Evolution Logic

Abiogenesis has its own forum: Origin of Life. On a quick scan of the first page (at default page length) I see at least three threads on Miller's experiment. It has a strong tendency to derail threads entirely.Also - it was probably inevitable, but this thread has become a free for all evolution topic. I don't think there is anything that can be done for it at this stage, I just ask that all participants at least read the Original Post so that they can get a feel of the intended topic here.

---

The actual reactions happened entirely without human agency. If you want to argue that all god did was provide the right materials and the right conditions then there are many on these boards who will agree with you. But what you can't argue is that Urey-Miller doesn't show the formation of organic molecules important in life from inorganic precursors, which is all anyone has ever claimed it has done.The point of Urey-Miller is that abiogenesis can occur with the right conditions, and that is all. It isn't meant to be an argument against creationism or intelligent design. It does however put the lie to those who claim that abiogenesis itself cannot happen except by magical acts of special creation where whole animals just spring fully formed from the air or the earth.TTFN,WK

But when someone makes this claim about AIG they are prepared to back it up with examples when asked. If you looked at the many AIG links Rob posted you would find very few references in most of them, and the majority of those to other pages on AIG itself or other creationist sources. On TO on the other hand the references are to the primary scientific literature and are generally fairly extensive.So while you can make the claim just as well you would be hard put to back it up, as indeed you appear to be.TTFN,WK

Almost every line in the above is wrong. What you're describing is the way Dembski and Gitt define information, but their definition has found no acceptance within the scientific commuity and in fact is worthless and useless. They confuse information with knowledge and meaning. If you doubt this, use their definition to determine how much information is contained in the binary sequence "10". You won't be able to do it, because they provide no means for measuring information.But the genuine definition of information does provide the means for measuring information. Information as a formal entity (not as we use it in casual conversation) is not knowledge or meaning. It has a formal definition originally proposed by Shannon in his landmark paper back in 1948.First, to be very, very clear, information is *not*, repeat, *not* "Complex, Specified, non-periodic, meaningful text."Information is defined in this way. If you have a set of messages that you want to communicate to someone else, information is the measure of the number of bits it takes to communicate one of those messages. It doesn't matter what the messages are, only that you know how many different messages there are.Let us say that you have 4 messages you wish to be able to communicate to someone else. It doesn't matter what those messages are (in other words, the meaning doesn't matter), but to make the example clear let me define the messages:

• I'm happy.
• I'm sad.
• I'm not home.
• Please try later

Notice the numbering begins at 0. I did that for a reason. In order to communicate one of these messages to someone else who knows the number for each message, all you have to do is transmit one of those numbers. How many bits would it take to transmit one of those numbers.The answer is log₂ of the number of messages. Since the number of messages is 4, we find that: So it takes 2 binary bits of information to transmit one of your four messages. So if you transmit the binary sequence "10" to your friend, which is binary for 2, he will know you mean the message numbered 2 in your list and that you're not home (presumably your computer sent this message for you in your absence).Notice that there is nothing in the number of bits it takes to send a message that says anything about complexity or specification or periodic or meaning. The meaning is an interpretation that you and your friend have overlayed on top of the information. All you're actually transmitting is the bits "10". To you and your friend that means "I'm not home." But two other friends could define "10" to mean "Meet you at 8." The meaning of the message is irrelevant to the information problem.This formal definition of information provides a way to compare amounts of information. Let us say you decide to increase the number of messages you can send your friend, and so you expand your message list:

• I'm happy.
• I'm sad.
• I'm not home.
• Please try later.
• I'm playing a computer game.
• I'm coming over.

There are now six messages in the list, so the amount of information is: This is the same way that you can measure the amount of information in the genome of a population of organisms. Let's say that there's a population of squirrels on an island who can have one of two eye colors: brown and red. It takes one bit to represent two eye colors, so the amount of information for the eye color gene is one bit.Now let us say a mutation for yellow eyes takes place somewhere in the population, so now there are three eye colors in the population. It takes 1.59 bits to represent 3 eye colors, as opposed to the 1 bit to represent 2 eye colors, so the amount of information in the population has increased from 1 bit to 1.59 bits.Notice once again that the nature of the message, the eye color in this case, is irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if the three eye colors were green, black and blue instead of brown, red and yellow. It is only the number of different colors (in other words, the number of different messages) that need to be communicated that governs how much information is involved. The nature of the messages is unimportant. As Shannon said right on page one of his paper: The examples you provided of information are actually examples of knowledge and meaning, like telephone books, the Bible and software. Information is much simpler (as a concept, not as a field of study - mathematically it quickly gets extremely complex). Any data that can be encoded into a system of messages is information, and that includes just about anything. The light from stars is information. Tree rings are information. Sound waves are information. DNA sequences are information. ASCII character sequences are information.But the meaning of that information is not information: the meaning of information is knowledge, which is a completely different animal, and totally separate from the information problem.--Percy

No, that is not what he is saying at all.What he is saying is that the natural conditions of the early atmosphere will , through normal chemical reactions, create the chemistry that is the basis for life.If we look at the moon of Titan, we can see that an atmosphere that we beleive to be similar to Earth's early atmosphere has complex organtic molecules. This would be needed if life were for form from natural chemical reactions.It titan wasn't so far out and cold, it too might have developed life.Home – Physics World

That's not a definition. That is just a list of your personal misunderstandings of evolution. No, you haven't defined what "macro"evolution would be. All you have said is what it would NOT be.You have not demonstrated why it cannot be the accumulation of many "micro"evolutionary changes in species over time, and until you DO that you cannot CLAIM it is not such an accumulation. You can call it anything you want, it is still change in species over time, so it is evolution. But at least we can start with examples of "micro"evolution, and not have you pretend it doesn't happen eh? Why and How? More to the point how NOT by accumulation of "micro"evolution?Don't you get tired of making the same claim over and over and not providing any evidence, any reason for your claim other than your profound incredulity and pedestrian ignorance?What prevents it? What is the {biological\genetic} obstacle that allows "micro"evolution but prevents "macro"evolution from happening? Where is the switch that says this little change is ok, but THAT little change take it outside "kind" and cannot happen? Other than in your mind. ROFLOL. This is a false statement, you have been corrected on it, so repeating it is just repeating your previous mistake.Repeating false statements does not make them any more valid the second or the hundreth time it is repeated. No you haven't defined what "macro"evolution is, you just keep repeating what you think it isn't, without regard for whether you are correct or not.Evolution is change in species over time. That is all there is. It happens on a species to species level. After species have diverged there is NO mechanism that prevents further changes in either species, but they will always be related back to the species where they separated ways.Lets take an example -- A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (click to see picture){abe}


(click to enlarge)
(Picture originally from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (click to see original picture) -- copied here to save bandwidth on the original site)
{/abe}I think we can agree that Pelycodus ralstoni evolved into Pelycodus trigonoodus which then evolved into Pelycodus jarrovii which then evolved into two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus -- all by "micro"evolutionary changes, small changes where they remained essentially the same sort (kind) of organisms, yes?Is there any reason these two species at the end cannot diversify further? What is it and how does it operate? Do you have a clue what you are saying? You can call it "progressive" but that is only showing your human species egotism. What is it from the viewpoint of the bacteria? More food? This is the second or third time that you have refused to substantiate an assertion of yours. A young earth is NOT supported by facts, the facts show just the opposite, and until you can show that is not so you are making an assertion that is contradicted by the facts (ie -- you are just plain wrong). That is an assertion. You made an assertion, you failed to substantiate or to defend your assertion when challenged. You have done this again with the age of the earth. This is all your argument about "macro"evolution amounts to: an assertion on your part. I'll read it tonight just for fun, but you might want to post it to a new topic to see how well it stands up in the real world: anyone can post whatever they like on a website, there is no need for any of it to be true eh?So far all I have seen is one argument from incredulity and ignorance after another. Yawn.I have work to get to ... see you later.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : fixed linkEdited by RAZD, : added picture

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Well, I know that what I was asking was whether anyone had a reference for an increase in genetic info durring mutations or cell division. All I got was a guy telling me I was mutating (not evolving) and people talking about how the first amino acids may have formed simple and biologically meaningless subcomponents.As to that last point, You may wish to listen to Dean Kenyon, Biology professor at San Fransisco State (emeritus). Considering that he and his co-author, Gary Steinman, wrote the text to show that amino acids formed because of simple chemical laws, kenyon following quote is interesting (paraphrased).After much testing, including a period of time at NASA Aims Reasearch center, we know know that amino acids do not have the ability to organize themselves into any biologically meaningful sequences. So we haven't the slightest chance for a chemical origin for life.I probably butchered that quote, but you can watch him go into great detail and say these things yourself on a documentary called, 'Unlocking the mystery of life'. I didn't have the time to watch it right here and get it perfect.My definition of information comes from Phillip Johnson, professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley. Also got it from the same documentary that you guys don't need to watch, because these are all Christian universtities and aren't really doing science.

---

Any biters in the stream?

Others have dealt with most of the errors or misunderstanding your post, but I'd like to deal with one other aspect.Dembeski likes to pull the old complexity = information rabbit out of his hat and set it off hopping around the stage. He uses this as some magic trick to convince folk of ID. What is funny is that many folk here him speak, and he is a good speaker, and buy into the idea that something more complex is a sure sign of intellegence, even though they know that it is not true from personal experience.I have been a software programmer, a system designer, and designed circuitry that extended over a 1000 miles. I can tell you that complexity does not equal information. Nor is complexity the product of intelligent design, that in fact the goal of intelligent design is simplicity.If we look at any living thing, what we find is "just barely good enough".

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Like I said, you guys don't need to watch 'Unlocking the mystery of life. Or the great question and answer segment in the bonus material, where you can hear Dembski, Johnson, Behi, Meyers, Kenyon and others, explaining as simply as possible to those of you who like to convolute and obfuscate, why the they believe that intelligent design is true.You boys simply label people and write them off because some other professor says there is a problem with their analysis.Watch it yourself, it's at Amazon. They did a great job, and I concur with them as a free and independant thinker. The convention be damned...

Several people have asked for a specific definition of information, because without that they can't provide a reference which will accord with your views on what information is. There are a number of papers, not to mention simple maths, which can show that Shannon information can increase through a number of processes including duplication at various genomic level up to an including full genome duplications. Well you don't really seem to have given us that definition clearly anywhere in this thread, the closest you have got is saying... Which is not really very helpful, if all you want are mutations which increases the number of base pairs and/or substitute some bases then you can have references in abundance. The fact that amino acids do not spontaneously organise themselves into 'biologically meaningful' sequences does not mean that abiogenesis could not occur, protein first theories of abiogenesis are not those most commonly put forward because proteins do not, with some possible exceptions, exhibit the capacity for self replication.If all these researchers are doing science then why are you unable to provide a reference from the scientific literature? The most recent citation from Pubmed for Dean Kenyon seems to be from 1976 ( (Kenyon and Nissenbaum, 1976) the only more recent thing I can find is an article in Origins and Design from 1996 (Mills and Kenyon, 1996). Is this the cutting edge of ID/creationist research?TTFN,WK

Okay. So you go to a lawyer when you want a scientific definition. May I presume that you consult your dentist when you are looking for legal advice?

I'm growing weary quickly...That's great! That's just wonderful.... I think all of us knew that duplication is possible. I want to see additional info in the genome. Not slight variation wihtin kind, where we see the same amount of information rearanged into a unique individual organism.This is a complete waste of time...Oh great, now he's back! The guy who says all information is abstraction. I see he just sent another abstraction... better check it out before I leave for work...

One thing you can take to the bank... I won't consult you when seeking the truth...Oh man by the way, I was 79,870 lbs yesturday and I hit this squirrel. Poor little guy never saw a thing. They're cute, but they're just not too bright!Edited by Rob, : having a good time

as your posts here have illustrated, you have been completely mislead about evolution and biology in general, and you keep repeating common low-level creationist pratts -- points refuted a thousand times. false, and also a bad picture of what paleontology is. you're thinking of this lie by aig:yet as even aig shows in another graphic, there is considerably more of the pakicetus skeleton than that: the reason it's a bad representation of palenontology is that it completely misrepresents the science behind a skeletal reconstruction. we do not have pakicetus in isolation, and they are not just making stuff up out of thin air.rather, we have another animal that looks nearly exactly like pakicetus: ambulocetus. the bones are homologous to a high enough degree that a reasonable guess at the missing segments can be made.this is not circular logic. if evolution were not true, scientists would not be able to do this. no, i emphasized a word for a reason. it's the important word. they are PECTORAL, not HIND limbs. they do not have ball and socket joints or kneecaps. no tetrapod -- including you -- has a ball and socket joint for your shoulder, and a kneecap in your elbow. so it's a fish, with a leg? this is what i mean about having no knowledge about biology in general. it's not a seal-like creature. seals are mammals. this is something with a skull showing both fish and amphibian anatomy, an amphibian neck joint, gill structurs, and stubby legs that highly resemble lobed fins (as in a coelacanth) that would have been largely incapable of walking on land. i did. there's a picture a few pages back. i can be sure, because i know what a flipper, a hand, and a fin are. just because you know very little about anatomy doesn't mean the scientists don't either. i'll remember not to bring up chemistry or physics then. if you found half a fish, would you be able to guess at what the rest looked like? if you found half a newt, would you be able to guess at what the rest looked like? if you found half something that looked like both a newt and a fish, would the rest of it be important to telling you it was something similar to both a fish and a newt?Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.

---

First, be sure you've read and understood my Message 169. You have to read this first because it provides the correct definition of information and explains how to measure it.Now I'll explain how you get an increase in the amount of genetic information in a population. My previous Message 169 provided a simple example of a squirrel population, and I'm going to build upon that example.This squirrel population originally had two eye colors, brown and red (for lurkers who understand this already, I'm going to purposefully ignore the dominant/recessive issues to keep things simple). Let's imagine that these colors are encoded in the genome by these nucleotide sequences:

• CATGTC: brown
• AGCTAA: red

This means that every squirrel in the population has either the CATGTC sequence for brown, or the AGCTAA sequence for red.Let's say that one young squirrel is born with a mutation in this gene. Its parents were both brown-eyed and possessed the CATGTC sequence for brown, but a small reproductive error caused this baby squirrel to have the sequence TATGTC. So now there are three different colors that can be represented by this new sequence. Let's say that the baby squirrel has yellow eyes, so now the sequences and their colors are:

• CATGTC: brown
• AGCTAA: red
• TATGTC: yellow

Where before there were just two eye colors in the population's genome there are now three. Where before the amount of information required to specify two eye colors was: The amount of information required to specify three eye colors is: So the amount of information for the eye color gene has increased from 1 bit to 1.59 bits, an increase of 0.59 bits.And that's how mutations can increase genetic information in a population!--Percy