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

ANecdotes are fun and all that but they are not evidence of anything. This is fallacious on the face of it. Are you saying that a 3 year old has gone downhill form a newborn? How do you define downhill? Evidence please and again define downhill.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Like how?I'd determine the neutrality of a mutation by whether or not the environment selectively pressures it and since, when you get down to the gnat's ass, its going to be so blurry that you can't really tell if there's pressure on every particular mutation or not then I'd claim that you are unable to tell if mutations really are neutral or not in every case. Maybe in some specific cases, but I don't see where you're going to define this very important difference between neutral and non-neutral. And I don't see how its important at all unless you want to disbelieve in evolution.In Message 15 you wrote: And there are things in nature that prove that not everything is going downhill.For the first 18 or so years of our lives we are going uphill. When a snowflake forms or when salt crystals grow. When populations evolve. I don't believe you. We can easily see that this is a big YES by taking a trip to the zoo and seeing the variety in the species that has evolved.But really, for the purpose of this thread, you've already answered it:

quote:

---

Now, as far as I am concerned, the real question is not 'Can information-adding mutations happen ?(theoretically they can)'.

---

So yeah, genes can add new information.

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

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.

On another thread Smooth Operator wrote: I started this thread to explore why you choose to believe in such things as this.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.Now I don't want a bunch of your evidence in reply. I didn't start this thread to explore evidence. I am asking why you choose to follow such a fringe idea when science discarded it centuries ago. What's in it for you to be so far out on the fringe? You clearly relish that position. Tell me why.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

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.

But you accept Bouwe uncritcally?

quote:

---

Historians readily acknowledge that the Copernican Revolution [i.e., the idea that 'the earth moves and turns'] spawned the bloody French and Bolshevic revolutions... set the stage for the ancient Greek dogma of evolution...led to Marxism and Communism...It is reported that Marx even acknowledged his indebtedness to Copernicus, without whom Marx believed that his ideas would not have gained much acceptance...It is thus a small step to total rejection of the Bible and the precepts of morality and law taught therein.

---

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.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

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?

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. 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.

No, they don't.Gee, what a great debate we're having here Don't you see whay the rules say not to debate with bare links and instead to qute the related material? 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. Not true. 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. 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.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. 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. Yeah, the source is religious belief and you've been tricked into thinking it has been derived from science.

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?

Nope, not my problem. They're your sources not mine.You have to show me where they say that genes cannot product new information. 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 informationIf you're truely following the evidence and not just trying to support you preconceived notion, then you can find the information you need there.Or you can watch this youtube video: How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part IOh, 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. 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. Here we go with the "everything you know is wrong" approach. I'm not paranoid enough to believe in conspiracies. 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. 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.