Devolution (from The Fall) and "No New Information"

quote:

---

I see no convincing evidence in the scientific or popular scientific literature for this position. Mainstream science has, in fact, concluded just the opposite. On the other hand, a number of people and denominations interpret the bible in such a way as to support this belief.

---

You didn't look hard enough.Nature of Deleterious Mutation Load in Drosophila | Genetics | Oxford AcademicThis paper talks about the accumulation of deleterious in drosophila. I didn't notice any religious influence while reading it. You try finding some.NCBIThe second paper talks about near neutral mutations. They are not selectable and deleterious. Therefore with time they will accumulate and destroy the genome. No religious influences here also.And the third paper here:Just a moment...Is talking about the decline in fitness in humans in the last in one generation is about 1-2%. Religious? Not mouch.So where is the problem?

quote:

---

None of those links support the position that genes are unable to produce new information.

---

Well you have to have the IQ of at least 20 to be able to extrapolate it from the articles by yourself.If all the articles say that the genome is constantly deteriorating, than it could have not evolved any information, because it is constantly decreasing, not increaing it's informational content. It's a logical necessity.How hard is it to come to this conclusion?

quote:

---

You haven't told us how you came to this conclusion originally. That is the topic.

---

By reading a lot obviously.

quote:

---

The "devolution" position is not supported by mainstream science, but is supported by some religions.

---

Not my problem. Mainstrem science is not my religion so I won't blindly follow it like you.

quote:

---

Where did your belief come from? Who told you about this, or where did you first encounter it?

---

Where did I hear about genetic entropy? From Sanford's book.

quote:

---

And why do you so vehemently support this belief in the face of so much contrary evidence?

---

What evidence?

quote:

---

What if I take a copy of Newton's Principia and tear out a dozen pages every day, but add two pages from Einstein's paper on general relativity? Won't the book be constantly degrading and loosing the total quantity of information, but still be gaining some new information? (Careful here, Smoothy. This is a trick question.)

---

It will, but what's the point?

quote:

---

You've done nothing but linked to papers that talk about deleterious mutations. However, no one here has ever argued that deleterious mutation don't exist, nor that they are not the majority of mutations. In regards to the third paper, that deals with the unique status of humans as the only species that can regularly neutralize deleterious mutations by dramatically altering the environment (through technology). The point of the paper is that, as a species, this could result in a loss of a large percent of the population.

---

Yeah, but like I said, that you have to have an IQ of at least 20 to be able to extrapolate that this leads to genetic meltdown in the long run. An nothing short of genetic modification will help.

quote:

---

However, this in no way precludes the remaining human population from gaining higher fitness after the fact.

---

Actually it does, since we all mutate.

quote:

---

That very same author, in another paper also writes on populations' ability to evolve

---

Yes, he does. But he is wrong. The only reason he wrote that is because he thinks mutations add new information to the genome. They don't.

quote:

---

They don't say that.

---

Yes they do.

quote:

---

They are just examples of neutral and deleterious mutations and cannot be your scientific reason for believing that genes can't add information.

---

But these mutations are accumulating and and they are deteriorating the genome. So we can conclude that no information can be created by mutations.

quote:

---

They are post hoc apologetics for the a priori belief that genes cannot produce new info.

---

No. I say that mutations do not produce new information, because it has never been observed.

quote:

---

And that belief is religiously based.

---

What religion are you talking about? Do you have any evidence in what I believe?

quote:

---

If you truly are not religious, then you've been tricked into thinking that this position is a scientific one.

---

Evidence to the contrarry?

quote:

---

And I've looked at the "reality reviewed" website that your links have linked too. You know, the one that says that everything else is wrong except for itself. That right there should tell you that it probably isn't right. And then when you see all the mental gymnastics that have to be performed to maintain those beliefs in the face of contradicting evidence, you should really question all the other stuff they are presenting (like moon hoaxes and all the anti-semetism).

​

The people that believe that stuff have their beliefs based on religion and you've been tricked into thinking that they are based on science. They are lying to you so they can control you and you're falling for it.

---

This is just meaningless. You are attacking the source not the argument.

quote:

---

The overwhelming mass of evidence against this view is such that it is about as far out on the fringe as you can get without falling off the edge of a flat earth.

---

What evidence are you talking about? Show me the evidence.

quote:

---

Now I don't want a bunch of your evidence in reply. I didn't start this thread to explore evidence.

---

But I already replied in that way since that's the only logical reply. If you dont' want this kind of reply, than why bring up the idea that there is evidence agains it. I haven't seen it. So your point doesn't hold.

quote:

---

I am asking why you choose to follow such a fringe idea when science discarded it centuries ago.

---

Again, this is a stupid question that does not want a valid answer. First of all it is an assumption that there is evidence against my views. If there are any, than I want you to show them to me. The only reason I accept geocentrism is becasue the evidence for it, and none for helicentrism.

quote:

---

What's in it for you to be so far out on the fringe? You clearly relish that position. Tell me why.

---

Becasue I'm interested in the truth. Since nobody knows the truth, I'll settle for the best scientific explanation we can get. And for me that is geocentrism.And I do not accept arguments from majority or authority. It matters nothing to me if the mojority of scientists think otherwise. Majority opinion does not equal truth.Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

But you accept Bouwe uncritcally?

---

No of course I don't. I try to research for myself as much as I can.

quote:

---

Gerardus Bouwe, Why Geocentricity?

​

It is amazing you claim not to be a christian, but you uncritically accept the writings of a man whose whole outlook on life is guided by his religion and what is said in the bible.

---

What's so amazing about it? MY source is simply my sourse, not my mentor. When I argue about evolution I can quote christian sources, secular sources, or muslim sources, like Harun Yahya. Does that make me any of those three?

quote:

---

What do you consider evidence? It seems to me, as I read through your threads, that what you can see, the way things seem simply by looking at them, is considered the higest level of evidence to you.

---

Some scientific articles or a book, or something.

quote:

---

The claim that the sun moves around the Earth is ultimately "proven" by the fact that it looks that way from where you stand.

​

The fact that it would look that way to someone standing on any of the other planets, and in fact, it does look exactly that way to the rovers on Mars, would suggest that the way things look are often not the way they really are.

---

Or it could mean that Mars is simply orbiting around the Sun.

quote:

---

No, they don't.

---

What exactly do they say. Tell me what do all three of them say.

quote:

---

No, not logically. Me showing you three red tomatoes doesn't prove that green tomatoes don't exist. In the same way, you showing deleterious mutations doesn't prove that genes cannot product new information.

---

But gain in information has never been observed. And since all we have observed is loss, so the logical conclusion is that the genome has been deteriorating this whole time.

quote:

---

Not true.

---

Evidence?

quote:

---

Besides, in other threads, you said that the examples of new information couldn't be true because genes cannot produce new information and now your saying that because there's no example of it, then genes can't product new information. You're circularly reasoning because your belief does follow from observation of the evidence, you have accepted that genes don't produce new information beforehand and now all you have is apologetics to try to support that position.

---

Well it's both. They can't produce it becasue they are only matter, and matter has got no ability to think in advance. It has no teleology. And you need that ability to produce information. And of course, it has never been observed that genes gained information on their own.

quote:

---

It matters not what you actually believe, we can see from your links that the positions you advocate are derived from religious beliefs...the beliefs are based on religion wether you, yourself personally, follow that religion or not.

---

It's very important becasue my sources have strictly been scientific. Yes, some do have religious arguments, but I only quote scientifc ones. So my basis for this is scientific.

quote:

---

People have lied to you and tricked you into thinking that their positions are derived from science instead of their religious beliefs, and you've swallowed it...hook, line and sinker.

---

Oh, really, how do you know you have not been lied to?

quote:

---

This thread and your failure to provide the scientific evidence that leads to the belief that genes cannot product new information and the fact that we know the only reason people ever come up with that position is to keep the Bible's story of The Fall of mankind inerrant.

---

I showed you evidence in three papaers which talk about degeneration in the genomes. And they do not quote the Bible.

quote:

---

Yeah, the source is religious belief and you've been tricked into thinking it has been derived from science.

---

And how do you know your stance is not religious? Can you prove it?

quote:

---

Ok, so Mars orbits the sun. How do you know? Maybe Mars is the center of the universe and we orbit the sun which orbits Mars. How would you differentiate between these two options?

---

If there is such a thing as absolute space, I would use the Michelson-Morley type experiment to test if we are moving. And when it was done, the experiment said that we are not moving. So now what?

quote:

---

Do you think it would be hard to find any article which says the Earth orbits the sun? We could go all the way back to Copernicus and find references to that phenomenon. However, curiously, whenever people post those things, you refuse the acknowledge their relevance or strength. So, again, what would you like to see in those articles that would make you consider the possibility of your being wrong. What would those articles have to say?

---

I refuse to accept their asertations. The starting assumption they all make is that the Earth is moving, and all the evidence is derived from the assumption itself. What I actually want to see is evidence that the Earth is moving.

quote:

---

Nope, not my problem. They're your sources not mine.

​

You have to show me where they say that genes cannot product new information.

---

I never said, that those papers say that. I said that those papers say that the genomes are deteriorating.

quote:

---

Since all you can do is gainsaying and handwaving, I'm not going to waste my time finding a bunch of papers for you so and since you're such a fan of bear links, I'll just provide you with that:

​

CB102: Mutations adding information

​

If you're truely following the evidence and not just trying to support you preconceived notion, then you can find the information you need there.

---

Your sources are wrong because they use Shnnon model of information. Shannon information can not be used to represent biological functions. Gene duplication also does not increase biological functions, it only increases the number fo already existing genes with same functions.

quote:

---

Or you can watch this youtube video:

​

How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part I

---

Painfully wrong. Resistance is gained by loss of information.

quote:

---

Oh, so you're already convinces of the contrary and nothing can convince you otherwise. Your whole argument relies on an unaccepted definition of the word "information". Total apologetics to maintain a preconceived belief in the face of contadictory evidence.

---

What evidence?

quote:

---

That's the thing, though... they aren't scientific. They are scientific-looking and you've been tricked into believing they are legitimate. they do that to hide the religious aspects.

---

How do you know your sources aren't doing just that?

quote:

---

Here we go with the "everything you know is wrong" approach. I'm not paranoid enough to believe in conspiracies.

---

Yes you are. You told me that I have been lied to, and everything I know is just a big con game. How do you know you are the one that's not been lied to?

quote:

---

But they do not scientifically and logically support the position that genes cannot produce new information. That belief comes from the idea that mankind must be degenerating, which comes from The Fall, which comes from the Bible.

---

Neither did I say they do. I specifically said that they only show the degeneration of the genome. The inability of matter alone to create information comes from observations that it can't.

quote:

---

I'm not taking a stance here. I'm waiting for you to show that your belief that genes cannot product new infomration is based on science and not religion... and I'm still waiting.

---

It's simple. We have see intelligence produce inforamtion, but not matter by itself. So what's so hard to understand here?