|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,383 Year: 3,640/9,624 Month: 511/974 Week: 124/276 Day: 21/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 7597 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Give your one best shot - against evolution | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4876 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: It never ceases to amaze me that evolutionists will use a desease such as sickle-cell anemia as an example of evolution in action! Sickle-cell is de-evolution. It represents a clear loss of information at the genetic level.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4876 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: It depends how you define "evolution". I'm not talking about micro-evolution, which has never been in dispute between evos and creationists. Some time ago I wrote an article describing how the word evolution has "evolved":
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/evolutiondefinition.htm I'm talking about evidence for large-scale, mud-to-man evolution. Joe's example is the opposite. It's man-to-mud de-evolution.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4876 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: No, it is relevant, because it is not evolution. That is, the type of evolution that lies at the cored of our debate. The type of evolution as understood by the public, marge-scale change over time. Do you agree or disagree that info gain or loss is relevant when debating large-scale evolution, such as scales to feathers, no sonar to sonar, etc?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4876 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: Yes, "information is nebulous" is one of the three famous reasons evolutionists give to avoid the information problem that is so devestating for large-scale evolution. Do you agree or disagree that additional algorithms in the DNA are needed to produce sonar where it previously did not exist? (perhaps you'll now give me one of the other two famuous evolutionist excuses) What "terms" have I not defined correctly on my homepage?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4876 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: Chalk it up to a "loss of information" over this medium! Joe's was one of the 3 common reactions I get on the information problem: since information can mean different things (Shannon information, Gitt information, complex specified information, etc) it's not worth the trouble so it's brushed aside. BTW, my earlier typo "marge-scale" should have read "large-scale".
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4876 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: No, its healthy man in healthy envirnoment, to less healthy man in less healthy environment. Evolution at its finest! I have a question for you. If you were told this moment that you were going to be transferred to a malaria-infected area, would you want the specific amino acid in your beta globin switched on one of your chromosomes to the sickle-cell variety?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4876 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: In this case, I was asking for evidence of naturalistically produced new algorithms in the DNA to produce new, useful functions such as going from no sonar, to sonar-capable, or from a scale to a feather.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4876 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: It is not possible to quantify and define information in the limited time I have here. I personally subscribe to Gitt’s formulated laws of information. I recommend Dr Truman’s article at True.Origins that outlines Gitt information. For the sake of debate on the internet, I often find that giving examples is the best way to communicate what is meant by information. In some cases my examples don’t even qualify as the type I subscribe to! (Gitt information). Why? I find that even with less rigid requirements for what information is, evolutionists are still left without a leg to stand on. Go to evolutionist Dr Tom Schnieder’s web page and notice the calisthenics he went through just to try to demonstrate new information via random mutation/selection at the lowest level of information (Shannon information)!
quote: This would be far too vague of a definition. It may be new information, it may not be. What if you had a copy of Webster’s dictionary, and were handed an identical copy except it had a typo in it somewhere (addition + change). This would obviously not be new information, in fact even at the Shannon level one could argue you lost information due to increased uncertainty. One thing I should note, even the handful of evolutionists I know who are trained in information science will tell you that addition + change does not necessarily equate to new information. Here would be acceptable examples of new information: 1) A new program installed on your computer (such as WordPerfect), where it did not previously exist2) A new gene (likely set of genes) that produce sonar, where sonar did not previously exist in the genome. Here are some bad examples of new information: 1) Installation of WordPerfect, written by Joe Schmoe, on a computer that already has WordPerfect by Corel. Even if Joe Schoe’s version uses less disk space, unless it is faster there is no new information on your computer. If it is faster and more efficient with resources, this would qualify as increased information on your computer.2) Having a dictionary, and being handed an identical copy of that dictionary. You received no new information 3) Gene duplication (if it has a negative affect on the organism it would actually represent a loss of information). quote: Gitt information demands that a programmer is required for any new information (considering some of the advances in gene therapy, I suppose you can get new information in the genome this way). There certainly is a barrier, as you can fit only so much sequence data on the chromosomes.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4876 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe Meert:
[B] So are you saying that a feather has more information than a scale? [/QUOTE] No, that is not what I am saying. I am asking for evidence, any evidence, showing that a new algorithm (coding sequence) arose in the genome to produce a new feature, such as sonar where it once did not exist. Or new information that produced feathers where it once produced scales. I'm giving you a fairly straightforward definition of information (new coding sequence producing a new feature) to work from. Mud-to-man evolution demands that massive amounts of information must have been added to the genome over time via random mutation and selection. There is not a shred of evidence for this. It is no surprise that Information science says it is impossible. I haven't even asked you to tell us how any code, let alone the genetic code, could possibly arise naturalistically in the first place. Information science says that the naturalistic origin of a code is impossible, not vastly improbable, impossible.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4876 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: Would you care to share with the world how selection alone, working on pre-existing genes, could possibly produce *new* information? Also, your continued claim that a tree ring contains a code is truly amazing! I will say it is at the very least quite original!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4876 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]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4876 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 4876 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
Mark, your timing is horrible!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4876 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: Sorry, no time. You’ll have to search the web or get his book.
quote: If I understand you correctly, I think you are asking for an analogy to the ribosome/DNA relationship, where an end product encoded in the DNA (ribosome) itself is used to translate code from the very source (nucleus DNA) that produced the ribosome. One such analogy would be where a host transmits to a storage device an FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array) configuration that will enable the storage device to translate a specific protocol to follow. The host then uses the protocol to communicate specific instructions to the recently installed hardware configuration on the storage device. The FPGA (ie ribosome) is encoded at the host (ie nucleus DNA) and also serves to decode subsequent instructions from the host.
quote: You misunderstand. If a new instruction arose in C++, say to do a new type of conditional jump instruction, this would constitute new information.
quote: And this is precisely how some evolutionists attempt to brush-aside the information problem (see Joe Meert for recent example).
quote: Not one that everyone agrees on, because of the obvious implications to the origins question.
quote: My abridged definition given to you, or the one given to Joe and elucidated to TrueCreation, serve as accurate statements of what new information is. Perhaps we can call them corollaries of information.
quote: It may or may not be. This provides a good example of Gitt information. If someone arranged the twigs, then obviously it is information. It has syntax and semantics (English language), and pragmatics and apobetics (expected action, intended result). If the twigs were arranged randomly (wind, etc), then there is no expected action and intended result. You would chow down when you shouldn’t have! What if the message was ‘help’ but in a foreign language? Unless you recognized a clear pattern (especially if it was in Chinese), chances are you would dismiss it as random. But because you failed to see it doesn’t mean it’s not information. It is information, just unrealized information (as Dembski likes to call it). It has semantics, syntax, pragmatics, and apobetics. quote: No, for several reasons: 1) It obviously does not fall within the realm of pragmatics and apobetics (expected action, intended purpose). 2) It’s too vague an example. The word useful can become quite subjective. Also, should the organism be considered, or the population? As evolutionists love to say populations evolve not individuals. They can’t have it both ways. So if any alleged arrival of a new, useful function only benefits certain individuals in certain environments but not the population as a whole, is it really new information, or a net deterioration of the currently existing information? Case in point, by your criteria one could use the sickle-cell example and claim it is new information. Yet this is clearly a loss of information, as any info scientist will tell you. Note that I have never once encountered an informed evolutionist trained in info theory who thinks sickle-cell is an example of new information. You will only find laymen making this claim. How do informed evolutionists try to deal with the info problem? They often postulate that new information can be added via gene duplication and subsequent mutation of that gene. That way, the original information is still present, and new information can arise on the new duplicate via mutation/selection. If we ignore the top two layers of Gitt information (which would render this mechanism as an impossible method for originating new information), then a door opens where one could, with a wild imagination, envision an algorithm arising to produce some protein or set of proteins that provide a new, useful function for the population. As Dr Lee Spetner pointed out in his book Not by Chance, there is not one single compelling example of this occurring at the genetic level. Yet there should be a myriad of examples available if evolution is true. Again note that Spetner’s requirement is a watered-down version of information when compared to Gitt information. Even the less stringent definition used by Spetner poses devastating problems for NeoDarwinian evolution.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4876 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: I would agree with you that this was a strawman had I said that evolutionists made that claim. But I was answering your question of why I personally believe it is a loss of information. If you review my posts, you will see that I am trying to point out that even when using less stringent definitions of information, evolution is untenable.
quote: As I mentioned in the prior post, some info theorists (both evolutionists & creationists) would argue that a new gene function is new information provided 1) the old gene still exists, and 2) the new function is useful (beneficial). I am more than willing to debate this watered down version of information that does not require the top two layers of Gitt information (pragmatics & apobetics). The door is already shut on evolution via Gitt information, I’m here to show the door is firmly shut on the less stringent definitions (corollaries) I have provided as well (the codon example to you, the algorithm example to Meert), plus the definition just given in this paragraph.
quote: No, the problem is the subjective use of the term beneficial. As I stated earlier, many evolutionists claim the sickle-cell mutation is beneficial, and therefore must represent new information. Yet I know of no info scientist in the world who believes sickle-cell represents an increase in information. I also pointed out that creation info theorists such as Spetner would accept a bonafide beneficial mutation (one that is beneficial to the population), as increased information. I’ll repeat my point again for emphasis sake, even this less stringent requirement cannot be met by evolutionists. Evolutionists drudge up a few questionable examples, yet there should be literally billions of examples that meet Spetner’s requirement if evolution were true.
quote: No evolution absolutely requires, it demands, the appearance of new algorithms to program for new useful features. How did we get to feathers from scales? To sonar from no sonar? From single-cell to human? It is incorrect for you to say that evolution merely requires new/altered function. It need the additional program space, plus the algorithm (that’s why informed evolutionists try to argue gene duplication/subsequent mutation & selection). To summarize, I personally believe that Gitt information is currently the best representation of what information is. His impossibility laws of information are hard to dispute. All you have to do is produce one counter-example to any law and it falls on its face. HOWEVER, I am willing to accept a less stringent requirement for information for the sake of debate and to illustrate a point. That is what I have been trying to do in this thread. I have offered in this thread two corollaries of information that have less stringent requirements than Gitt information: The codon example I gave you, and the algorithm example I gave Meert. Why can you not produce a single bonadfide example that meets my requirement? I submit it is because information science is devastating to evolution, and thus way evolutionists try to bury the problem with various excuses (such as blaming it on how information is defined).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024