Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8984 total)
75 online now:
DrJones* (1 member, 74 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,695 Year: 9,443/23,288 Month: 458/1,544 Week: 172/561 Day: 12/63 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Gene pool deeper?
Posts: 6141
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.0

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

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

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


- 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

Posts: 6141
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.0

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 © 2020