Give your one best shot - against evolution

"Fred, you never replied to message 150... "
--I'm left in the dark on that one too. I don't think that Fred finds the posts all too attractive.------------------

quote:

---

Again, your simulation does not produce an algorithm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

It certainly *is* an algorithm, and I expressed it mathematically in Message 142.

---

No it isn’t. It’s a pattern, and is a product of an algorithm. This isn’t worth dwelling on, because it’s not important. I only mentioned this error in passing, since Genetic Algorithms such as Terra do attempt to create algorithms via randomness & selection. If your output was an algorithm it would be no better than a GA, which do not generate new information unless intelligence is there to prune it. I’ll have to dig up a quote from respected evolutionist John Joe McFadden from his book Quantum Evolution where he readily acknowledges that GAs are bogus examples of new information.

quote:

---

First, there is nothing in information theory that requires the sender be intelligent.

---

Gitt and others rightly point out that there are no known exceptions in the universe. Only opinions, no experiments are hard physical data to refute this.

quote:

---

Our space probes send us plenty of information, and they're not intelligent.

---

Incorrect. Our space probes are most certainly intelligent, and serve as a sender in the classic sense. The information sent by probes qualifies at the highest level of information as describe by Gitt.

quote:

---

Shannon's approach depends upon random generation of information. Random mutation fits perfectly within Shannon's model.

---

I’m glad you brought this up because it is somewhat controversial. In Shannon’s original paper, he loosely used the word information in conjunction with uncertainty (H), but close examination of the paper reveals that Shannon’s point is that max throughput and optimum information is achieved via the reduction of uncertainty (I recall he called it equivocation). Dr Schnieder is one of many who support this, and why I give him big kudos on his Shannon primer. This article of his specifically addresses your claim: http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/information.is.not.uncertainty.html

quote:

---

"Begin Paste" from what source? Excerpt ignored pending identification of source.

---

My apologies for not being clear. They are my own words from a debate on my website with Budikka a couple years ago. The link is here, the excerpt is toward the bottom. http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/bdka_mypost2.htm

quote:

---

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.

---

Percy, you are dreaming. Your simulation doesn’t even qualify for Shannon information. If you believe it does, then you need to provide a mathematical proof using proper Shannon equations. Just you saying so won’t cut it. I would also challenge you to find an information scientist who would agree with you. As I said earlier, I don’t need creation scientists to refute you, I can find evolutionists to do it for me (Schnieder, McFadden, Yockey, )

quote:

---

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.

---

This is a strawman. If random mutation adds an identical gene to gene slicing that is beneficial then it is indeed information gain (provided we accept this looser standard for information, which is what we are debating). But you keep missing the point. THERE ARE NO PHYSICAL, VERIFIABLE EXAMPLES OF THIS OCCURING IN NATURE! There is NO EVIDENCE that random mutation can create a coding sequence that is beneficial. That is my point. Randomness invariably destroys information. Given less stringent requirements for what "information" is, you guys still shoot blanks!Even if we get an occasionally lucky hit, the odds of it being detected by selection and surviving are very low (no better than 1 in 50, Fischer, Futuyma, et al). To make matters worse, there are virtually a limitless number of examples where multiple steps would be required to be in place before the new information (aka beneficial feature) is recognized by selection. Behe and others have documented this, and the evolutionists can only respond with handwave just-so stories.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

---

Huh? Only a small minority of mutations are transposons. Most are SNPs, which means the mutation in the offsping is at the same locus as in the parent.

quote:

---

Scientists are unlikely to believe something that has no positive evidence with plenty of evidence for the converse.

---

Absolutely incorrect. Most scientists believe evolution, despite any real tangible evidence for it. They believe it for reasons other than evidence. Regardless, please provide this plenty of evidence, using molecular biology, that counters my claim that genomes in are deteriorating.Finally, you never answered my question as to what you would consider a loss of information at the genetic level. I think answering this question is important. Surely there must be some example you can think of where information is lost!

Actually, I found that post "attracive" and planned on responding to it (which still doesn't mean I'll get to it, because I never know when a fire will start here at work). I'm going to tackle Mark's latest, then if I have time that one will be next.I don't know why so many people on internet boards (not all) can't understand that time is a problem for many of us. When things are slow at work I still only have time to maybe make 5 posts a day if I'm lucky. If I get 20 replies a day, I simply do not have the bandwidth to answer all of them.I think it goes without saying that I am much more likely going to engage civil and non-trolling type posters such as yourself, Mark and Percy, among others... That's why this board is appealing right now, becuase there is a lot of good, clean debate and not too many trolls.Gotta go eat!

​

[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 07-11-2002]

quote:

---

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.

---

My point is that after mutation there will now be two gene versions (allele) in the population. I realize I forgot that the context was your porkaryote (one-celled pig ), but it does not at all negate my argument. The population now has two gene versions floating around at that locus. Which one is truly the better version for the population?I also notice you, like Percy, avoided an important question. What for you would constitute a loss of information at the genetic level?

quote:

---

Now you are moving the goalposts. We are discussing your claim that evolutionary information gain is impossible. Not, evolutionary information net gain is impossible.

---

I AGREE! Evolutionary information net gain is impossible indeed!

quote:

---

We could go off on an unnecessary paper searching tangent here,

---

Unnecessary? The AIG reference shows the information was transferred from another bacteria, so no new information via randomness.

quote:

---

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.

---

Again, its an altered algorithm, not a new one. That would be like me copying someone’s software, making a single change to one opcode, and calling it new software. More appropriately, it’s a bug fix, or as Percy and I would like to say, enhancement! Regardless, I’ll accept your point for the sake of argument. The same problems still exist for your claim. To summarize:1) plasmid xfer is not generation of new information, it is transfer of already-existing information
2) the new enzyme is no longer specific to its original substrate, which Dr Lee Spetner in ‘Not by Chance’ shows in detail why this type of mutation invariably constitutes a loss of information.It brings me back to the question, which gene version is better for the overall population over time? If I get a mutation in my taste buds that makes me crave spam instead of a juicy T-Bone, am I really better off? HECK NO!

​

[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 07-11-2002]

Fred Williams writes:

---

No it isn’t. It’s a pattern, and is a product of an algorithm. This isn’t worth dwelling on, because it’s not important.

---

The point itself isn't important, but it is important in another way because it *does* indicate you don't understand the model your critiquing. The coefficients are the analog of genes and are the product of random mutation, not the product of the algorithm. What the algorithm produces is the expression of the organism within the environment in the form of an integer sequence, precisely analogous to biological organisms.The reason this is significant is independent of any confusions you may be suffering about information theory. The model illustrates random changes effecting improvement in the organism through selection, precisely what you claim information theory says is impossible. Therefore you misunderstand information theory.This is clear on its face when you make ridiculous claims such as that intelligence is part of information theory, which it most certainly is not. We can't define intelligence with any mathematical rigor today, and we couldn't define it back in the 1950s when Shannon did his seminal work. You've gotten way out in left field.Randomness and uncertainty are at the core of IT. Since you can't communicate information to anyone who already possesses that information, the process is essentially the ability to predict the next bit in a stream. To the extent that next bit is predictable it is not information. The greater the degree of unpredictability the greater its potential information content.Where you discuss Shannon's paper, I think you've confused the definition of information with approaches for reducing error introduced by noise when communicating information across a channel.

---

Even if we get an occasionally lucky hit, the odds of it being detected by selection and surviving are very low (no better than 1 in 50, Fischer, Futuyma, et al).

---

Lucky hit? How could there be a lucky hit if information theory really rendered it impossible? A bit of equivocation, Fred?About information loss, I don't understand why you're pressing me about it as if I thought it couldn't happen. My focus is on your erroneous assertion that information theory rules out beneficial changes stemming from random mutation.--Percy

quote:

---

"...natural selection is a mechanism by which new genetic information can be created. Indeed, this is the only mechanism known in natural science which can create it."

---

Amazing! I’m curious. Who here truly believes that new genetic information can be created merely by natural selection alone? Any takers, other than Scott?

quote:

---

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!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I said that tree rings contain 'code'? Hmm - lets take a look at what I actually wrote, shall we?

​

"I wonder - what conscious mind put information in tree rings?"

​

Emphasis mine. It would do the YEC well to accurately portray his opponant's statements, especially when they are easily accessible.

---

LOL! You should take your own advice. You used code several times in the past, including in my guestbook:----
22 Oct 2001
Time: 05:47:05
Remote Name: 192.149.109.217
Comments
Fred writes: Fact #2: It is impossible to have a code without a senderWho sent the code in tree rings?
----
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/guestbook_page10.htmOK, this time around you said information, and now your argument is more coherent.Tree rings represent order, not complexity, and since they clearly are not a code they do not represent information, as described by Gitt, Dembski, and others. What about Shannon information? Without giving it much thought, I think a reasonable case can be made that it is Shannon information (I could be wrong here). But is it information from a random source, or is it information from a sender? Trees do not produce tree rings randomly, they follow a fairly consistent pattern.Page notes: Are they just a random pattern? No.Why thank you. Jeepers, man, what's your point?! How does this invalidate any of Gitt’s laws, or for that manner the less stringent definition of information we are debating in this thread?

quote:

---

Gitt - a creationist - claims that all information must come from a 'conscious mind'. Under such a definition, there is no such thing as 'naturally' occurring instances of information generation.
Wonderful how that works.

---

Yes, it does work wonderfully, because there are no known counter examples to Gitt information in earth’s history. Show me a code that originated naturalistically? People need to understand what a code is. I’m not just talking about a new algorighm, or an altered algorithm (these are merely manifestations of an already-existing code). I'm talking about the code itself. That is the heart of Gitt's information laws of nature: the symbols, the syntax, and the semantics (the language). Show me a code, a new language if you will, that can arise naturalistically, outside the presence of already-existing information (intelligence). How did the codon mechanism for selecting amino acids arise naturalistically? (a system BTW with optimum efficieny - you could not have picked a better, more efficient system for selection of 20 amino acids). Information science says code by naturalism is not just improbable, but impossible. Provide one counter example and you refute this claim. Yet time and time again, when we discover a code, by golly we find out there is a sender. If we detect a code from outerspace, we are not going to attribute it to a natural phenomenon. We will immediately recognize there must be an intelligent sender at the other end. Its amazing evolutionists refuse to apply this standard to the discovery of a code in the DNA. It was this discovery that shocked DNA co-founder Francis Crick into dumping the Neo-Darwinian theory. He now thinks aliens seeded the planet with the necessary information — ROTFL!!!I guess one fairytale isn’t much better than another, so pick your poison!

If you take a computer program, copy it, and modify it so that now you have a slightly altered version that performs a slightly different function, then how is this not new information?The ancestor to corn looks nothing like the corn we have today. Over the centuries, it has been developed into the varieties that we are now familiar with. According to you, there was no gain in information.Brussels sprouts, broccoli, cauliflower, (and I believe a few other plants) were all developed from a common ancestor in the cabbage family. Again, no new information according to you.New alleles for producing different eye color, hair color, skin color, etc. have all arisen in humans, even under the Creationist model. Yet there was no new information created according to you.As I stated previously, under your definition of information theory, evolution can proceed fine without producing new information. You grant that new alleles are produced, yet you refuse to call them new information. Fine. Then information theory as you have defined it is completely irrelevant when applied to the question of evolution.You charged previously that I had erected a straw man with this issue, but you still have not explained how.FK

Fred Williams writes:

---

The AIG reference shows the information was transferred from another bacteria, so no new information via randomness.

---

We may have a terminology problem here. When information is transmitted, that information is old from the point of view of the transmitter (eg, "My birthday is..."), but it would be new information from the point of view of the receiver. We should probably be careful how we use these terms. I suggest "new information" for information received that we didn't already possess, and "creation of information" for information that is original.Using this terminology, the bacteria receiving the gene now possesses new information that it did not have before. Gene transfer is a type of mutation. This mutation has added information to the bacteria's genome that was not previously there, and this bacteria may possibly have a new function that it did not previously possess.This mutation may presumably also arise through random mutation rather than through gene transfer, in which case we have creation of information.For example, keeping things simple, say the new gene is the nucleotide sequence AGCT, and it gets added to the bacterial genome through gene transfer from a different but related bacterial species and provides it a new and beneficial function. This information is new to the bacteria. The gene could also have been added through random reproduction errors over time, which would be creation of information.

---

Again, its an altered algorithm, not a new one.

---

I think this is another terminology issue. A slight modification to an algorithm that allows it to count to 11 instead of 10 is different, or it's new, or it's modified, pick your term, but it is not the same algorithm. In the real world a slight modification to a gene in a cheetah may enable it to run at 61 mph instead of just 60. Is the change something new? Something modified? Something different? Pick whatever label you like, the genonmic change has made the cheetah more effective at pursuing prey, which you're claiming is impossible.For evidence of this happening, namely a functional change being traced to a specific mutation, you need go no further than the fields of bacteriology and virology. The AIDS virus is a good example. Some positive AIDS mutations (for it, not for us) are so probable they happen over and over and over again.--Percy

Fred,I'm away for a long weekend, will get back to you tuesdayish.....Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Hey, no problem Fred, just take a look at some of the threads I've posted in in the past, such as Edge, Joe T and myself's discussions on Grand Canyon Deposition and erosive formation. I know what you mean, I just wanna keep things up to date, or 'bumped' per se. I've discussed in threads when a loss of time has come up, and I totally forget about the thread and become occupied with others. And yes, we do carry on much more productive discussions and disputes here rather than say, Infidelguy's forum and the rest of them. I've spoken to the guy on AOL IM myself, man...just leave him to himself, he can stay in his own little world and back into his cubby hole if you ask me .------------------

My best shot against evolution is due to embryology.The reptile eggcell is large because of all yolk. Only at the animal disc cells divide by mitosis. Most of these cells will differentiate to ectoderm.When reptiles evolved to mammals a new system making trophoblast-cells would be needed.
* A hormone from either the mother or the embryo.
* A signal transduction pathway to certain genes would be needed.
* Something that stops some of the cells from differentiating into any of the germ layer cells.
* To big hormon-concentration cause all outer cells to differentiate into pre-trophoblast. No ectoderm are formed, and thats not good.
* genes that produce proteins taking contact with the "uterine" wall of the reptile mother.
* genes for proteins that cause the cells to dig into the "uterine" wall.During this evolution the embryo must have its heavy yolk, because it cant take up nourishment from the mother. If one single molecule in this mammal chorion chain is missing, then there wont be any fitness for the embryo. At the same time the embryo has its heavy yolk it has also digged into the uterus with no use.By the way. The eggcell is far to heavy to take contact with the epithelium of the mother. The pre-trophoblast cells loose their grip. And very soon albumin and shell cover the embryo and yolk, so trophoblast cells would be totally useless.

SLPx quotes Kimura:

---

"...natural selection is a mechanism by which new genetic information can be created. Indeed, this is the only mechanism known in natural science which can create it."

---

Fred replies:

---

Amazing! I’m curious. Who here truly believes that new genetic information can be created merely by natural selection alone? Any takers, other than Scott?

---

Either there is more to Kimura's point, eg, some kind of qualification related to equating new genetic information with permutational recombinations of existing alleles, or eg, the first part of the sentence that was excised mentions additional mechanisms, etc, or I have to share Fred's skepticism that natural selection alone can create new genetic information.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZAURUZ:
When reptiles evolved to mammals....

---

Did reptiles evolve into mammals? The best information-- granted not high quality info-- I have found is that mammals evolved from a weird group of reptile-like mammals which arose somewhat comtemporaneously with the reptiles.This doesn't defeat your argument, but it does push the common ancestry further back and allow for more time to make the changes. It also means that mammals may not have evolved from egg-layers at all. Just a thought...------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

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!

---

Why does it have to be "code?" Aren't we talking about information in general? Does information have to be in "code?"

quote:

---

Scott: I said that tree rings contain 'code'? Hmm - lets take a look at what I actually wrote, shall we?

​

"I wonder - what conscious mind put information in tree rings?"

​

Emphasis mine. It would do the YEC well to accurately portray his opponant's statements, especially when they are easily accessible.

​

Fred: LOL! You should take your own advice. You used code several times in the past, including in my guestbook:

---

Come on, Fred, to what are you responding, this thread, or your guest book?

quote:

---

(Fred quoting Scott)

​

22 Oct 2001
Time: 05:47:05
Remote Name: 192.149.109.217
Comments
Fred writes: Fact #2: It is impossible to have a code without a sender

​

Who sent the code in tree rings?
----
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/guestbook_page10.htm

​

OK, this time around you said information, and now your argument is more coherent.

---

Then why bring this up? I would guess that Scott is simply putting the question in your terms. I do that all the time to help the creationist understand my question.

quote:

---

Tree rings represent order, not complexity, and since they clearly are not a code they do not represent information, as described by Gitt, Dembski, and others.

---

So, are you saying that they do not represent information to anyone? Are Gitt, Dembski and others the final arbiters of what information is or is not?Does information have to be 'complex?' Does not order yield some information about the process that formed it? Is all information a 'code?' Really, Fred, it seems that you are just defining away your problem. Natural patterns are not code so they are not information, therefore any natural process cannot produce any information. That is a very convenient position for you to take.

quote:

---

What about Shannon information? Without giving it much thought, I think a reasonable case can be made that it is Shannon information (I could be wrong here). But is it information from a random source, or is it information from a sender? Trees do not produce tree rings randomly, they follow a fairly consistent pattern.

---

Actually, randomness is part of the process. For instance, how do fires fit into the picture? Is a tree in the pathway of a fire? That would be random. Now, go back to the original question and assume for a minute that the rings represent Shannon Information. Who is the sender?

quote:

---

Scott: Gitt - a creationist - claims that all information must come from a 'conscious mind'. Under such a definition, there is no such thing as 'naturally' occurring instances of information generation.
Wonderful how that works.

​

Fred: Yes, it does work wonderfully, because there are no known counter examples to Gitt information in earth’s history. Show me a code that originated naturalistically?

---

Hmm, why do you slip from 'information' to 'code' so easily. To a dummy like me, it seems that this is just a dance. You need to make your point here that information is code. You have not done that as far as I can see.

quote:

---

People need to understand what a code is. I’m not just talking about a new algorighm, or an altered algorithm (these are merely manifestations of an already-existing code). I'm talking about the code itself. That is the heart of Gitt's information laws of nature: the symbols, the syntax, and the semantics (the language). Show me a code, a new language if you will, that can arise naturalistically, outside the presence of already-existing information (intelligence). How did the codon mechanism for selecting amino acids arise naturalistically? (a system BTW with optimum efficieny - you could not have picked a better, more efficient system for selection of 20 amino acids). Information science says code by naturalism is not just improbable, but impossible.

---

Once again, we go from 'code' back to 'information.' I'm getting dizzy. Are you saying that natural processes leave nothing behind that gives us an idea about how they occurred?

quote:

---

Provide one counter example and you refute this claim. Yet time and time again, when we discover a code, by golly we find out there is a sender.

---

This is all very good, Fred, but only by your definition of information and sender.

quote:

---

If we detect a code from outerspace, we are not going to attribute it to a natural phenomenon.

---

If a code, probably, but if information, not necessarily.

quote:

---

We will immediately recognize there must be an intelligent sender at the other end. Its amazing evolutionists refuse to apply this standard to the discovery of a code in the DNA. It was this discovery that shocked DNA co-founder Francis Crick into dumping the Neo-Darwinian theory. He now thinks aliens seeded the planet with the necessary information — ROTFL!!!

---

Yeah, well, we don't apply it to tree rings either. We see a natural process that started somewhere in the past and continues today. It gives us clues about how mutation happens, but I will agree that there are other natural mechanisms that we (maybe it's just I) do not presently understand. In the meantime, we have other evidence that evolution has occurred.

quote:

---

What the algorithm produces is the expression of the organism within the environment in the form of an integer sequence, precisely analogous to biological organisms.

---

Precisely analogous? Come on now, that is quite a stretch. Is this integer sequence a sequence of instructions? If not, then why do you keep claiming it’s an algorithm? Regardless, my point earlier was that even if your simulation was producing an algorithm, Terra already attempts this. But evolutionists themselves question the claims made by the Terra crowd and they will question yours. It’s just not what you think it is, Percy. If it was as you boldy claim, you would have a serious shot at the Nobel Prize!Your simulation appears to be a cross between a Dawkins simulation and Genetic Algorithms. It does not produce information randomly without intelligence there to capture it. Without intelligence it is precisely useless. I do not know how you can deny this fact. We are going to just have to agree to disagree. But I again point out that you have no one on your side who has expertise in info theory who you have cited who supports your simulation. I have already indicated I can provide citations from evolutionists who admit that Dawkins simulation and GAs (and thus yours) do not create information as required by Neo-Darwinism (via randomness and blind selection).

quote:

---

This is clear on its face when you make ridiculous claims such as that intelligence is part of information theory, which it most certainly is not.

---

Percy, I’m sorry but I find it amazing and ironic that you would call ridiculous the undeniable fact that Shannon information requires an intelligent sender. Read Shannon’s original ground-breaking paper if you do not believe me. Shannon’s original paper requires a SENDER and refers to the SENDER as a machine. Perhaps this is a symantics problem. You did not consider a space probe intelligent, which is a computer. What do you consider as intelligence? Only the human mind? (the CIA? Hmm, military intelligence — is that an oxymoron? )

quote:

---

The greater the degree of unpredictability the greater its potential information content.

---

Exactly! Let’s emphasize a key word here: POTENTIAL!I have a question. Do you agree, or disagree with Dr Tom Schnieder that randomness is the very opposite of information?

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if we get an occasionally lucky hit, the odds of it being detected by selection and surviving are very low (no better than 1 in 50, Fischer, Futuyma, et al).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Lucky hit? How could there be a lucky hit if information theory really rendered it impossible? A bit of equivocation, Fred?

---

Hardly. I’m pointing out that even if we grant for the sake of argument part 1of the fairytale (info creating mutation), there are still major hurdles left for it to survive and become fixed in a population. So many road blocks to evolution!

quote:

---

About information loss, I don't understand why you're pressing me about it as if I thought it couldn't happen. My focus is on your erroneous assertion that information theory rules out beneficial changes stemming from random mutation.

---

Ah, but I think it gets to the very core of your confusion, and I believe dismantles your logic. Why can’t you provide me one example of genetic loss of information at the genetic level that would satisfy you? It seems you and Mark have created a version of your own info theory that is not falsifiable!I think this is all I have time for until next week sometime. Fedmahn, I do intend to get to your post, and your guestbook entry. I’m finally getting somewhat caught up on my home email. I finally finished a big project that was eating up much of my personal time. Here’s my latest creation of complex information. It the new CRS online bookstore. By sum books and videeos and arducate yerselves! http://www.creationresearch.org/Merchant2/merchant.mv(suggestions welcome)