ark were as genetically diverse as possible, that means there were 16 alleles of each gene on the Ark. If Noah's sons were the offspring of him and his wife, and the eight people on the Ark were as genetically diverse as possible, there were 10 alleles of each gene on the Ark.

There are genes for which 59 alleles have been identified in the human population, and there may be genes with more alleles; I don't know. Mutations happen, but the human genome is big, and it takes time (on average) for a gene to mutate. Lots of new alleles don't become fixed in the population because they are disadvantageous (such as killing the carrier). You might expect to see a new allele every 10,000 years to 30,000 years.

There just isn't time in the last hundred thousand years or so for all the genetic diversity of humans to arise from a few individuals. Former Young Earth Creationist Glenn Morton goes into some more detail in Re: Probability and apologetics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Justin Horne, posted 05-08-2004 3:12 PM Justin Horne has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 6 of 47 (106656)
05-08-2004 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Gup20
05-08-2004 5:19 PM


dam, being the original man, would have to have the DNA for black skin, white skin, and every thing in between.

How is this physically possible?

Through isolated selection and mutation, information is lost until you arrive at a ‘more specific’ variety.

Pleas expand ... exactly how does this give rise to the different breeds of dogs?

However, immediately after creation, the people and animals would have been at their very highest information level – and there would be very few mutations.

Why would there be very few mutations?

Of course this flies directly in the face of modern evolution.

It is also contradicted by all the evidence available.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Gup20, posted 05-08-2004 5:19 PM Gup20 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Gup20, posted 05-08-2004 6:17 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 15 of 47 (106689)
05-08-2004 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Gup20
05-08-2004 6:17 PM


Well, skin color is actually just the ammount of melanin in your skin. I suppose the genes for it simply tell your skin how much melanin to produce. I suppose the thought would be that it started out somewhere in between and mutation corrupted the regulatory cells in some way.

In other words, you have no idea how it might happen, and you just sort of make it up as you go along. That's what we call an ad-hoc hypothesis; a hypothesis for which there is no evidence and no reason other thatn to try to save your cherished beliefs.

In fact there is almost always no simple one-to-one correspondence between a gene and the characteristics of the organisms that carry that gene. Hox genes are a great example of that. Make a change in a HOX gene and you can get something that doesn't even look like its parent.

Nobody has ever observed anything that might lead to that "theory". Feel free to present non-Biblical evidence, not rhetoric, for it.

My understanding of the creationist theory is that the original kinds were created with full information, as genes mutated, they became non-functional (or malfunctional) thereby creating a loss of information.

Well, that's certainly contradicted by the evidence. If that were true, we would find non-functional versions of all genes scattered throughout all populations. Sorry, there arent many there.

Also, if genes aren't expressed, the _do_ eventually mutate into uselessness; we see that. If your hypotheical rabbits had all the genes required for all different color coats, the ones they weren't using would relatively soon mutate into uselessness. But we see idffernt coat colors and the like appearing all the time. Those genes haven't been lying low, they're new.

Too many mutations at once is usually fatal or renders the creature sterile. In order for genetic mutations to be passed on, they must happen gradually. It is generally accepted that mutation happens on a very low percentage. It is a very long and drawn out process.

OK, I'll give you that one; I thought you were saying that the rate was lower.

It is also contradicted by all the evidence available.

Gup20 - Such as?

Nobody has ever observed any process such as you describe, or any hint that of evidence such a process might exist, or (as I pointed out above) the evidence that such a process would leave behind.

Just a very few examples. Many mutations have been observed and identified that give rise to abilities that were not present in previous generations. In bacteria, the classical example is the nylon eating bug. Another example is Bary Hall's experiments with beta-galactosidase; he deleted this gene from bacteria, and a new set of genes arose by mutation, which created a new irreducibly complex system (see A True Acid Test.

In humans, one example is the Alipoprotein mutation that confers resistance to heart disease. Another example is the CCR5-Delta32 deletion which confers resistance to HIV.

I like pocket mice; light-colored ones live on light-colored rocks and dark ones live on dark-colored rocks. However, populations ofdark ones that live separate from other populations of dark ones have different genes for dark coats! In one population, the exact mutations that cause the dark coat have been identified. See The genetic basis of adaptive melanism in pocket mice

And this isn't even scratching the surface. Everything we have learned about populationj genetics and mutations conflicts with your "theory". Everything.

The genesis of new abilities and characteristics is carried out through mutation and natural selection, not the loss of pre-defined information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Gup20, posted 05-08-2004 6:17 PM Gup20 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 05-08-2004 9:23 PM JonF has responded
 Message 20 by Gup20, posted 05-09-2004 4:41 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 17 of 47 (106694)
05-08-2004 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Chiroptera
05-08-2004 9:23 PM


Who the heck knows what Behe beleives; IMHO he believes in selling books ...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 05-08-2004 9:23 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 22 of 47 (106774)
05-09-2004 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Gup20
05-09-2004 4:41 AM


I notice that you have taken a common creationist tactic; rather than presenting your theory, you are attacking mine. Please present your theory of how all the genetic information required for today's life was packed into a relatively few organisms. I also don't recall you specifying a time period over which life has been present and your supposed mechanims have been operating and what kind of mutation rate would be rewquired to iimplement the changes over that time period. Please do so.

By definition, the Theory of Evolution is naturalistic and humanistic. It is entirely exclusionary to the to supernatural. By the same token, creationism is inseparable from the Bible or from the supernatural. It is the basis of the theory. To explain it in a naturalistic way would only subject it to the same exclusionary outcome as Evolution.

I agree completely. The TOE is science, creationism is not.

For our purposes here, we will talk about and define information. If you have a book, and you make a duplicate copy of the book, you do not have more information, you have twice as much of the same information.

Sorry, that's not a definition of information; at best it's an example. A definition would allow us to examine a system and determine the amount of information in it without knowing the process by which that information arose, or to calculate the amount if changes in information by various processes.

Your problem is that all extant operational definitions of information have been shown to yield information increase under some circumstances, and few if any extant operational definitions of information are applicable to biological systems.

The changed genes that allow the bacteria the appearant novel ability to consume nylon is actually not on the bateria's DNA genomic structure. The change is actually in one of the bacterium's plasmids (the main DNA of the bacteria remains unchanged).

I know. Irrelevant.

Furthermore, the plasmids on which we see this appearantly novel ability is most likely designed to adapt the bacteria to new food sources. The evidence of this is that these plasmids are not activated by the bacterium unless it is under considerable strain or pressure.

That is not evidence for design rather than evolution.

This suggests that it is the function of these plasmids to adapt the bacterium to new environments. Also, it is important to note that the way, the plasmid does this with the nylon eating is by a frame shift which removes the information telling the bacteria what not to eat.

Since you have not defined or measured the information, this claim is meaningless. How much information was present before and after the mutation, and how do you determine those amounts?

Hall takes a working, existing gene with an existing function and deletes one part of a multi-part system, then claims novel ability when the system repairs itself.

The system did not repair itself, a new system arose. Repairing itself would have been restoring the deletion.

all the parts would need to be devoloped at the same time for any function to occur at all.

All parts of the new system did not develop at the same time. Close to the same time, on our time scale, but far apart on a bacterial time scale.

Again, this makes the assumption that beneficial mutations go against the creationist model or idea of information.

No, in this case it makes the assumption that new abilities arising through mutation is against your earlier claim. A mutation occured, a new ability arose.

The mutated gene doesn't do it's intended function very well anymore,

You are assuming your conclusion when you say "intended function". Intent is yet to be established. In Eeolutionary theory there is no such thing as an intended function.

So again we can see that this is the wrong directional change needed by evolution. It is a loss in information (specified complexity)

Please post the difference in information content before and after the mutation. Show your work.

We have the receptor genes that HIV attacks being deleted. This is an obvious loss of genetic information,

Perhaps. Please calculate the difference in information before and after. Show your work.

Here we see that there is already many varieties of colors - the article mentions 18 different populations with coat colors taht range from very light to very dark. I don't see anything unusual here beyond natural selection. As we saw in the nylon, adaptation can be expected (it was designed for), and as we saw in the Acid, it is existing genes

"It was designed for" is assuming your conclusion again. Design is yet to be demonstrated.

No, it's not existing genes. The genes for different coat colors appear in population A and not in population B. The mutations have been identified. There are no mice that have all the genes.

But hey - I completely understand your position, JonF. You are in the position that you cannot accept anything that is not entirely Naturalistic. This sounds far fetched to you because it casts doubts on the only system you have for naturally explaining the origin and existance of life.

Absolutely incorrect. Don't give up your day job, amateur psychoanalysis isn't your forte.

My position is that it is pretty likely that life originated through naturalistic means, but it's well within the range of possibility that it originated supernaturally. It's also possible that the panoply of life we see today arose through supernatural means ... but, if so, the evidence indicates clearly that the means by which it arose are indistinguishable from naturalistic means operting over long periods of time.

And I certainly can accept things that are not entirely naturalistic, on the basis of faith rather than scientific evidence. I just don't try to introduce non-naturalistic items where they're not appropriate.

Another interesting aside that demonstrates these concepts is to look at the the incredible design and engineering feats of ancienct civilizations. Engineering feets that modern engineers can't even begin to fathom.

Geez, you'll be quoting "Chariots of the Gods" next. Suffice it to say that the engineering feats of ancient civilizations are completely fathomable and have been fathomed; they had primitive technology and the will to invest incredible amounts of human labor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Gup20, posted 05-09-2004 4:41 AM Gup20 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Gup20, posted 05-09-2004 6:09 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 31 of 47 (106844)
05-09-2004 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Gup20
05-09-2004 6:09 PM


Oh, I thought that is what I was doing. I was answering Justin's question about the Biblical model of how inbreeding was possible by stating the creationist/biblical viewpoint.

Well, you haven't answered how any of the following is physically possible, or what processes operate over what time frame at what rates:

quote:
The Biblical model is based on Kinds. This model is also based on the idea that natural selection and mutation is a directional change from High Information, Low Specificity at creation to Lower Information and Higher Specificity currently. The idea is that the original kinds were created before death and mutation were factors (before Adam’s Sin) therefore, the originals had the highest information content. Through natural selection, mutation, and isolation, the specificity we see today emerges.

You can start with a description of the physical makeup of Adam's genome, and what processes prevented all those genes he was carrying from expressing. Then we'd like to see your time frame (with your reasoning for that time frame) and mutation rate calculations.

I started with an example so there would be context. I clearly defined 'information' as specified complexity.

"Specified complexity" is undefined, and you still have not attempted to provide an operational definition.

Your problem is that all extant operational definitions of information have been shown to yield information increase under some circumstances, and few if any extant operational definitions of information are applicable to biological systems.

Yet, there is not a single example of such given.

Fair enough. I'll give you three.

Any mutation in a junk DNA region of repeated codons (e.g. AAAAAAA...) increases Shannon-Weaver information, since the maximum Shannon-Weaver information is obtained with a totally random sequence.

A gene duplication followed by a mutation (or mutations) in one of the copies that causes it to express a new protein increases both Shannon-Weaver and Chaitin-Kolmogorov information. Real world examples include malate dehydrogenase from lactate dehydrogenase, madelate racemase from enolase and beta-galactosidease from egbO.

Similarly, a duplication of a two-part gene followed by a fusing of the two parts of one of the duplicates can yield a three-part gene expressing a protein with a new function, again increasing both Shannon-Weaver and Chaitin-Kolmogorov information. Real world examples are the sdiC gene (a structural gene from the non-coding region of functionally unrelated genes), and tURF13 (an ion channel from deletion mutations of non-ion channel genes).

References on request.

Now it's your turn; you haven't provided an operational definition of information that applies to biological systems. Let's see one.

However, we show that no changes are made to the bacteria, let alone an addition of information. The purpose of the nylon eating bacteria is to show how information can be added and built upon to go from molecules to man. Insomuch, the example of nylon eating bacteria fails because nothing is added or even changed on the bacteria itself. It remains a bacteria. It remains the same bacteria it was before.

You really believe that? Incredible. It is indeed still a bacteria, and that is totally irrelevant. It is a different bacteria, with a change to one of its plasmids, with an ability that no bacteria has had before.

Quite right. Design would have to be inferred. However, it would be safe to say that it is the 'intended' function of the plasmid if you get too hung up on 'designed' function.

Still assuming your conclusion. "Intended function", as I pointed out before, is yet to be established.

n fact I did define information. I didn't quantify it, that is much harder to do precisely. I did however give enough so that we can see directional changes.

No, you did not. You just made claims. It's jsut arm-waving. Show in detail how you calculate the change or lack thereof in the examples I gave and that you have claimed are a decrease in information.

As I stated before, no new information arose. The change is neutral. The specified complexity remains the same.

Please show your calculations of the specified complexity. Until you can quantify amounts or changes in amounts or demonstrate mathematically directions of changes, you have nothing.

ets look at an anaology.

Let's not. Analogies are useful for making concepts clearer, not for establishing arguments.

Because the car is designed to work with 4 tiresp

Assuming your conclusion again. Your analogy is valid only if the bacterium is designed, which is yet to be demonstrated.

In any multipart system, all the components must be there for function to occur, otherwise the rise in information is vestigial and as you said - unused or useless parts are discarded quickly. They only serve to use up resources the creature could use toward functional components. Natural selection would weed these out quickly.

Prima facie false in the case of the Hall experiments; natural selection did not weed the new functionality out.

The protein has the function of removing cholesterol from the arteries by making HDLs. It has indeed suffered a loss in the ability to do this. Your statement if broadly applied could mean that Evolutionists do not believe that the Heart muscle is intended to pump blood throughout the body, or the spinal cord is not intended to carry motor control signals to the rest of your body. If indeed in Evolutionary theory there is no such thing as intended function these would be true.

And they are true. "Evolutionists" do not believe that the heart is intended to pump blood through the body. The heart does what it does, but that is not intended. Similarly for the back.

"Evolutionists" might talk of intention in casual conversation, but not in debate or scientific communications.

As I demonstrated, this 'new ability' was at the price of a loss of information.

As you claimed ...

Until you can quantify amounts or changes in amounts or demonstrate mathematically directions of changes, you have nothing.

The protein has the function of removing cholesterol from the arteries by making HDLs. It has indeed suffered a loss in the ability to do this.

That's an oversimplification of the cahnge ... but you are assuming that a loss in ability is also a loss of information. Yet to be demonstrated.

In fact I did define information. I didn't quantify it, that is much harder to do precisely. I did however give enough so that we can see directional changes. By the definition, we perhaps couldn't tell the exact percentage of change, but we could see that a change in a particular direction took place.

No, we can't even say that a change has taken place until you come up with a method of calculating amounts, amounts of changes, or the direction of a change.

As I stated, I defined information, but did not quantify it. Specific numbers are not needed to show directional change. They are needed to show exact change, but we are not worried about the exact change - just is the change the right direction to make molecules to man possible.

No, we are worried about whether the change is in the direction of more information or less information. Only after you have established a method of doing that can you go to the nest step.

This of course should be qualified by saying that because I have not personally quantified 'information' that actual creationist geneticists have not. Quantifying the information is simply over my head, so I choose not to try to present it here.

So, you basically don't know what you are talking about; you just like the conclusions the creationists come to so you believe them.

Then provide references to where the "creationist geneticists" have quantified information. Don't bother with Spetner; he changes his definition of information from one example to the next, so as to avoid having to acknowledge an increase in information in case B using the measure of informationm he used for case A.

As you have already admitted, Evolution is completely exclusionary to the supernatural.

Yup, By the definition of science.

Again, you cannot judge objectively using a paradigm that is exclusionary to any possibility.

Sure you can. If you admit all possibilites, there is no such thing as science. Do you advocate considering the possibility that the entire Universe was created last Thursday, with all our memories and history falsely implanted, by the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Do you advocate investigating the possiblity that angels are pushing the planets around in a way that looks as if gravity is doing it? Do you advocate explaining the origin of life by "Brahma did it"? Do you advocate considering all the infinite number of supernatural things that could be admitted? Or do you just want to admit your particular favorite supernatural possibility?

If the possibility an omnipotent being with motives and methods that we cannot understand is admitted into science, the entire concept of science goes down the drain. Cause and effect, repeatability, you name it ... gone.

That's not to say that science is all there is; few people believe that. Science is a way of looking at and exploring the Universe but, for many if not most people, it's not the only way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Gup20, posted 05-09-2004 6:09 PM Gup20 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Gup20, posted 05-09-2004 8:48 PM JonF has responded
 Message 44 by Gup20, posted 05-10-2004 8:14 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 33 of 47 (106851)
05-09-2004 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Gup20
05-09-2004 7:06 PM


This does not show 'the same creature' transitioning... it shows a continuum of discreet creatures which happen to have similar features which were created for a continuum of possible environments.

Unsupported assertion. Rejected by Occam's Razor; the evolutionary model explains the data just as well without the introduction of the complication of a creator.

Come up with some evidence that your model explains better than the evolutionary model and we'll listen.

A transition would be fossils of the same creature at various stages of it's evolution.

That's not the standard definition, but we can work with it.

The evolutionary paradigm of genetics says that a gene will duplicate and one copy will remain the same while the other is free to mutate into something else.

There are many other ways that changes can occur, e.g. frame shift.

If this is true, we should see billions of transitional creatures where we see (in early rock layers) a specific animal.

Please show your calculations of how many transitionals we should see. OF course, every transitional is also a "specific animal".

hen later we see the same animal with a new feature... the later we see the same animal with more new features, etc etc.

We do.

There should be billions of creatures that display this type of transition.

Please show your calculations.

THere are none. There are only discreet examples that cannot be shown in their earlier or later transitions.

You mean "discrete". I can't figure out what you mean other than that.

Remember... the basis of claiming they have new information is that they keep the old information as the duplicate set of genes mutates.

Remember ... you are incorrect. There are lots of other ways in which mutations and changes take place. There certianly is no requirement that an organism keep everything it has just as it is and new things can only be added.

So, we should be able to easily recognize a creature in it's transition from reptile to bird, for example. "see here is the ARCHAEOPTERYX as a full reptile. Here it is - notice it looks exactly the same except that the scales/skin is turning into feathers. Here is is again... notice how it looks extremely similar except for the new wings. Etc etc etc until we see the full Bird".

In that case, we are pretty close to that. In other cases. such as the already-mentioned jaw-to-ear transition, we are essentially there. Please discuss exactly where in the jaw-to-ear transformation you see a lack of evidence. Or could you be making these claims without having examined the evidence? There are some good drawings and discussion and further references at Example 2: reptile-mammals


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Gup20, posted 05-09-2004 7:06 PM Gup20 has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 39 of 47 (106875)
05-09-2004 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Gup20
05-09-2004 8:07 PM


Re: hoo boy!
In the words of Dr. Don Batton, "I thought it rather obvious that a mutation that destroys the functionality of a gene is a loss of information. I also thought it rather obvious that a mutation that reduces the specificity of an enzyme is also a loss of information."

Well, 't ain't obvious to me or from the various arm-waving arguments of creationsists. When you can demonstrate it mathematically, than it may become obvious.

http://www.trueorigins.org/spetner2.asp

I told you that Spetner doesn't know what he's talking about, and he changes his defintions to suit his desires. There are lots of good critiques of him on the web, but probably the best and most up-to-date (updated four days ago) is Spetner and Biological Information. The introduction includes:

quote:
In this review I will consider if Spetner's metrics can be validly applied to biology, and how Spetner actually applies them to real world examples. Although his arguments are superficially plausible, a closer look with some knowledge of biochemistry shows significant flaws. I will first briefly describe Spetner's metric of information, I will then show that 1) Spetner's metrics depend on a binding mechanism that does not occur in nature, 2) that Spetner's metrics require that substances bind to enzymes in an all or nothing fashion, whereas real substrates do not bind in this way. Furthermore, I will show that Spetner himself is inconsistent in his application of his metrics. In his Xylitol example he does not actually use the measure he develops, and in the streptomycin example he swaps to a different metric, when his original metric would show increased information. Finally, I will show that his "directed evolution" model is based on a misunderstanding of one form of random mutation.

(Note: This page is intended to be transferred to talkorigins.org at some time in the future).

This message has been edited by JonF, 05-09-2004 07:26 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Gup20, posted 05-09-2004 8:07 PM Gup20 has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 43 of 47 (106933)
05-09-2004 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Gup20
05-09-2004 8:48 PM


I don't have much time either ...

While I cannot give you exact details for every conceiveable possibility, I will try to explain at least one example.

More arm waving. Forget examples. Tell us how gene expression was prevented. Tell us how one person stored so many alleles of genes, given that more than two alleles per person has never been observed and there has never been any evidence that more could be contained in one person's germ cells. Don't forget to include the evidence for your claims.

What time frame are you looking for? Also, I mentioned that I am not a geneticist. I woulnd't do mutation rate calculations.

How long ago do you think Adam lived?

You can do mutation rate calculations. We observe mutation rates of about 10-6 to 10-7 per base pair per year. An average gene has about 1,000 base pairs. It takes on the order of 10,000 years to come up with a new allele. How many years since Adam? How many new alleles could have arisen in that time?

I would have thought that the refutations to your four examples of information gaining systems would be 'operational definitions'.

You refuted nothing. You made unsupported claims.

Even if you had refuted the four examples, that would not be an operational defintion. An operational definition is one which allows an independent party to look at an arbitrary situation and calculate the amount of information, or the change in information, or the direction of information change ... whichever you prefer ... by applying the definition and nothing more. IOW, you can discuss examples till the cows come home and you haven't provided an operational definition.

Information, or specified complexity, would be defined as genes having a specific function. Dr. Don Batton puts it this way:

More arm-waving and unsupported assertions. "Specific function" is undefined. Stop trying to introduce new undefined concepts.

However, just think: if you buy two copies of the newspaper, do you buy twice as much information? Of course not. Duplication of anything does not constitute an increase of information.

He's wrong. Sometimes duplication by itself causes an increase in information; it depends on the definition of information that you are using. Duplication by itself increases Shannon-Weaver information, for example.

Just like all creationists, he doesn't dare give a rigorous operational defintion of information because as soon as he does "evolutionists" will demonstrate known processes that increase it.

To illustrate: if "superman" were the duplicated 'gene', and mutations in the letters changed it to "sxyxvawtu ", you have clearly lost information, although you have a new sequence.

And if "superman" were the duplicated gene and mutations in the letters changed it to "slippers" so you now have "superman" and "slippers" would you have lost or gained information? Why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Gup20, posted 05-09-2004 8:48 PM Gup20 has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 46 of 47 (107256)
05-10-2004 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Gup20
05-10-2004 8:14 PM


Re: PART2
You still haven't answered how any of the following is physically possible, or what processes operate over what time frame at what rates:

quote:
The Biblical model is based on Kinds. This model is also based on the idea that natural selection and mutation is a directional change from High Information, Low Specificity at creation to Lower Information and Higher Specificity currently. The idea is that the original kinds were created before death and mutation were factors (before Adam’s Sin) therefore, the originals had the highest information content. Through natural selection, mutation, and isolation, the specificity we see today emerges.

You can start with a description of the physical makeup of Adam's genome, and what processes prevented all those genes he was carrying from expressing. Then we'd like to see your time frame (with your reasoning for that time frame) and mutation rate calculations.

More and more areas of 'junk dna' is being found to have a purpose or function.

Perhaps. But that's what it's called. Whether or not it has function, any mutation in a junk DNA region of repeated codons (e.g. AAAAAAA...) increases Shannon-Weaver information, since the maximum Shannon-Weaver information is obtained with a totally random sequence.

Secondly, Shannon-Weaver information is not what we are talking about.

You have failed to specify what kind of information we are talking about. You asked for information increase, I gave it to you, and specified what kind of information I am talking about. Please reciprocate by specifying what kind of information we are talking about and post an operational definition or a link to one.

Now it's your turn; you haven't provided an operational definition of information that applies to biological systems. Let's see one.

The most important empirical principles relating to the concept of information have been defined in the form of theorems. Here is a brief summary of them:

1. No information can exist without a code.
2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics.
4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
5. No information can exist without a transmitter.
6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
7. No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
8. No information can exist without a will.

Oh geez, Gitt; he's even more out to lunch than Spetner. At least a few people pay attention to Spetner.

I thought we weren't talking about Shannon information? That's all that article talks about.

Are you deliberately obtuse? An operational definition is one which allows an independent party to look at an arbitrary situation and calculate the amount of information, or the change in information, or the direction of information change ... whichever you prefer ... by applying the definition and nothing more. What you posted is not a definition of any kind. After you supply such a definition or a link to one then we can start discussing theorems.

In the same way I find it obvious that a mutation that eliminates function to a gene or protein is a loss of information (specified complexity). I can't quantify it for you or give you any measured numbers (remember, I am not a geneticist) - but I can see that it is directionally the wrong change required for molecules to man evolution.

IOW, you don't understand it, you have no evidence for it, you have no argument for it, you are just sure it's true. Most scientific. And not convincing, given your inability to even define what you are talking about.

You keep telling me I haven't defined anything and that you don't understand what I am talking about.

Those are simple facts. You are just presenting arm-waving or irrelevant claims. I have defined exactly what I am asking ... I am asking for an operational definition of the kind of information we are discussing. I have provided my definition of what an operational definition is, and a link to a third party's site that provides another definition. You have not attempted to respond, you have just posted "theorems" and claims about information never increasing. None of that can be meaningfully discussed until the thing we are discussing is defined.

I was saying that in Hall's case, he took one of the wheels off the car, and then claimed novelty when a different wheel showed up in it's place. However, this doesn't account for why the wheels are there in the first place, or why there are wheels instead of tank tracks.

If there is no "why there are wheels" it's meaningless to try to discuss why. First demonstrate that there is a "why" in the bacterial case without assuming your conclusion.

For a multi-part system to arise when it is not there would involved many genes mutating at once to give rise to all the parts.

Absolutely incorrect. Many possible pathways have been published for multi-part systems that do not involve multiple simultaneous mutations, and in which every step has a selective advantage. This is your cue to point out that none of these pathways has been proven to be the pathway, after which I point out that any physically possible pathway is enough to refute your claim than none can exist.

We can assume that once God created the universe, he operated within the bounds of it's laws and processes.

No, we cannot assume that. I know you want to, but we are incapable of understanding God, and he can do anything he wants.

Therefore, we should be able to see a the possibility and plausibility of the Biblical account (which creationists believe we do).

Much of the Biblical account is possible, plausible, and well worth studying for its precepts and lessons. Much of it is counterfactual.

Also, you are domonstrating that you hold the assumption that we have thoroughly quantified, and qualified God.

Exactly the opposite; I have explicitly said that we cannot even understand God, much less quantify him.

This, of course, is not true. Therefore we cannot scientifically rule him out

Absolutely.

- therefore He remains a possibility.

Not in science, by definition of what science is. In other ways of looking at and exploring the Universe, definitely

You ignored some more of my quesitons; I woud appreciate answers. Do you advocate considering the possibility that the entire Universe was created last Thursday, with all our memories and history falsely implanted, by the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Do you advocate investigating the possiblity that angels are pushing the planets around in a way that looks as if gravity is doing it? Do you advocate explaining the origin of life by "Brahma did it"? Do you advocate considering all the infinite number of supernatural things that could be admitted? Or do you just want to admit your particular favorite supernatural possibility?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Gup20, posted 05-10-2004 8:14 PM Gup20 has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 47 of 47 (107267)
05-10-2004 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
05-10-2004 8:23 PM


6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
7. No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
8. No information can exist without a will.

If these are your axioms, then applying this to biology is a big excerise in circular reasoning:

His source, Gitt, claims that they are theorems. They are, of course, not theorems; he never presents a derivation, just states them as unsupported assertions and calls them theorems. Gitt claims a few empirical principles; but again they're juse unsupported assertions.

Gitt claims to be extending Shannon information, but his claims actually contradict Shannon-Weaver information principles; see Information Theory and Creationism: Werner Gitt.

All in all, Gitt's much less credible than Spetner, and that's saying something. At least it takes some knowledge and thought to see the flaws in Spetner's reasoning. Gitt's mistakes practically jump out of the page.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 05-10-2004 8:23 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019