PROOF against evolution

quote:

---

So the amount of information in the population for this gene has gone from 1.58 to 2.00. In other words, information in actual information theory (which isn't what you learn if you read Pearcey and Gitt) is measurable and quantifiable, and this clearly demonstrates that RM *can* create new information.

---

I believe if you reread my statements, you'll find that neither I nor Pearcey and Gitt have denied that RM can create new information. My argument which they support is that it is not going to produce large amounts of information and the information it produces tends to, I say tends to be repetitive.
The very long string of information for RM/NS to acomplish to add up to the incredible amount of information in the DNA would require a phenominal amount of extraordinary random events. It would seem that this is not compatible with 1LTD which appears to prevail elsewhere in the observable universe.

quote:

---

There's a number of links out there which formulate similar statements as mine which you are nitpicking. Are they all silly?

---

Yes, unless there is further clarification. Perhaps 'sloppy' is a better word, and scientists do tend to be sloppy with language when not writing for peer reviewed journals. THEY know what they mean, but it doesn't always translate well. That is a dangerous way to write. I'm sorry you don't like precision, buz. Maybe you should think about that.The fact is that NS does not require random mutation. If it did, and I suspect this is what you are trying to do, you could negate 'random mutation' and conclude that NS does not happen. It doesn't work that way. Consider this scenario. Scientists somehow determine that there are mutations but that NO mutations are random. Hmmm... you still have variation in each generation and thus you can still have NS. Thus, the formulation is incorrect. It allows you to derive the wrong conclusion. Why is pointing that out a problem? Anything derived from the statement that NS requires RM, is invalid. You need to reformulate it such that you cannot derive the wrong conclusion.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

1LTD says that energy in a system is conserved, that it can be neither created nor destroyed. It not only has nothing to do with information, even if there were an analogous conservation of information law that held that information could neither be created nor destroyed (there isn't), it would conflict with your first argument where you say you don't deny that RM can create new information.Can you tell that either Pearcey and Gitt are jerking you all the way around the block, or you don't have any idea what they're saying? Now I'm sure we'll now start a long multi-post series while you protest that you do *too* understand what they're saying. How do you prevent it from producing large amounts of information? You run a tiny concentration of salt into the sea for millions of years and you get salty oceans. You create a tiny amount of random genomic change in each generation for millions of years and you get lots of variation. How can information generated truly randomly be repetitive?--Percy

Buz,How is this information repetitive?Mutations culled by NS increase information. If you are claiming that the genome wasn't "created" this way, then please provide evidence.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Gitt certainly DOES deny that random mutations can create information: Information, Science and Biology | Answers in Genesis

quote:

---

Theorem 10: Each item of information needs, if it is traced back to the beginning of the transmission chain, a mental source (transmitter)." Gitt also explains that a "transmitter" is am "intelligent information source"

---

Or if that is not enough:

quote:

---

(6) No information chain can exist without a mental origin.

​

(7) No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.

​

(8) No information can exist without a will.

---

However, Gitt also states:

quote:

---

Theorem 9: Only that which contains semantics is information.

---

And

quote:

---

Semantic information, therefore, defies a mechanistic approach.

---

How then does DNA contain information as Gitt defines it ? Surely the biological processes using DNA are mechanistic ?

Hi, Paul!Thanks for quoting some of Gitt's position. About this point: This is the exact opposite of actual information theory, the science begun by Claude Shannon with his landmark paper A Mathematical Theory of Communication: In other words, the meaning isn't irrelevant to us, but it *is* irrelevant to the engineering problem of communicating information. Information theory addresses the engineering problem of communications, not the semantic issues.Buzz, I haven't read anything by Pearcey or Gitt, but from your contradictory message it seems quite likely that they don't agree with each other. Your attempt to synthesize a single explanation while drawing upon both was bound to get you into trouble.--Percy

quote:

---

I guess the bottom line on my argument for "Proof against evolution" so far as genetics go is that regardless of percentages, the staggering amount of information in the genetic material is far more than nature alone could possibly accomplish, no matter how long you give it, in my humble opinion.

---

But Buz, don't you see?It is NOT humbleness that makes you doubt, but complete arrogance.You, personally, can't see how such a large amount of genetic material could come about naturally. You therefore conclude that all of the thousands and thousands of scientists and experts in genetics and biology who accept that it has come about naturally after years and years of difficult study and years and years of work and experience in the field are flat out wrong.You consider your relatively uninformed, ignorant, baseless opinion (actually, it's an Argument from Personal Incredulity) to be of much greater value than that of thousands of professionals in the field.Utterly arrogant, AND ignorant!

quote:

---

1LTD says that energy in a system is conserved

---

I had to head outa town this AM and not focused. I meant to say 2LTD. My apologies.

quote:

---

How do you prevent it from producing large amounts of information?

---

You don't prevent it. I think the question is what would cause it to produce large amounts of information? Maybe some on rare occasion, but amounts like were talking in DNA, I don't think so. It's just not happening elsewhere in the observable universe.

quote:

---

You run a tiny concentration of salt into the sea for millions of years and you get salty oceans. You create a tiny amount of random genomic change in each generation for millions of years and you get lots of variation.

---

Apples and oranges. The salt is repetitive salt and with change varied factors would have to be introduced for the various changes.

quote:

---

How can information generated truly randomly be repetitive

---

Randomly, nature takes it's course, so to speak. It would tend to do things repetitavely because of more or less constant presrures on it such as gravity, light, temperature, invironment etc. Like the sea waves keep repetitively rolling in and it's more likely that whatever caused a change of any kind would repeat the same change than for something new to happen. Tornadoes tend to favor certain parts of the continent at certain times. Same with hurricanes, etc. Likely similar repetitive tendencies would prevail in other areas of nature.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-17-2003]

quote:

---

You, personally, can't see how such a large amount of genetic material could come about naturally.

​

Utterly arrogant, AND ignorant!

---

Now who's being arrogant? There happens to be thousands who believe large amounts of information does not happen randomly, including at least a minority of the highly educated scientists.I should think if you want to debate CvE you should expect your opponents to think differently than you and your other scientific fellows without all this meanspirited insult. Yes we are a minority, but we're not ignoramuses.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-17-2003]

OK, I stand corrected. I should have omitted the name Gitt. Pearcey did specify "large amounts," if I remember correctly. Thanks.

quote:

---

Mutations culled by NS increase information. If you are claiming that the genome wasn't "created" this way, then please provide evidence.

---

Sure, I can understand that once enough information is received there might be the honing. Like once enough, I say enough information is introduced, that information gives nature what it needs to naturally select. But for nature to select, enough information would have to be introduced/mutated randomly to cause the selection when you're starting from scratch.

Yeah, but they usually present evidence. All you seem to do is say "I can't believe that" or "I won't believe this.

quote:

---

Your attempt to synthesize a single explanation while drawing upon both was bound to get you into trouble.

---

Indeedy it did do dat!

Hi Buz,I'm not trying to pile on here, and in fact don't really have time to do anything more than post a few articles you might find relevant to the discussion if you're interested.The first one, Self-Organization of Template-Replicating Polymers and the Spontaneous Rise of Genetic Information, describes an experiment showing that, under specific conditions, certain chemical compounds can in fact self-organize and replicate from basically nothing to complicated structures very similar to simple DNA/RNA polymers. They aren't saying that this was HOW things actually happened, but what the article does show is that the concept is not impossible.The second article I'd like to draw your attention to is Evolution of Biological Complexity, which describes how - once a self replicating system gets established - incredible complexity (as you demand) can get created through purely mechanistic, natural processes. This one uses digital "organisms" to show how genomic complexity in an information rich environment automatically increases - naturally. Again, they're not saying that this is "how" things occurred all those billions of years ago, but they are providing one way that it could have happened, and demonstrating that the concept of naturally increasing biological complexity isn't impossible.Finally, Evolutionary self-organization of cell-free genetic coding, provides a description of how a multi-component genetic system (again referring to what people in this thread have called "complexity") can arise and evolve naturally. Once more, the authors are not saying that this is exactly how it happened. They are simply showing that natural processes can in fact result in quite complicated biological systems.I hope the articles clarify your assertion:

quote:

---

Sure, I can understand that once enough information is received there might be the honing. Like once enough, I say enough information is introduced, that information gives nature what it needs to naturally select. But for nature to select, enough information would have to be introduced/mutated randomly to cause the selection when you're starting from scratch.

---

(edited to fix ubb code)[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 07-18-2003]

quote:

---

Now who's being arrogant?

---

It's still you, Buz.

quote:

---

There happens to be thousands who believe large amounts of information does not happen randomly, including at least a minority of the highly educated scientists.

---

Thousands of people believe in Astrology (edited 7/19 to change "astronomy" to "astrology"), dowsing, and the Loch Ness Monster, and a bunch of other unfounded claims. The number of people who believe something, based upon little to no evidence, bears not at all upon the veracity of the claim.

quote:

---

I should think if you want to debate CvE you should expect your opponents to think differently than you

---

Of course. However, I do expect people to debate in good faith, provide evidence to support their claims, not make claims that they cannot support, and be humble enough to correct and learn from their mistakes.

quote:

---

and your other scientific fellows without all this meanspirited insult. Yes we are a minority, but we're not ignoramuses.

---

OK, buz, then why don't you explain to me how your uninformed opinion should mean anything at all in a debate that concerns evidence?It is not mean-spirited to point out the fallacies and flaws in one's opponent's arguments, either. I am sorry if you don't like to hear it, but your words speak for themselves.You didn't address my point that yours is an Argument from Personal Incredulity, and you didn't address my point that it is the height of arrogance for you you put your ignorant opinion in the same category of value as that of thousands and thousands of scientists and experts who have studied and works for years and years in the field.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-18-2003][This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-19-2003]