Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Give your one best shot - against evolution
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 181 of 224 (13215)
07-09-2002 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by nator
07-08-2002 12:46 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by nator, posted 07-08-2002 12:46 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by nator, posted 07-10-2002 6:42 PM peter borger has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 182 of 224 (13219)
07-09-2002 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by John
07-08-2002 10:41 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by John, posted 07-08-2002 10:41 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Peter, posted 07-10-2002 3:02 AM peter borger has not replied
 Message 184 by John, posted 07-10-2002 10:13 AM peter borger has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 183 of 224 (13230)
07-10-2002 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by peter borger
07-09-2002 11:44 PM


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 the
subject 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 biological
systems 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by peter borger, posted 07-09-2002 11:44 PM peter borger has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 224 (13243)
07-10-2002 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by peter borger
07-09-2002 11:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
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

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by peter borger, posted 07-09-2002 11:44 PM peter borger has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 185 of 224 (13250)
07-10-2002 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Fedmahn Kassad
07-09-2002 6:05 PM


STRAWMAN ALERT!!!
quote:
What do both of these examples have in common? Both would fall under the no new information created domain. That’s right, we now have Chinese, Germans, Indians, Nigerians, Arabs, Native Americans, etc., all hypothetically derived from a founding population of 2, and no new information was created in the process. Once there were few alleles, now there are many. Yet there was no increase in information. As I have said before, evolution is able to proceed nicely under this Creationist definition of information.
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 07-09-2002 6:05 PM Fedmahn Kassad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Fedmahn Kassad, posted 07-10-2002 1:56 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fedmahn Kassad
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 224 (13252)
07-10-2002 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Fred Williams
07-10-2002 1:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
STRAWMAN ALERT!!!
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]

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Fred Williams, posted 07-10-2002 1:24 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 187 of 224 (13253)
07-10-2002 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Fred Williams
07-09-2002 8:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
...Dr Lee Spetner documents this well in his book ‘Not by Chance’.
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:
Join a big crowd of evolutionists who are right there with you in the crowd of denial. Brushing aside the problem does not make it go away. Evolution is a fairytale, folks! (that was for Scotty
)
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Fred Williams, posted 07-09-2002 8:43 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 188 of 224 (13255)
07-10-2002 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Fred Williams
07-09-2002 8:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

The problem is most definitely not the subjective use of the term beneficial. I have given you a hypothetical example, that is directly beneficial to the organism in the next generation, is it new information, or not?
What hypothetical example did you give me?

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:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Mark:
Now, if Gitts definition won’t allow a new function to = new information, then how can you claim that function loss = information loss, whilst maintaining the same standards?
Fred:
Quite easily. By your logic, if your computer explodes into a ball of fire, and you toast marshmellows over it, then it must be new information since its got a new function!
As it pertains to our discussion, what Gitt information says is that it is impossible to have a new algorithm (subroutine) arise in the genome without a sender (ie a Programmer).

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:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

I’m talking about a hypothetical scenario, where a new function is gained via a mutation. Whether it is beneficial to the organism there & then is irrelevant.
My marshmellow analogy shows that it is quite relevant!

See above.
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

For example, an enzyme that digests cellulose in a carnivore may not immediately benefit the species, but in a few generations during a famine may decide whether a few organisms live or die. You can say it’s only new info at that stage, I really don’t mind.
No, it’s not new info if it is already pre-programmed information that is idle. You are now getting very close to the third of three common objections I get on the information problem!

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:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Mark:
I’m sure you’ve heard of the nylon digesting bacteria, ( http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm ), where the addition of a single thymine produces an enzyme that digests nylon in a gene sequence.
Here an organism has a new feature.
Fred:
Is it a useful feature, or is it bad (something we can roast marshmellows over)?

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:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Mark:
, now, either,
1/ a new algorithm has produced a new feature, fulfilling your definition of new information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature, or,
Fred:
No, I said the feature has to be useful. Why did you leave useful out? And it’s not a new algorithm, it’s a deviation of a current algorithm. It makes the organism heterozygous at that locus. That means if one has a selective advantage over the other and gains a foothold in the population, then the less fit allele might be driven to extinction over time. Is the net result a positive gain of information, or a negative gain? Those are the types of questions that need to be asked. It's also why evolutionists posit gene duplication, then mutation, to get new information in the genome.

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:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Mark:
If you are saying that these increments do not represent information, then so be it, but information science then cannot prohibit evolution.
Fred:
Information science prohibits evolution because of what evolution claims, that huge amounts of information have accumulated via random mutation and blind selection. Evolution also claims that the genetic code arose naturalistically. Information science also says that this is impossible.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Fred Williams, posted 07-09-2002 8:43 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Fred Williams, posted 07-10-2002 2:43 PM mark24 has replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 189 of 224 (13256)
07-10-2002 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Percy
07-09-2002 10:46 PM


quote:
It's a model of evolution doing precisely what you said Gitt-information says is impossible, namely develop a new algorithm from random mutation.
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:
First, this objection based upon Shannon misunderstands Shannon, whose work dealt with communication of information over channels and did not address the issue of new information. He *did* address the issue of what constituted communicating information, along the lines of saying that you can't tell someone something he already knows.
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:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) You have a pre-determined target. Therefore, any information your simulation produces can only be actuated in the presence of already existing information. That is, by higher intelligence — you. You have programmed the simulation to stop at the pattern you like. Thus, randomness did not produce information, intelligence did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, if this had any validity it would rule out all modeling, from weather to flight paths of spacecraft to nuclear particle physics.
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:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As it pertains to our discussion, what Gitt information says is that it is impossible to have a new algorithm (subroutine) arise in the genome without a sender (ie a Programmer).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is obviously false since it leads to contradictory conclusions, for instance that a new algorithm inserted by humans through gene splicing is information, while the identical algorithm added through random mutation is not information.
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:
Obviously Gitt cannot rationally argue that subtracting information causes function loss but that adding information cannot cause function gain.
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:
For example, the function must be useful.
Of course it must, or what good is it?
quote:
What could information theory possibly know or care about whether information is useful?
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:
Or that an algorithm is not a new algorithm if it represents a modification to a pre-existing algorithm instead of coming into being all at once like some form of immaculate conception.
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:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science has shown overwhelmingly that genomes are deteriorating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's okay to argue for your point of view, but let's keep the representations of science straight. This is your own evangelical view, and certainly nowhere remotely close to any accepted view within science.
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:
Join a big crowd of Creationists who are right there with you in the crowd of denial. Brushing aside the problem does not make it go away. Creationism is a fairytale, folks! (this one's for you, Fred).
Thanks, much appreciated!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 07-09-2002 10:46 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Percy, posted 07-10-2002 8:25 PM Fred Williams has replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 190 of 224 (13258)
07-10-2002 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by mark24
07-10-2002 2:14 PM


quote:
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.
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:
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.
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:
Your definition has been met, Fred. Flavobacterium sp.K172 has exhibited new information.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by mark24, posted 07-10-2002 2:14 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by mark24, posted 07-10-2002 8:44 PM Fred Williams has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 191 of 224 (13270)
07-10-2002 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by peter borger
07-09-2002 11:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
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

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"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by peter borger, posted 07-09-2002 11:36 PM peter borger has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 192 of 224 (13284)
07-10-2002 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Fred Williams
07-10-2002 2:16 PM


Fred Williams writes:

Again, your simulation does not produce an algorithm.
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.

Second, to be specific Gitt information says it is impossible to generate new information via random mutation without a sender.
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.

Now consider your own understanding of Shannon theory...That means you received no new information by your own understanding of Shannon information (you were told something you already knew).
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.

Your simulation has a 100% chance to reach your pre-determined target.
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.

Look what I said above Thus, randomness did not produce information, intelligence did. You produced the information!
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.

Info science says that you cannot produce information via randomness & selection without an intelligent sender.
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---
"Begin Paste" from what source? Excerpt ignored pending identification of source.

You have not provided any evidence that new algorithms have been produced via random mutation and selection in the natural world.
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 takes hard evidence to falsify a claim, not someone’s opinion.
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.

Gitt certainly does not argue the above, as adding information clearly causes function gain.
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:

For example, the function must be useful.
Fred replies:

Of course it must, or what good is it?
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.

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() )
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.

If a mutation occurs to a gene (thereby modifying the algorithm), there still exists another copy at the same locus with the original algorithm.
The original algorithm isn't at the same locus in the offspring, only the parent.

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?
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.

Again, you would be better served to argue for gene duplication, followed by mutation.
But I do! Just not today with you.

Perhaps it is an unspoken view by scientists that genomes are deteriorating, but I suspect most believe this.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Fred Williams, posted 07-10-2002 2:16 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Fred Williams, posted 07-11-2002 2:43 PM Percy has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 193 of 224 (13285)
07-10-2002 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Fred Williams
07-10-2002 2:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Mark:
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.
Fred:
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.

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:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Mark:
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.
Fred:
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.

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:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Mark:
Your definition has been met, Fred. Flavobacterium sp.K172 has exhibited new information.
Fred:
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?

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:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

New information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature.

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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Fred Williams, posted 07-10-2002 2:43 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Fred Williams, posted 07-11-2002 4:39 PM mark24 has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 194 of 224 (13359)
07-11-2002 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Fred Williams
07-09-2002 8:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
It makes the organism (bacteria) heterozygous at that locus.
Hmmm.... Must be the Shitt information definition....
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 07-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Fred Williams, posted 07-09-2002 8:43 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 195 of 224 (13360)
07-11-2002 11:00 AM


Fred, you never replied to message 150...

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by TrueCreation, posted 07-11-2002 1:20 PM derwood has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024