|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can random mutations cause an increase in information in the genome? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Well, evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming -- the evidence exists in many different fields of biology, and is observed by many different scientists using a variety of different observational and experimental methodologies. The evidence is so overwhelming that we can safely say that evolution is an established fact.
Typical, absolute nonsense. You guys can say this until you are blue in the face, but it's still wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Seems like I've seen this movie before, btw. But getting into the OP again.
Information is the key factor if microevolution is going to eventually extrapolate into macroevolution. The evolutionists might try to counter this by pointing out that the reason we may not see new information arise is because it is extremely rare. So rare, in fact, that it might not ever happen in our lifetime or even in several generations. Admittedly, this might actually be true when it comes to multi-cellular life forms; however, if this type of evolution is true or is at least even possible, then one might not have to look much further than microscopic single-cellular life forms such as bacteria to observe the changes. Under the right conditions, a bacterium can divide every 20 minutes.[3] This means if the conditions are right, one bacterium can multiply into billions of bacteria within 24 hours. As any biologist can testify, the numbers at which bacteria can populate is staggering, and because bacteria can multiply so quickly, this can be used to simulate eons of time. If macroevolution is true, it shouldn’t be that inconceivable to see bacteria gain new genetic information. It also shouldn’t be too unreasonable to expect to see a single-cellular bacterium evolve into a multi-cellular bacterium. Why then has this never been observed to occur even in bacteria? Perhaps it’s because the types of changes that are needed to lead microevolution to macroevolution simply do not happen. If the definition of microevolution is limited to what has been observed, then it is a powerful testimony that life has not evolved. It is no surprise to creationists that animals become more specialized and often lose information when they ”microevolve’. This should be expected since our Creator created everything perfectly and now things are winding down. What counts as information increase? In this article, I’ve tried to stress new information. Why? In order to get the point across that new information must be information that the life form did not originally possess. Sometimes evolutionists like to give examples of mutations that do technically increase information in an organism. They are, however, the wrong types of information increase needed as evidence for molecules-to-man evolution. Such an example would be certain humans who possess an extra chromosome at position 21. I want to first point out that this is a harmful mutation which results in Down’s syndrome, [4] so it hardly counts as evidence for evolution. Also, while this might technically be an increase, it is not the type of increase we are looking for in order for macroevolution to be true. The human already had the information, it just was duplicated. This is not new information. It leads to a harmful mutation, and it certainly tells us nothing about the origin of the information.
It may well be true that "information" is hard to define. I think the same is true for "random" and for "species" and a great many things, but nevertheless, the idea that the information potential to evolve a microbe to a man must be explained thoroughly by observed effects by evos if they are going to make their case. The writer in the quote above points out that we do not see bacteria mutate from a single-cell form to a multi-cell form, but considering their rate of duplication, it would seem that we should. Now, for all I know, we do see this, but the claim is there, and it deals with an actual observed process. Do we see such a process occur, or is the writer correct? If he is correct, then I think it is fairly strong evidence that evolutionary processes can be limited in their ability to add information, despite the difficulty in completely defining the concept of information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The onus is on anyone who wishes to posit limits to the extent of that change to produce some hypothetical mechanism that might prevent it. Just saying, well, creatures change and so that, wholla, is proof of macroevolution is a fundamental error evos make, and compound that error demanding someone disprove their unproven claim as if the onus is on the critic. What we observe about these changes is they have not shown a limitless potential, but are governed by well-defined parameters. Moreover, there are organisms (bacteria) with such a high rate of multiplication, that perhaps we should see valid macroevolution taking place, but we don't. So our observations do not show macroevolution. The onus is thus on evos to validate their claims, not insist others disprove their bare assertions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Modulous, just look at the difficulties evos have with defining randomness in reference to mutations, much less actually providing a metric to verify the concept, and yet that has not prevented evos from using the concept.
If you want to bash imprecision in defining information, fine. Just don't be a hypocrite and suggest evos have done any better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
the randomness of mutation isn't an especially important concept in evolution Really? I would say that it is at the very heart of evolutionist thinking. If mutations are guided, then that changes the whole significance of evolutionary theory and mechanisms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The degree of non-randomness determines the degree potentially of ID, if you look at it one way. So if you think Intelligent Design is OK, then I guess it's not as critical. If you are hostile towards ID, then it is very critical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Well belfry, that's why we shouldn't be teaching evolution either then; since there is no way to falsify evolution.
Imo, Id is a much more reasonable and logical framework to approach science from. To a priori rule out a Designer is illogical and leads to a skewed perspective of the data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
since the information here (in the IDers sense) is actually being created during the natural selection phase of the evolutionary process, and that phase of the process is not random at all. I think this is clearly the rational evo response, not quibling over trying to define precisely the term. The idea would be that "information" is really the product of the relationships between things, and that since it really is not a random process, but one governed by rules, the needed changes in relationship arise from the interaction of the environment, chemicals, and those rules. I think that could be an effective argument against the ID position on this, although I would like to hear what more knowledgeable IDers have to say. However, this really subtly moves evolutionary theory more into the ID camp, or theistic evo camp, as it shows that whatever formed the rules indirectly at the least plays a determining role in the formation and development of life and the information for that life on earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
But it's not the whole argument and it involves seriously downplaying the significance of randomness in evolutionary theory, so much so it could rightly be called a form of ID....
Ironically, I feel that if one believes in evolution, that alone ought to make the thinking person believe in God since it is such an improbable theory and so guided by the inherent design and order in the universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
If evolution is true, then it shows design. The reason is that evolution, if true, is the product of the properties and rules and character of the physical laws and make-up of the universe which reflect order, intelligence, design. Everything we know suggests there is an Intelligent Cause to the origin of the universe, even to the point that what many considered an ancient myth "let there be light" has been confirmed by science (the Big Bang).
So assuming universal common descent was true, it would be very strong evidence for Intelligent Design. What is absurd is to posit the idea that there is no Intelligent Cause, and thus ID is wrong, at any point in the universe. Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that consciousness is intertwined with teh fabric of space-time, and as such, that this Intelligent Cause is interactive at all points in space-time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Again, randman, simply saying this does not make it so. Evidence, randman, evidence. Flies, the evidence is that evolutionary processes obey and conform to physical and chemical laws, rules, propabable patterns, etc,... The physical structure of the universe, according to you guys (not me), gives rise to the first life form and evolution of life forms. Since it is logical to infer an Intelligent Cause ordering and creating the physical structure of the universe (it had a beginning for example), then that means ToE should rightly be considered ID since it is indirectly at a minimum caused by an Intelligent Cause. To assert that life can best be understood as not having been caused by an Intelligent Cause, as many evos claim, is not supported by science at all.
What does "reflect order, intelligence, design" even mean. There are physical principles in the universe. That is order, period. The universe obeys principles. There is not total randomness where no principles exist. The Big Bang is evidence the universe has a beginning. Science has always shown us there is cause and effect. So we see the effect, and we know forensically by direct observations of the universe that this effect contains well-ordered principles that give rise to physical form; hence life can best be understood, even under evo models, as arising through the action of an Intelligent Cause.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Flies, if you want to reject logic, then fine. I have stated the case that science indicates there is a cause to the effect. We see order, design, etc,..in the universe, and we see it had a beginning. Forensically then, we can infer that the cause contains order and intelligence. From what we know, it is thus more reasonable from a scientific perspective to infer an Intelligent Cause best explains the origins of the universe rather self-generation from nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
How does radioactive decay not have a cause Modulous? It certainly has a cause. The cause is the properties of the material itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Obviously the whole concept has a cause So in context of this discussion, the event has a cause. The choice of how that cause is effected, whether one nuclei or another, is considered or theorized as a random choice, but it still has a specific cause. The idea is that within the cause and effect, there is a random element in terms of choice, but there is still cause and effect.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024