Give your one best shot - against evolution

quote:

---

JM: Ever heard of malaria? Sickle-cell?

---

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.

quote:

---

If an acceptable definition of evolution is change in allele frequency in a population over time, then isn't Joe's example of the interplay between malaria and sickle-cell anemia independent of whether your point is correct?

---

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.htmI'm talking about evidence for large-scale, mud-to-man evolution. Joe's example is the opposite. It's man-to-mud de-evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
This is a valid point for this thread, I was only pointing out that it didn't bear on the point Joe was making. Maleria and sickle-cell anemia fulfilled Philip's request for an example of human evolution involving illnesses. Whether the change involved a gain or loss of information is irrelevant, it's still evolution.

---

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?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: I disagree since 'information' is such a nebulous term. How can you say what the 'marge' (sic) scale public believes? You can't even define the terms correctly on your home page!

---

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?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
When Joe says, "'information' is such a nebulous term" he doesn't mean "information is nebulous", but that he's not sure how you're defining it. Can't have a discussion if you don't agree on terminology.

---

Chalk it up to a "loss of information" over this medium! I did understand him to mean information is an encompassing and sometimes difficult to quantify term, that is why I asked him the followup question on new DNA algorithms for sonar.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".

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
No it isn't. Its man-succeptable-to-malaria to man-with-resistance-to-malaria adaptation.

​

---

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?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
OK, so what do YOU mean by information ?

---

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.

quote:

---

TC: BTW, Fred Williams, regarding the question if new information. How exactly would you define information, and how would you define 'new' information. Examples are one thing, but that is quite different from a definition.

---

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:

---

--I once argued for nucleotide base/codon sequences as information, thus, new information would be addition + change of this sequence.

---

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 exist
2) 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:

---

Either your argument is there can be no new information, or there is a barrier for quantity and/or change of information.

---

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.

[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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:
Kimura demonstrated mathematically that naturalk selection adds adaptive information to the genome in 1961. I should have thought that so well-read a creationist as you would have already known this.

​

---

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!

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
Could you tell us Fred just out of what field information theory arose and just why you think it is applicable to complex biological systems?

---

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! Perhaps within the next week we will get #3 (the only one with a leg to stand on; BTW, its not as common as the other two; clue: think theistic evolution).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]

quote:

---

TC: If limited time is your problem, I should hope you would attempt to work around it.

---

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:

---

A definition is very much needed before an example of what information is can be made.

---

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:

---

--No, this definition is not vague in the least, it is highly direct and able to be worked from. With an addition + change in nucleotide base and/or codon sequences qualifying as new information. Demonstration that new information has come about is very simple, that is, the differentiation between new and old(Previously existing sequentially) information. I would like to speak to your handful of evo's which have come to the conclusion that addition + change does not imply an addition of information, or is that different from 'new' information.

---

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 ). Regardless, even at the Shannon level of information, which is the lowest level, addition + change does not equate to new information. Dr Schnieder will confirm this for you. He will also confirm my dictionary example. He has an excellent primer on Shannon information theory somewhere on his website (sorry, I couldn’t find it in the brief time I looked).

quote:

---

Me: 1) A new program installed on your computer (such as WordPerfect), where it did not previously exist"
--So is it the fact that it now exists 'new' information, or is the fact that it is compiled in binary coding in say, the C++ information codec system.

---

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 ), or whatever code it comes in. If it is a code that performs some function (in this case a word processor for the computer user) it represents new information on the computer.

quote:

---

--Sonar is likely a very large compilation of new datasets of nucleotide sequences in the genome. So shouldn't the nucleotide base sequence mutation, being the source of this characteristic, have the merited attribution of new information?

---

I don’t understand your question. Do you mean mutations, plural?

quote:

---

I also think this is asking far too much from those who would like to experiment on the potential falsifications to Evolution.

---

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:

---

Me: If it is faster and more efficient with resources, this would qualify as increased information on your computer.
--What? I think this is rediculous when applied to reality and the initial question. The reason behind asking for 'new information' is that the argument is 'new information' cannot be brought about, thus the ToE is bunk.

---

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:

---

Nucleotide base mutation and disruption sequentially is what should be looked at as it essentially is the source from where new characteristical changes will be formed from. Why is this not reasonable?

---

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:

---

"3) Gene duplication (if it has a negative affect on the organism it would actually represent a loss of information). "
--So apparently, what your definition of 'information' is, is beneficial inheritance?

---

My definition (at least for the sake of debate here) is given earlier in this post.

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."
--So then, this barrier just hasn't been met yet, even if 3.5 or so billion years of Evolution has occurred or not?

---

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:

---

In mainstream Evolution theory, it takes time and environmental submission to allow a new sequence of code which will code entirely for a new 'feature' or mechenism by which a task can be carried out.

---

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.

Mark, your timing is horrible! I realize I left you hanging from last time I was here, so I promise I'll address your post next. Hopefully I can find time tomorrow morning, otherwise next week sometime. Good night!

quote:

---

Please quote Gitt's definition of new information.

---

Sorry, no time. You’ll have to search the web or get his book.

quote:

---

Are there any natural or non-natural examples where the product of a transmission is received by, & decoded by the same transmission product, not involving genetic material?

---

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:

---

Me: A new codon instruction that performs some function intended by the sender. For example, if a new codon arose that caused DNA transcription to jump to some other specific part of the genome to perform a useful function (a ‘JUMP’ codon), that would be new information.
This definition I used does not only apply to codons. It applies to anything that is a code: morse, C++, PowerPC machine language, english language, etc.

​

I know I’m being pedantic, but this definition doesn’t apply to anything other than codons/DNA.

---

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:

---

This conversation can’t really progress unless we have an absolute definition of what new information actually is. The links you provided don’t even define information, except in a contextual way, let alone new information.

---

And this is precisely how some evolutionists attempt to brush-aside the information problem (see Joe Meert for recent example).

quote:

---

Are you really telling me that a single, all encompassing definition of new information doesn’t exist?

---

Not one that everyone agrees on, because of the obvious implications to the origins question.

quote:

---

Such a definition may have to be general, but can still be accurate.

---

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:

---

Lastly, if I leave my house, open the front gate, & there is a pattern of twigs on the floor that say EAT, I then dutifully carry out this instruction by going inside & fixing a sandwich. How is this not message/information?

---

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! (actually, your example would be better served if the message was something like ‘HELP’, as that would more likely draw attention; it would be silly for someone to write the message ‘eat’, and even sillier for you to blindly follow it ).
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:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

No one is saying new functional products of a mutant allele have a prior expected action, much less an intended purpose, which is why your particular take on info science re. Evolution is inappropriate, it is a strawman at this level.

---

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:

---

Thus, I’m beginning to wonder what the fuss is about. If new gene functions aren’t considered new information, then evolution doesn’t need "new information".

---

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:

---

You have said in another thread that information science is the dagger in the heart of evolution. How can this be so, when the raw material of evolution, the beneficial mutation, isn’t considered new information anyway, by your own definition?

---

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:

---

All evolution requires is new/altered function, it isn’t bothered with squabbles over whose definition is better.

---

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).