Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can random mutations cause an increase in information in the genome?
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5863 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 197 of 310 (286944)
02-15-2006 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Percy
02-15-2006 1:37 PM


Re: Question outstanding!
The difference between specified complexity and information theory is that if these things were known, then information theory could answer the question as to which contains more information. In the end it just comes down to comparing how many bits it takes to represent the dog population's genome versus the cat's. But specified complexity can produce no such metric. I've read Dembki's book The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design, and there was no equation for calculating specified complexity. He has many other books, though. Maybe someone's read one that provides a method for calculating a number for specified complexity? Randman? Garrett? Anyone?
That's kind of my whole point Percy. If their argument had any merit they SHOULD be able to answer the question. I can't answer that question, but I'm not arguing that DNA contains information and that new information can't be added.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 02-15-2006 1:37 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Garrett, posted 02-15-2006 3:29 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5863 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 201 of 310 (286970)
02-15-2006 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by EZscience
02-15-2006 2:07 PM


Re: Question outstanding!
EZ, I think you know way more about this subject that I do (and I think you for that most informative post).
My point is there is an argument that new information, complexity or WHATEVER can not be added to the Genome for whatever reason.
So how about which is more complex - a dog or a cat
I mean, how can you make these kind of arguments when you have no way to apply them to reality at all? If there is complexity or information content in DNA think of a way to measure it and prove it can't be added.
Maybe I picked a poor way to show the argument is ridiculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by EZscience, posted 02-15-2006 2:07 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by EZscience, posted 02-15-2006 2:51 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5863 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 214 of 310 (287019)
02-15-2006 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Garrett
02-15-2006 3:29 PM


Re: Question outstanding!
Garrett, Garrett, Garrett.....
Don't you know that evolution has no direction? In fact there IS no such thing as devolution.
Take this for example.... Can you prove that Dinosaurs are more or less "advanced" than their descendants?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Garrett, posted 02-15-2006 3:29 PM Garrett has not replied

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5863 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 261 of 310 (287657)
02-17-2006 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Garrett
02-17-2006 11:24 AM


Classifications
To answer the problem of transistional forms with the response that groupings are determined by scientists and are therefore of no consequence, is a red herring.
But it's NOT a red herring. Not at all or in any way!
I'm going to give you an analogy. People age throughout their lifetimes. We classify different stages as child, adolescent, adult, middle aged, elderly, etc.
Now, NO ONE goes to bed one night as an adult and wakes up middle aged (although drinking to much can make you feel that way!). However, we can look at people and classify them into these categories.
What many creationists are saying is that for aging to occur I have to go to bed one day when I'm a child and wake up as an adult the next day.
Species is just a way for us to classify a GRADUAL process.
I recommend you read Parasimonium's thread titled "All species are transitional". Evoltuion is not focused on changes of of species by changes in POPULATION Groups.
If a population group A exists all members of A will always be withing that group A and give birth to members of group A. Now, if we had an external observer who could look at group A 1 million years ago and group A today he would see 2 different species but it would still be the SAME POPULATION GROUP!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 11:24 AM Garrett 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