|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 7604 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Give your one best shot - against evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7693 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Apparently you are not up-to-date with molecular biology. I recommend you to do a literature search on this topic. Read them carefully, than we may discuss this topic. In the meantime I will finish off with NDT.
Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7693 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear maiden,
Fortunately, I recogonised your fallacy. In logic this type of reasoning is called an "extension", and belongs to the type of "faulty analogies". A faulty analogy is an inappropriate comparison or an attempt to compare two or more dissimilar things. Recently a scientist uttered a similar faulty analogy: "You can't accept one part of science because it brings you good things like electricity and penicillin, and throw away another part because it brings you some things you don't like about the origin of life". It is a very subtle type of fallacies and eludes most people. Have a nice day, Peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Isn't the use of information theory in the context
of the genetic component of organisms the exact kind of false analogy that you have just out-right rejected (without argument I might add). The purpose of analogy is clarification, by changing thesubject matter to something more mundane. As such, to argue against an analogy requires a comment on why it is not approriate, rather than just saying 'That's an analogy so I won't listen to it.' For me, for example, applying information theory to biologicalsystems is problematic. Just because we view the genome as a genetic code, doesn't mean it is actually a code in the technical sense of the word. The term 'genetic code' is itself an analogy, and not a technical description.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Sorry, no dice. To have a faulty analogy, you must first prove the relevant dissimilarities outweigh the relevant similarities. You made no effort to do this. Otherwise, you just have an analogy, which is valid. It is a very subtle difference and eludes most people. Have a nice day, themaiden ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4883 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
STRAWMAN ALERT!!!
quote: LOL! So, do you think that evolution is able to proceed nicely via harmful mutations only? Please do not avoid this question. Answer it directly. Then perhaps you will see the speciousness of your logic above. [Note: I think Fedmahn's strawman is the most common one I see erected by evos]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fedmahn Kassad Inactive Member |
quote: What you wrote does not logically follow from what I wrote. Your point is that information can't increase, or if so it would be rare for this to happen naturally in an organism. My point is that even under the Creationist model, we have gone from few alleles to many. This is your position, is it not? If so, then there is no strawman. If you still believe that a strawman has been erected you will have to be more explicit in explaining how I have misrepresented your position. Are you trying to say that all of the new alleles that have arisen are harmful? The fact is that if you grant that new alleles have arisen, then you grant that evolution can occur whether or not you define it as an increase or decrease of information. Others have pointed this out as well. FK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1903 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Is this the same Spetner that believes that all extant animals arose from 365 original kinds and that all birds arose form 365 original bird kinds? Does his book 'Not by Chance' provide any actual documentation supporting these odd beliefs, or is it the usual creationist "attack evolution, explain nothing" pap? quote: Yeah - just deny that there is no evidence for one's position. Ignore refutations of your favorite arguments.Schitt information is the ONLY real definition! Never mind that not a single Information or Communications Theory department uses anything by Gitt in their teaching - must be the conspiracy!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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. But let’s stick to Flavobacterium sp.K172, for now.
quote: Seriously false analogy. 1/ Keep it in context. We are talking about a self replicating molecule that codes for chemical & morphological traits. A self immolating computer doesn’t qualify on these criteria, that we are both basing our informational content on. 2/ Bursting into flames may help me feed myself, but has no new function for itself, that being the key issue.
quote: See above.
quote: It’s not already pre-programmed into the genome, it arose from another coding sequence via mutation. It just didn’t increase an organisms fitness until the prey ran out. Anyway, let’s change it then, cellulose digestion immediately benefits the organism that has the mutation. So now is it new information? So it’s new information when it is used immediately? But not if there’s a generational delay? Please reference this.
quote: If you have enough of them, & dry them out, I suppose you could light them. Yes, it’s a useful feature, it enabled the organism to make use of an otherwise inaccessable foodstore. It doesn’t get much more useFULL than this.
quote: Actually, it doesn’t have to be useful, I merely chose an example that was to make it more palatable to yourself. It has to be useful, if it is ultimately to be affected by natural selection, rather than genetic drift. Heterozygous at that locus? This is a bacteria we are talking about, it doesn’t have homologous gene pairs as in eukaryotes. A carbohydrate digesting gene was completely lost to all descendents of the parent, & the new allele digests nylon. And it’s not a new algorithm, it’s a deviation of a current algorithm. If the deviation is a different algorithm to the parent, then it’s a new algorithm, by definition, therefore, new information, by your definition. Let me remind you, new information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature. Or are the goalposts being moved now? So that new information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence, that is very different indeed to the original parent sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature. Your definition has been met, Fred. Flavobacterium sp.K172 has exhibited new information.
quote: Nope, evolution doesn’t claim that huge amounts of information have accumulated via random mutation and blind selection, as you define it. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4883 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: Again, your simulation does not produce an alogorithm. Second, to be specific Gitt information says it is impossible to generate new information via random mutation without a sender.
quote: Your last sentence is basically correct, but it contradicts your penultimate sentence (which is incorrect). Your last sentence is actually a positive sign, as you apparently recognize that being handed one dictionary when you already have that exact dictionary is not new information (I think Mark and TrueCreation both stumbled on this). Now consider your own understanding of Shannon theory. Your simulation has a 100% chance to reach your pre-determined target. That means you received no new information by your own understanding of Shannon information (you were told something you already knew).
quote: You misunderstand. I did not say that info science rules out a simulation from producing new information. Look what I said above Thus, randomness did not produce information, intelligence did. You produced the information! Info science says that you cannot produce information via randomness & selection without an intelligent sender. The following is a cut&paste from my debate a couple years ago with Budikka on my website: ---Begin Paste---GAs [genetic algorithms] are really no more than computer controlled trial&error experiments. These experiments require an intelligent "selector" to prune the information from the GA to some desired target. If there is a pre-selected goal or target, then an "information giver" is needed up front to get the information! This is why evolutionists try to deny the existence of a target in GAs, but we shall soon see they are mistaken. For example, let=s look at the apparent use of a GA at Lockheed Martin that yielded a more efficient spacecraft movement (this sounds similar to other uses of GAs regarding robotics that I have read in IEEE journals). Engineers would have had to monitor the program until it achieved some goal, and indeed the web site proclaims "It achieves the goal within 2% of the theoretical minimum time". Now remove the engineer and see if this GA ever achieves its goal. It can=t if no one is there to detect it! The program will run to infinity producing useless gibberish of many meaningless manifestations. Only in the presence of intelligence, that is, an "information giver" can the GA provide any use. Otherwise, GAs will always produce meaningless noise, like snow on your TV set. Note that if the engineer programs the GA to stop on "the best solution", then the information is already present since the GA is guaranteed to succeed in some way (information is the reduction of uncertainty). Now try to imagine this mechanism at work "creating" biological systems. Darwinists would have us believe that natural selection, a blind, unintelligent process, acts as the "information giver" ordained to "pick" the best solution from random mutations. But natural selection, unlike GAs, cannot have a target or goal in mind that once achieved, can "stop" the selection process and prevent subsequent corruption from random changes. Also, natural selection cannot prevent an organism from going extinct from too many random mutations. GAs, unlike natural selection, always restart upon extinction. This restart is programmed, and it comes from intelligence (information), something natural selection does not possess. Information theory tells us you cannot, under any circumstances, build information via random processes without the presence of already existing information, ie an Information Giver. Randomness unmonitored by intelligence will strip away information, always, no exceptions. --- End Paste ---
quote: This is begging the question. You have not provided any evidence that new algorithms have been produced via random mutation and selection in the natural world. Surely if what you say is true, you should be able to produce physical evidence. But evolutionists cannot. Thus, the above Gitt statement has not been falsified. It takes hard evidence to falsify a claim, not someone’s opinion. quote: I think you accidentally twisted this around. This does not match your previous objection. Gitt certainly does not argue the above, as adding information clearly causes function gain. You previously objected thusly: Fred says Gitt-information rules out information gain, but if function loss == information loss, then by necessity function gain == information gain. I said this was a non-sequitur, and it is. You are now essentially re-wording it to say if information loss == function loss, then by necessity information gain == function gain (notice the two parameters at either side of the equal signs are now swapped).
quote: Of course it must, or what good is it?
quote: The question is whether or not information is gained or lost. BY your definition, information is gained all the time no matter what! If your brain explodes it's new information because it’s a new function (subroutine: explode_head() ) What would you consider a loss of information?
quote: Again you misunderstand. The context is genetics. If a mutation occurs to a gene (thereby modifying the algorithm), there still exists another copy at the same locus with the original algorithm. Which is the better algorithm? Let’s return to the dictionary analogy. Do you think that if you are handed an identical dictionary to one you already possess, but it has a typo in it causing some word to be ill-defined, do you really think you have an increase in information? According to your logic you would! But even using Shannon information, information for the ill-defined word is actually lost due to an increase in uncertainty as to which definition is correct. Again, you would be better served to argue for gene duplication, followed by mutation.
quote: Perhaps it is an unspoken view by scientists that genomes are deteriorating, but I suspect most believe this. Regardless, I can provide scores of studies supporting my claim above. I can go to PubMed and post all kinds of support. Yet you would be very hard pressed to find much of anything in any of the science journals (almost all of which are pro-evolution) to support your apparent claim that genomes are not deteriorating. My claim above certainly is not based merely on an evangelical view, it is based on sound science, with overwhelming data to support it. Because of the wealth of evidence, even some evolutionists are now saying things like humans have reached their evolutionary peak, and even some who acknowledge humans are no de-evolving.
quote: Thanks, much appreciated!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4883 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: So now there are two alleles. Which one is better for the population? What would constitute a loss of information to you? It seems you think anything new is a net gain in information. I think this is the crux of the problem you guys are having.
quote: I made no such goal post adjustments. I did not stipulate that the coding sequence had to be very different indeed to the original parent sequence. Aka, strawman.
quote: I did a search of this, and found that the new information you are talking about is the result of plasmids, which means its not new information at all. Unless of course you think passing information from one hand to the other is new information! Do you? I think I should ask this again. What in the world would constitute a loss of information to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I did a google search; "genetic redundancy evolution prediction" It returned 2,880 hits. Some good ones are are linked below. Remember, my claim is that genetic redundancy is a prediction of the ToE, not a refutation of it, as you claim it is. By providing references to current Biology research which discusses genetic redundancy as a proof of Evolution, I should think my claim is well supported. What YOU have to do is the same thing. Provide research and references which supports your claim that genetic redundancy is not, in fact, a prediction of Evolutionary theory.
http://www.wcci2002.org/cec/acceptedspecial.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/schuster97sequence.html www.cs.sunysb.edu/~skiena/talks/talk-bio.pdf Also found this paper: Nowak, M. A., Boerlijst, M. C., Cooke, J. and Smith, J. M. Evolution of genetic redundancy. Nature 388:167-171 (1997). I could go on and on, but I think this is enough. I look forward to the links and evidence from the professional literature that you provide which reveals that genetic redundancy is a big surprise and redundancy to the professional Biology community. ------------------"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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Fred Williams writes: It certainly *is* an algorithm, and I expressed it mathematically in Message 142. But more importantly, there is nothing in information theory that says information can only be algorithms. That is Fred theory.
An intelligent sender is I think your requirement. First, there is nothing in information theory that requires the sender be intelligent. Defining intelligence all by itself would be an insurmountable problem, and is not addressed within information theory. Our space probes send us plenty of information, and they're not intelligent. Second, the origination of new information does not require intelligence, either, for the same reason. Shannon's approach depends upon random generation of information. Random mutation fits perfectly within Shannon's model.
I'm just the guy running the experiment, the observer watching the show. I'm not part of the proceedings. The information is not being communicated to me but to the organism.
You said this last time, and I already answered. If you'd like a lower probability of success to more accurate reflect the real world then simply improve the model. As I already said, the easiest way is simply to reduce the number of terms from two to one.
I merely set up the experiment by defining an analog for the environment in the form of a required sequence, and even the sequence could have been randomly defined. I have no way of determining or predicting what information the program will produce, and it didn't come from me.
This is Fred science, not info science. Information theory has no requirement that senders be intelligent. As mentioned early, the problem of defining intelligence is a thorny and difficult one, certainly not reducible at this time to the mathematical rigor of information theory. A definition of intelligence is not part of information theory.
"Begin Paste" from what source? Excerpt ignored pending identification of source.
My C++ model of random mutation creating a new algorithm clearly falsifies the claim that random mutation cannot create new information. If it can happen in a computer model it most certainly can happen in nature.
It's easy to make claims which are difficult to falsify. I claim there are invisible ethereal aliens among us, prove me wrong. Your misinterpretation of information theory is itself unsupported by evidence and is already contradicted by simple models.
Then what possible difference could it make whether a new function is added by gene splicing or mutation? If humans add a gene to produce new function then it's information gain, but if random mutation adds an identical gene then it's not information gain? This is a serious contradiction. Percy writes: Fred replies: Subjective concepts like "useful" and "good" are not part of information theory. For information to be transmitted it is only necessary that it be unknown to the receiver.
I never said this - have you checked your own head lately? Shannon developed information theory in order to characterize with mathematical rigor the maximum amount of information that could be communicated over a channel taking into account losses due to noise. Obviously information loss is part of information theory.
The original algorithm isn't at the same locus in the offspring, only the parent.
This dictionary analogy doesn't describe evolution. To do that you have to postulate an evolving language (which we have) where dictionary publishers strive to stay current with the latest usages. One way, a slow way, a publisher could try to stay abreast is by allowing random errors to creep into his dictionary (mutation), with reviews by knowledgeable linguists to discard dictionaries with less useful definitions (selection). Don't get too detailed in criticizing this improved form of your analogy, I'm just trying to work with the raw material you provided. I wouldn't myself have attempted a dictionary analogy for evolution.
But I do! Just not today with you.
Glad you understand that science has not "shown overwhelmingly that genomes are deteriorating." Scientists are unlikely to believe something that has no positive evidence with plenty of evidence for the converse. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: What? Each organism has one allele, one gene. There is no homologous pair. I use the word allele to differentiate from the un-mutated, & still extant parent gene. Now you are moving the goalposts. We are discussing your claim that evolutionary information gain is impossible. Not, evolutionary information net gain is impossible. In this example, (by your definition) information has been lost & gained. But hang on!! Evolution can only lose information, why has it gained? The only issue I am addressing is that of new information being evident at all. Nevertheless, if the original carbohydrategene found it’s way back in via recombination, the bacteria would phenotypically have lost no information since both algorithms are present. Another possibility would be gene duplication before the thymine addition, leaving two consecutive copies, one of which mutates & digests nylon, the other, carbohydrate. A net gain.
quote: I only asked because it looked like the goalposts were about to go walkabout, re. the and it’s not a new algorithm, it’s a deviation of a current algorithm comment.
quote: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm In fact, the plasmid involved in this case is very well known and characterized. Scientists have studied both the original (pre-mutation) plasmid and the novel (post-mutation) plasmid, in great detail. It turns out that the novel plasmid's mutated DNA for production of nylonase is almost identical to a non-coding repetitive DNA sequence on the original plasmid; the difference is the single nucleotide that triggered the Frame Shift. This mutation did not exist 60 years ago. If this gene was always there, whether in a plasmid or not, we can reasonably wonder why a bacteria would have a gene for hydrolysing an artificial polymer that did not exist until just a few decades ago; and why, in the absence of such a substrate, was the gene not mutated to uselessness over the millenia? We could go off on an unnecessary paper searching tangent here, but the point surely is, we have the original carbohydrate gene sequence, we have the nylon gene sequence, & the nylon differs by a single thymine addition. Single nucleotide additions are observed, so it is entirely reasonable & plausible to assert that a thymine addition to a gene produces a new function via a new algorithm. The product of the new gene is an enzyme that allows nylon to be used nutritionally, that is, it is a new useful feature.
quote: This scenario fits your definition of new information. Your contention is that new information is impossible for evolution. This scenario shows that it is possible. Perhaps it's time to utilise that built in wriggle room you allowed for yourself in the same post you defined "new information" in. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 07-10-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1903 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Hmmm.... Must be the Shitt information definition.... [This message has been edited by SLPx, 07-11-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1903 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Fred, you never replied to message 150...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024