Evolving New Information

damn right I didn't, I don't understand it all. I don't, however, say that because I don't, nobody can. Oh do tell. uh huh. They're called "scientists" and "rationalists" and "natural philosphers". hey! that's my line! ...and fail. No. That's called "god of the gaps" and your own theist thinkers and philosophers warned you creationists not to do that because then for every single forward step by the scientific method, you god is similarly reduced.If scientists don't know, they say...gasp... "we don't know". And then they try to find out. If they said "godidit", they'd stop there.Try this on:"why can birds fly?"
"godidit."
"can humans fly?"
"nope."
"why?"
"godidit."
"oh, ok"...and that particular pair never created the kittyhawk, because humans can't fly, because godidit. "godidit" is about as dumbed-down as you can get. Stooping to that level gives most scientists a crick in the neck. Scientists say "hmm, that makes sense, this idea predicts this, this test confirms that, this idea is sound, our tests replicate it, we agree on it, it makes sense, it builds on this idea, that..."Whether you are a creationist or not doesn't matter, but when you try to say what scientists should say or do, that does. Scientists try to explain and find out. Pointing and saying "godidit" is nothing of the sort, and I will not stoop to it.Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

I meant some mutation which wouldn't "increase" the amount of chromosomes, merely increase the number of alleles. I don't understand, no, and I bow to your greater knowledge, since I'm NOT a scientist. yup, that's why I chose it. It also doesn't really do anything "good" (but then neither did lucy's altered code). I've heard that it's a mutation that spontaneously arises in nature on a continual basis (i.e. it's not always inherited).That, really, is what I'm after - a better example of "a mutation which is common in nature, spontaneously arises, and produces a change in the number of alleles in any group" (the idea being, it would randomly happen within a group of subjects that don't have the mutation in their genes, and so show an increase in "information").Cheers,Greyseal.

ack! another mistake! I apologize again.Removing the word "point" is acceptable?I meant that the mutation (an extra chromosome) is a relatively common freak-of-nature mutation (when all's said and done).to clarify:

quote:

---

The condition exists in roughly 1 out of every 1000 males. One in every 500 males have an extra X chromosome but do not have the syndrome.

---

sounds relatively common.The facts are this:Either the additional chromosome is not extra information (in which case lucy's example isn't either, and so her claim is still unfounded and unexplained and therefore without merit) or it is extra information, in which case her claim is proved false and without merit.And the other facts are that, however you slice it, mutations which are both huge in nature AND those which are tiny in nature have been proven to not only occur, but be non-fatal and produce noticeable differences in a population which are then passed on (modification through descent).We know that beneficial mutations can occur, as the humble dessert banana proves it quite happily (human selection not-withstanding, the same process occurs in nature, called natural selection), so handwaving away the extra chromosome as a non-example won't work.So, we've got these points ALL proven:* small mutations happen naturally (proved in this thread)
* large mutations happen naturally (proved in this thread)
* beneficial mutations happen as well as deleterious (they're long, thin, yellow and you unzip it and eat the middle)
* "extra information" can be added beneficially (moths, colour, wherever it came from)
* these traits (extra information and all) are happily passed down when non-harmful enough that either no non-benefit or at best some advantage is given (natural selection, yada yada)
* these changed, mutated traits, when combined with new environmental pressures (or the release of old ones) when added up over time (a looonnngggg time) results in...new species.now she can quibble over the last step (although modification, to ring species, to non-breeding separate populations is kind of...proof), but at least has to accept that her "no new information" theory has been proved bogus, quite extensively.game, set, match, tumultuous applause, exit stage left.(oh, and PS both WK and pandion - thanks for the extra info. That's the sort of link-gold that needs to be squirreled away for the next time some creationist trots out the same tired line which you both just proved false).Edited by greyseal, : added some thanks to WK and pandionEdited by greyseal, : added clarification of "relatively" common, via a quote.Edited by greyseal, : and speling

Here we agree. Yes, you really shouldn't - it's not been defined even by the people bandying it about, or has been successfully refuted... d'oh! Oh, carry on... shown to be false. irreducibly complex? Shown to be false by far more competent people than I. damn right it doesn't, that has nothing to do with genetics. well, information theory shouldn't tell you how a cell evolved. Understandably, really.And you may want to add that evolution and natural selection (and please remember this) do not tell us how abiogenesis occured. It was never meant to. It doesn't. It only, merely, explains how we get from there to here.The next few paragraphs I won't comment on, as there's little substance to it - it's mainly bluster and indignation, sorry. Look, religious people feeling indignant about the beauty of Darwin's theory have been calling it "morally bankrupt" and "a passing fad" and many other epithets for 150 years and the evidence FOR it only gets stronger and stronger.It's not a theory in crisis, it's not contraversial (except with IDiots who get ruffled feathers and apoplexy every time it's mentioned) and it is a solid, firmly confirmed fully accepted scientific theory. no it isn't. There isn't one single credible paper on ID or creationism. ohhhhh yes you do. the very existence of this board (and thousands of others) tells me that's a baldfaced lie. to be frank, there's only one cause for many things. You can't have "intelligent falling" and "gravity" both existing at the same time unless you believe in pantheistic solipsism, in which case... I think you missed some words or a sentence or something, but if you mean we can't reconstruct history...I think you're wrong. We've done a marvellous job on proving evolution as a theory over 150 years, we've got solid theories explaining the facts over such things as the age of the earth, where our ancestors came from, how the universe started and what it was like when it began, and more.Sadly, you won't accept any of these fact-based theories because of your reliance on a book written two thousand years ago or more by a collection of people including bronze-age shepheds.Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

I'll explain it the way I see it: IDists and creationists are saying that evolution can't possibly generate "more information" naturally.Unfortunately, "more information" hasn't been successfully defined, or if you believe it has, then examples from nature have been given that fulfill these requirements. Shannon's work explains the transmission of information. That is all. It doesn't say evolution can or can't happen. It doesn't say that transcription errors and mutations can or can't happen. It doesn't say whether mutations are going to be deleterious or positive. It doesn't say how cells divide, it doesn't say how DNA or RNA repairs itself. It doesn't say anything about the mechanics of genetics, since it is not about genetics! information theory doesn't tell you how a cell evolved. It can tell you what would be necessary for it to successfully divide (PURELY in terms of information), it can tell you plenty about how resilient the cell is to damage and how well it could repair itself, but based on factors which, to the best of my knowledge, have never been quantified.However, how it could happen (esoteric theory lacking mechanics) and how it DID happen (physical reality) are two different things. I'm not surprised. I'll hunt around to see if I can find the post that showed me how long this anti-darwin crusade has been going. It was a real eye-opener.The thing about ID is that it's religion. It's creationism in sheep's clothing. It has produced nothing of substance in the whole time since it was dreamt up and that's because it can't.

So...(and I haven't read up on this) "baker's yeast" (whatever it is) doubled it's "genetic message" (whatever you mean by that) but "much of the duplicated message was lost"....much. not all?If not all, how does that not ALSO confirm what I was talking about?Anyway, I have to appologize - you went off on a tangent called CSI which is, as I understand it, Dembski and his "irreducible complexity" argument - that's ALSO been refuted in many of his cases and so far is non-falsifiable and BAD SCIENCE.I was responding to Lucytheape's spiel about "no new information" - sorry.However, just because we don't know how something COULD happen doesn't mean it CAN'T and certainly doesn't mean "godidit" is an acceptable answer. That's an argument from incredulity, nothing more, and just "god of the gaps" with some misunderstood maths tacked on.By the way, you quoted me twice saying the same thing - I don't understand what either of your retorts are about:

quote:

---

Yes it was an eye opener for me. What is going on in the heads of Darwinists is not what is happening in laboratories. No new protein to protein binding sites or no new molecular machines.

---

the timeline Im talking about is that Darwin came out with his book (many years after he finished it). Almost immediately, and regularly since then, theists of all colours and creeds have been universally condemning it as evil, misguided, badly written, false and a passing fad that'll crumble away proving it to be just a facade - and they've been doing it for 150 years.Through all this time, the evidence has only been getting stronger FOR Darwin's theory.I saw an excellent piece on it - pointing out only the amount of people and works saying how soon evolution would be blown out of the water - unfortunately I can't find it and I see lucy is still steadfastly ignoring the evidence given to her. Pity really, I'd like to know her response - sticking your fingers in your ears really isn't a response.

Lucy, please respond to my post #247 in this thread. this has all been covered before. You did that already, lucy - please re-read my response before you repeat yourself yet again.I showed you an increase in information. I showed you a mutation. I was shown the error of my ways by WK and others about the word "point mutation", but the point (haha) still stands. DNA is the code. the cell is it's own interpreter. The mechanism of how a cell divides is well known (although I can't explain it, others can). The cell, key point here, isn't a computer program and your analogy breaks down at some point. Your argument seems to say "Percy says this. (I think) Percy's a big poopy-head and f**k you, that's why". That's not really a point.

the problem goes like this:Dembski says: We haven't proved how the flagellum could have evolved. I think it's so improbable that it can't have happened. I can't prove it but here's some (contrived) math that says I might be right, and it's obviously so difficult we haven't seen (strawman example of flagellum evolving in the lab over short timescales). In fact, it's so difficult, it's so perfect, it works so well as it is that it must have been built because we can't take bits away and have it still work.When you get right down to it, what he's saying is that because we haven't seen it evolve, because we don't yet know how it evolved, that it must have been designed and built.Can't you see that that's an argument from incredulity and nothing else?Can't you see that lack of knowledge isn't evidence of anything?Can't you see that taking pieces out of a working system is in no way analogous to proving that it can't have evolved from a different, related system?All it is is "god of the gaps". It demands an impossible burden on science to prove a negative - for him to be happy, absolutely everything about absolutely every creature ever must be shown to have evolved - from the eye to the ear to everything in between and more.And when he doesn't get that (how could he) he crows "you can't prove it isn't, so it must be god".Now, if you agree with me, you see the problem. If you don't, there's nothing more I can say.

what's natural genetic engineering? breeding?

I happened to spot this on youtube (and boy am I glad I clicked).This deals with EXACTLY what we're talking about - the ability of genes to evolve new functions through random mutation in such a way as to avoid the mutations becoming deleterious.Now, I am still not a scientist, but this seems to propose (written way back in 1972) a mechanism for "evolving new information".https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nomI35DJB40It also seems to be something that the AiG goons have quote mined and gotten wrong. On purpose. Unsurprisingly.PS: lucy? You still haven't responded to post 247

not only does she not know what "information" means, it appears she can't understand it.I still haven't had an answer to post 241 in this thread which you can find hereLucy, Lucytheape. Paging Lucy. Calling Lucytheape. Will the real Lucytheape please stand up.PS: Yes, I know the word "point" from "point mutation" is wrong. please forgive.Edited by greyseal, : added a link! go me!Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

I still haven't had an answer to post 241 in this thread which you can find here

Hi,It was actually post 241, not 247 - the reason I think 241 is important is because I think it displays two examples from nature which are exactly analogous to what you say doesn't and cannot happen.What I'm expecting you'll say is that the mutation causing the colour change proves nothing even though it increases the number of alleles, and that the other huge mutation doesn't count simply because it's not beneficial.I'm saying that's besides the point because allele increase IS an increase in information (and it happened) and that non-harmful mutations happen often, and there is apparently enough leeway for a huge mutation to occur and still not be harmful - granted the syndrome I showed you isn't beneficial, but I don't think it's impossible to say something similar (but of smaller scale) can't happen - and indeed there's some "Baker's yeast" case in which that's apparently happened)...and you might like this to answer this message:http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.htmlOf course, I'm expecting you to tell me that it doesn't count because that's such a simple creature.

way to ignore the question, Lucy!I'm forced to go with "you don't know Jack about what you're talking about".I gave you a specific example of "an increase in information" and "a beneficial mutation" - the moth and it's colour change.You could have said "it doesn't count, you can't prove it's increasing information, you can't prove it occured without god doing it" but you just ignored it.I gave you a specific example of a massive increase in "code" in nature, the syndrome I provided.You could have said "it doesn't count, it's not beneficial and would in nature result in death" but you just ignored it.Instead, you give me some bullshit about "living in different worlds" and how I needed to show you the two things that I showed you (and AGAIN above) "in the lab".The world is my lab.Answer the question or retract your argument as irrelevant.Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

At least one of those is baseless - Lucy has still failed miserably to even define what she's talking about with "no new information".She said it was "an increase in information" - Percy gave her a logical example of allele increase.She said that didn't count because it wasn't real (wtf?) - the melanine moth seems to count, because before that mutation occured there was only one type.Not only that but your very own example of "sickle cell" apparently doesn't count (despite being novel) because...uh...apparently because "f*ck you it doesn't".she gave an example of a computer code expanding greatly in size - the result of which would not give the intended result, but would do something. I gave her a syndrome where a large chunk of genetic code was duplicated - it wasn't beneficial, but it didn't result in death and still "did something".she hasn't answered that one at all - but I think she'd just say "it's a disease" like she did with sickle cell.Still, i think all rational people would say her objections are baseless unless she can set some criteria which make sense.