|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 7605 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Give your one best shot - against evolution | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Can you back up that probability calculation? I've seen calculations like this before and they usually neglect a few factors Like: 1) There should have been loads of energy around at the time. The planet was young and very violent-- volcanoes, etc. 2) You don't have to create a protein by chance, only a small self-replicating precursor, a catalyst. From there on the dice are loaded. 3) What is the time-frame and base volume of 'soup' used in this calculation? These reactions would have been occurring over the whole surface of the Earth for millions or hundreds of millions of years. Again, a few good molecules and the dice are loaded. 4) Several thoughts about left-handedness. There may be a REASON for it besides chance. from Nature magazineor: Polarized light Even if the above is incorrect, there may be a biochemical reason for left-handedness. I recall reading a paper suggesting that left-handed molecules function marginally better than right-handed one. Selection takes over. Sadly, I cannot find this paper. Even if the above is incorrect, if the first proteins happened to be left-handed, they could have simple flooded the market drowning out their right-handed siblings. Basically, things aren't as random as they appear. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3851 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][b]for the probability that all of them are left-handed[/QUOTE]
[/b] Interesting that you bring that up because meteoric AA's *are* almost exclusively left-handed.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Right, the link I posted labeled 'polarized light' discusses this and gives a reason why. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4884 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: LOL! And here you have the 2nd common objection to information, that it does not apply to complex biological systems! Two down, one to go! You can get a history of info theory on the internet. I honestly don't want to take the time to spell it out here. [This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 07-06-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I agree with you, Fred, that systems theory (or information theory) is pertinent to biological systems. ... a discussion of the connection for those interested I do not agree that information theory contradicts evolution. (also discussed in the link above). ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
Don't forget posts #132 & #133. Just making sure.
------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Fred!
I remember we had a discussion on information theory as evidence against evolution a few years ago, although I wasn't one of the primary participants. You argued that random mutation cannot create new information, and that since new phenotypes can only come into existence through the addition of information to the genome that therefore evolution is impossible. One of the problems with discussing your underlying premise that random mutation cannot create new information is that the discussion quickly bogs down in arguments about the correct definition of information. In no time at all no knows what anyone else is talking about (pretty ironic for a discussion about information An alternative approach would be to see if we can find examples of randomness creating new phenotypes. Such an example would lead us to suspect problems with the underlying premise, regardless of how anyone defines information. We can actually create our own example to test your premise by creating a simple model of the evolutionary process drawing upon your own field of computer engineering. Imagine we have a state machine with only two bits of information, and the desired behavior is a ring counter, ie, 0->1->2->3->0...etc. The next state of each bit in our state machine is a function dependent upon the states of the two bits: fi = ((p1i0s0 || n1i1ns1) && (p1i1s1 || n1i1ns1)) || where: fi is the next state of bit i This implements a simple PLA. In this evolutionary model the bits are the organism while the coefficients are the genome. Reproduction occurs when ten copies are made of our "organism", and mutation is represented by modifying a single coefficient in each "offspring". The impact of the environment on the organisms is modeled by a checker which measures how well each offspring performs the ring counter function by clocking them each four times and using a weighted measure to assess how well it performs the count. The best offspring is selected to become the parent of ten offspring in the next generation, and the rest are discarded. The evaluation function: e = E(n=0,3) abs(S(n+1)%4 - Sn) - 1 where: E(n=0,3) is summation, vary n from 0 to 3 I've written a simple C++ program to do this: Ring Counter Evolution Here's some sample output. The five numbers are the count sequence produced in each generation: Best in generation 1: 0-0-0-0-0 The interesting thing is that since the changes to the coefficients are random, each time you run the program you get a different result. It once achieved a ring count in only 16 generations, and the longest took over 200 generations. And the ring function can be realized with more than one set of coefficients. For example, here are all the different ways the program's evolution implemented a ring counter in terms of the coefficients: Ring count function achieved: 0001-0111 0110-1001 In other words, just like in real-world evolution there is more than one way to accomplish the same goal. This evolutionary model demonstrates that random mutation can create new phenotypes, and if you believe that new phenotypes require new information it therefore falsifies the original premise that random mutation cannot create new information. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B] LOL! And here you have the 2nd common objection to information, that it does not apply to complex biological systems! Two down, one to go! You can get a history of info theory on the internet. I honestly don't want to take the time to spell it out here.[/QUOTE] So, you don't have a point? Well, I didn't think you would want to get into the details. Actually, this was your predicted response. As far as I can see, it is not necessarily applicable since not all of the parameters are understood or nicely controlled. The world is not a telecommunications laboratory. By the way, I asked some other questions. Are you going to tell me to go research the internet on those as well? (added by edit) By the way, Fred, could you present us with those 11 (or whatever) rules of information theory? [This message has been edited by edge, 07-06-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: First, why do you bring up Abiogenesis in a discussion of human anatomy? Second, whether or not something is hard or easy for you to believe has little bearing on if it is true. Third, what you don't know about Biology is a lot. Go here and read it all:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Well, it seems that all you are left with is your emotional discomfort with the thought that humans evolved, rather than any evidence either for the notion that Godidt or against Biology.
Argument from Personal Incredulity/It-Makes-Me-Feel-Less-Special. Funny, I think it is utterly amazing and wonderful that I am "evolved slime". What could be more humbling and awe-inspiring than that? ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: If I was a population which "wanted" to survive to reproduce, yes. It doesn't matter what an individual in a population "wants"; it matters what makes the survival of the species possible. SCA confers resistance to malaria long enough so that individuals can reproduce.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4884 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: Time is a huge problem for me. There is only so much I can squeeze in. I usually try to post when things are slow at work, but those moments have been few and far between in the last year. I usually try to avoid boards at home, because they can become time consuming, sucking away time I need for other things (such as family time). Since I normally don’t get on the computer until 9:00pm or so, I barely have enough PC time to manage the CRS website (I’m their lone webmaster), manage my personal website, answer emails for both sites, answer personal emails, manage personal finances, etc. It also takes away time for creation research, though I suppose boards contribute a bit to research because they help keep me tuned in to the other side’s latest arguments. Tonight is a rare exception where I feel I can take some time away from my usual routine. I must say Percy’s has become one of the top boards on the net for productive discussions. So, because of limited time that is why I offered a website to get a good idea of what information is. I also think is completely reasonable for me to give an abridged definition that is still valid and good for discussion and debate.
quote: I thought I did. I apologize if it wasn’t clear. Let me word it differently: New information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature, such as sonar, where this coding sequence did not previously exist. Now if you asked is this the definition of information, I would say it qualifies as an abridged definition (provided you change the genome to a system to make it more general), but not an all-encompassing detailed definition. That is why I recommend the Dr Truman article at True.Origins. Otherwise, I would highly recommend Dr. Werner Gitt’s In the Beginning was Information. Dr Gitt has numerous published peer-reviewed articles on information theory. He is also a Director at the German Institute of Technology.
quote: For starters, contact evolutionist Dr Tom Schnieder at NCI. He is cordial and usually responds promptly to questions from the public. His web site and contact info can be found here:
http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/ Note that Dr. Schnieder only deals with Shannon information (or traditional communication theory). He rejects Gitt information for obvious reasons (it would force him to be a creationist, something he does not desire quote: It doesn’t matter how it is compiled, be it C++, assembly, Basic, the English language (what an inefficient code that would be for a computer quote: I don’t understand your question. Do you mean mutations, plural?
quote: It was one of a myriad of examples I could have asked for. I also asked for any evidence for the origination of new information to turn a scale into a feather. How about solid bones to hollow bones?My point is, if evolution happened there should be numerous examples of some kind of useful information arising in the genome, especially in rapid reproduction species such as fruit flies, bacteria, etc. Yet there is not a shred of physical evidence for this. quote: I’m simply elaborating on my example. Given two programs with equal output, the program that takes up more space and is less efficient contains less information than its peer because uncertainty is increased (more code compared to its peer means more can go wrong). This is fundamental Shannon information theory.
quote: This is entirely reasonable. What is incorrect is when you say that addition + change = new information. This may be true, this may not be true. It would be like saying eggs + tobacco sauce = hurl, in some cases it is true (like in my case), in others like my brother it is not true. quote: My definition (at least for the sake of debate here) is given earlier in this post.
quote: We haven’t the foggiest idea, because we are far from fully understanding the genome. I submit to you that the original genomes in Adam & Eve were perfect, at maximum information capacity, and loss of information has occurred since then. Can I prove this? Of course not. But creationists have no problem finding myriads of examples of lost information, yet evolutionists can’t scrape up even one compelling case of information gain via random mutation/selection. If evolution were true, we should be buried in examples of positive information gain. But no bonafide examples exist.
quote: Again, I disagree. For years now we have mutated over and over again fruit flies and bacteria and observed virtually countless generations, yet no signs of any kind of information gain in their respective genomes. Moreover, there should be clues from comparative analysis between various genera, families, & orders of information gain, yet the analysis never provides any kind of expected pattern. In fact, we observe the opposite, as would be expected by a Programmer who wanted to thwart any opportunities for a naturalistic explanation. What am I referring to? For starters, Convergence. It’s a phenomenon that is rampant in nature, yet by its very definition it is an anti-evolutionary term.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4884 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
Mark, your timing is horrible!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: NP, take your time, (not that much time, mind quote: Would you consider an addition or deletion of a nucleotide from a gene new information, if it produced something useful for an organism? That is, that the protein (or RNA, for that matter) has changed. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: I take it then, that you are NOT as well read as you would have us believe - that, or perhaps you simply ignore/deny anything contrary to your personal opinions on this matter. Natural Selection as the process of accumulating genetic information in adaptive evolution. 1961. Kimura, M. "...natural selection is a mechanism by which new genetic information can be created. Indeed, this is the only mechanism known in natural science which can create it." The paper is laden with equations and graphs, which I do not have the formatting skills to reproduce here. The paper is reproduced in "Population Genetics, Molecular Evolution, and the Neutral Theory - selected papers (of Motoo Limura)". 1994.
quote: I said that tree rings contain 'code'? Hmm - lets take a look at what I actually wrote, shall we? "I wonder - what conscious mind put information in tree rings?" Emphasis mine. It would do the YEC well to accurately portray his opponant's statements, especially when they are easily accessible. Tree rings, in nearly all circumstances, represent one season's growth. When we cut down a tree or take a core sample, the rings are evident. Are they just a random pattern? Are they unique to individual trees? No. Again, each ring represents one season's growth. Is that [i]information/i? Is it a "code"In addition, individual tree rings can provide information regarding the growing season. Thicker rings represent 'good' years - lots of water and sunshine; thinner rings, not-so-good years. Individual rings can contain evidence of insect activity, fire, severe weather, etc. Is that considered information or not? It is interesting to note that depending on the creationist, tree rings: definitely do not contain information; do contain information, but only after humans 'decode it' (maybe Fred - information theory 'xpert' - better track down those wrong-headed YECs and set them straight!); do contain information, but not the right kind; etc. So, do tree rings contain information? By most logical standards, yes. Is that information quantifiable? I have no idea. Does it fall under the auspices of so-called "Gitt inforamtion"? Apparently not. Is it in a 'code'? Well, the rings don't have captions, so... Of course, all "Gitt information" is is an argument via favorable (and completely arbitrary and unaccepted by actual information theorists) definitions. Gitt - a creationist - claims that all information must come from a 'conscious mind'. Under such a definition, there is no such thing as 'naturally' occurring instances of information generation. Wonderful how that works.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024