THE END OF EVOLUTION?

Hi LucyTheApe,For economy I'm going to reply to your three messages in this single message, I guess starting here: What's really happening is that you're equivocating with the word information, moving back and forth between two definitions. When you say that the concept of entropy from information theory (see Shannon's paper beginning on page 10) will invalidate evolution, you're talking about Shannon information, a technical engineering definition.When you describe the writing of a book as creating information, you're using a different definition of information, an everyday layman's definition.If you're going to invoke information entropy as part of your argument against evolution, then you have to stick with the Shannon definition of information. The everyday definition of information does not include the concept of entropy.You said a couple of things that are undeniably true, and I thought I'd highlight them. There was this: Yes, absolutely. And next there was this: Again, yes, absolutely. Intelligent beings attach meaning to information. The distinction is slight in information theory. Information is the original message. Data is encoded information that is transmitted. In the simplest case there's no encoding and the data and information are the same. I have no choice but to keep referring you back to Shannon, because Shannon information is where the concept of entropy you use in your claims about information is mathematically described. If you're not talking about Shannon information then you have no entropy claim to make.In response to my example of the information produced by the Sun you inquired: I guess what I should have said is that our Sun produces the *equivalent* of billions of bits of information every second. The Sun is of course not encoding the information it transmits into binary. The Sun's information is contained in the electromagnetic radiation it emits. Expressing the amount of information in terms of bits is just a simple convenience, but it could easily be base-10 digits or any other kind of useful encoding. In fact, the first computers tended to use base-10 instead of binary.When we measure the Sun's electromagnetic spectrum and determine that the temperature of its photosphere is 5800 degrees Kelvin, where did the information ultimately come from? It came from the Sun, right? Could scientists create the information about the temperature of the Sun's photosphere all by themselves without observing the Sun? Of course not! Scientists didn't create the information about the photosphere's temperature, the Sun did. All scientists did was translate the electromagnetic radiation containing that information into human understandable terms.Plants also receive information from the Sun in the form of this electromagnetic radiation. The decrease in entropy provides them the potential to grow.--Percy

Hmmm... this thread is titled THE END OF EVOLUTION? Are you folks off topic?Or perhaps a connection with information theory has been drawn? That'd certainly be interesting. If so, I may even be bothered to read on...

LucyTheApe's claim is that only intelligent beings can create information, that in the absence of intelligent beings information entropy can never decrease. Evolution requires a decrease in information entropy without the intervention of an intelligence, which is impossible, and therefore we're at the end of evolution because no evolution could ever have happened in the first place.I'm trying to explain to LucyTheApe what information theory can really say about evolution, but I can't seem to get past the first step, which is convincing him that that the field has already been very clearly defined, and that he can't just make it up according to what he wishes it would say.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add clarity.

Yes, like an invisible sky man creating an entire universe and people, then punishing all people for the choice of one, then flooding the world without leaving any evidence of such, then having a book written to tell people the truth, but making the observed data in the universe contradict most of the points in that book, but asking people to ignore that data because the book is the right way to truth. Yeah, and the bones are the information. We then interpret that information and come up with a theory that explains it to a very good degree, and has the added bonus of explaining lots of other phenomenon.

My claim goes much further than what you're saying here Percy, my claim is that the cell has knowledge, it knows what it is and what it has to do. The information content (or lack of the effect of the 2nd law) of a DNA strand tells us that life is not chance.A cell has to replicate through time and space, with no recall, it can't go back and try again.This whole system is an intelligent communications construct.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

You claim is empty, it has no support. It is no more real than a dream. All you managed to do is string together a bunch of nonsense.When you make claims about information and entropy, then such claims have ties to actual science, and we can then measure how well your claims measure up scientifically.But unless you're talking about Shannon information when you claim that a cell has knowledge, there is no way to know what you're even talking about. Plus I think you must be drifting off-topic, because this is the first time in this thread that you have claimed that a cell has knowledge, and you make no attempt to tie this in to 2LOT.And unless you're drawing some sort of obscure analogy, saying that a cell "knows what it is and what it has to do" is just nonsense. A cell is not conscious or aware.There can never be any "lack of the effect of the 2nd law". 2LOT is one of the well understood physical laws of the universe, and it is always in play. There is never a time or place where matter and energy do not obey 2LOT.It is incorrect to say that, "a DNA strand tells us that life is not chance." Simple analysis of DNA before and after cell division conclusively reveals that random mutations occur in nearly every reproductive event.About the only thing you said that isn't wrong or questionable is, "A cell has to replicate through time and space, with no recall, it can't go back and try again." Congratulations on making one non-wrong statement.Your series of claims reads like nonsense, but more to the point, I don't think they are the same as the one with which you opened this thread when you asked if evolution obeys 2LOT. Of course evolution obeys 2LOT. The entire universe obeys 2LOT. We can observe evolution in action, so it happens and like every other process it obeys 2LOT.If you would like to continue discussing evolution and 2LOT in information theoretic terms then just say so, but leave out the off-topic stuff.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Hi, Lucy.Can an intelligent being violate 2LoT?

• If not, why does a violation of 2LoT suggest intelligent guidance?
  ​
• If so, what allows intelligence to break the rule that everything else must follow?
  Is intelligence the only thing that can break the rule?
  Why or why not? And, can you support it with evidence?

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

Is LucyTheApe not a female? My reading is that:
(a) the structure of a DNA strand is holding up against the effect of the 2nd LOT, (until a cell is dead, I suppose)
(b) the information within DNA is also holding up against the effect of the 2nd LOT -- the information that provides guidance to a living cell on replication is always the same.I don't have a problem with (a) and (b).
But Percy, I do have problem with your statement:Simple analysis of DNA before and after cell division conclusively reveals that random mutations occur in nearly every reproductive event.
Does mutations have a different meaning? My understanding is that a benefitual mutation is very rare. If one mutation does not lead to abnormality then a few consecutive mutations will most likely lead to death. All lifeforms must have a way of reducing the negative impacts of mutations or they'd all be dead eventually.Besides, evolution has never created a structured information system, the like of a DNA strand. Doing so would likely be in violation of the 2nd LOT.I still do not know how evolutionists can claim evolution is observed to be taking place. Where/How exactly?
Mutations would not achieve evolution even in conjunction with natural selection. Then there are fuzzy terms, (such as 'genetic drift') that are invented none other than to explain the unexplanable.

Try:Observed Instances of SpeciationReviews & Guides For Quiet Living | dB Skeptic

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This is pretty much completely wrong. Mutations have different 'meanings' in as much as they are highly context sensitive. A mutation which is beneficial in on environment can be neutral or detrimental in another environment. Most mutations, of whatever kind, are of small effect and many small deleterious mutations can be accommodated without severely harming an organism. In the case of large scale deleterious/detrimental mutations the result frequently is death, that is part of the process of natural selection and one reason why a beneficial mutation tends to increase in frequency in a population and deleterious mutations tend to decrease. Just to clarify, by increase in frequency I mean the mutation is present in more organisms in subsequent generations, I am not talking about rates of actual de novo mutation. That is essentially exactly the argument Lucy hs been making without any support or evidence, do you have some actual coherent reasoning and evidence or just the same faith based argument?TTFN,WK

I check taxonomy and the greenish warblers are all the same species. Are there any examples where ring species have created different species?

You don't? You think that DNA in a living cell isn't subject to 2LOT? Are there other natural physical laws you think it is immune to? Gravity, perhaps? Electromagnetic radiation? Maybe Boyle's law? Relativity?Physical laws, as far as we have been able to establish, apply to everything everywhere throughout the universe. That includes DNA. DNA is definitely *not* "holding up against the effect of the 2nd LOT". DNA obeys every iota of 2LOT always.If we ever discovered material that wasn't subject to the laws of the universe, especially a law as significant as 2LOT since it's the one that rules out perpetual motion machines and free energy, it would be a momentous discovery. First understand that evolution is just change over time, and the original source of change is mutation. Whether a mutation is beneficial or detrimental makes no difference, a change is a change.Reproductive events are almost never perfect. Mutations occur in almost all reproductive events. This includes you.Different organisms have different mutation rates. Typical mutation rates range from as high as 10^-4 per base pair for some eukaryotes to as low as 10^-8. Just to put this in perspective, the mutation rate for humans is 10^-8 per base pair, human DNA has about 3x10⁹ base pairs, so on average each person has about 30 random mutations (3x10⁹ x 10^-8). For example, your DNA is probably different from your parents at the locations of somewhere around 30 random base pairs (there are other changes that involve the arrangement of genes on chromosomes during sexual reproduction where mistakes can also cause larger scale mutations, and there are other possibilities for mutations, but let's keep this simple and stick with mutations that are just simple base pair substitutions). Are you as unaware as you seem that you're stating as a given an unsupported and unproven conclusion? Describe for us how the creation of new information violates 2LOT. Every reproductive event produces mutations. This means that almost all offspring are different from their parents, and since they as parents will in turn produce offspring who are different genetically (only slightly, of course, but still different) from themselves, what on earth could ever prevent evolution? For there to be no evolution, reproduction would have to be perfect. But reproduction is almost never perfect. That's why evolution is inevitable. There is no way to prevent evolution from happening.--Percy

You checked the taxonomy? What does that even mean? did you read all the latest research papers on greenish warblers? Did you go out and perform lots of interfertility experiments?Without knowing what the taxonomy you checked was based on why should anyone consider it more definitive than the most current research on the Greenish warblers?Do you understand that 'different species' has several different meanings depending on the species concept one uses?TTFN,WK

Hi Wounded King, I think what he meant was that they are still 'birds'. Which is the old "same kinds" argument all over again. Which would at least be a starting point to debate, if they didn't consider reproduction a dividing factor, but then when it is mentioned that chimps and humans are both then still apes, they claim that they are different because they can't reproduce.It's very frustrating when they move the goal post to suit any particular argument. But it's easy for them because it's not real science they talk about, no one has any research or evidence so their goal posts can be moved, where as with real science the goal posts are fixed.Real science works with parameters and specific definitions, they are free to mix and match because there are no set guildlines or specifics for them. It's all incredulity, and not to mention, frustrating as fuck to debate.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I think what he means is that they are all Phylloscopus Trochiloies. What other research does a creationist need then a quick scan of a first sentence "Greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides) inhabit forests across much of northern and central Asia." of the introduction supplied by Coragyps?It's a spatial version of the rhetorical "Does mommy bird give birth to a baby bird of a differing species?" Pcver doesn't take into account how, exactly, one would go about labeling extreme members of a ring species as separate with a nomenclature that isn't suited to indiscrete grading. Where around the ring does one do the splitting. The birds on the ground have no problem with indiscrete grading. At least they're smart enough to figure it out. I'm not following you around, onifre. I wanted to address this hours ago but have been having computer problems. I spent my evening battling mighty mouse. Edited by lyx2no, : Indiscrete.Edited by lyx2no, : Indiscrete

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.