Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 1273 (515430)
07-17-2009 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by traderdrew
07-17-2009 11:36 AM


Re: What is Intelligent Design?
Hi Traderdrew, nice post.
In keeping with the request of Son, I am copying your post to another thread, that I think is appropriate for this discussion:
See Message 1 Is ID properly pursued?
Your post is copied to Message 53.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by traderdrew, posted 07-17-2009 11:36 AM traderdrew has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 809 of 1273 (544170)
01-24-2010 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 796 by Brad H
01-24-2010 3:00 AM


addition, subtraction, addition, subtraction, where does it end?
Hi Brad H, just a small point (not really on topic, but ..)
... I was wondering if you could cite exactly where in the paper they state which nucleotides in the chromosomal DNA of the bacteria had an addition of protein information? ...
... I should point out also that of course beneficial mutations occur. No one is denying that at all. What I am saying is that all mutations which occur (beneficial or detrimental) are the result of loss of information or loss of specificity or in other cases insertions and deletions. ...
First off, why are insertions not additions? They were not there before, yes?
Second, we have the case of walkingstick insects.
See Figure 1 from Nature 421, 264 - 267 (16 January 2003); doi:10.1038/nature01313 (reproduced below)
Walkingstick insects originally started out as winged insects (blue at start and top row). That diversified.
And some lost wings (red). And diversified.
And some regained wings (blue again). And diversified.
And one lost wings again (Lapaphus parakensis, below, red again).

Can you explain how this occurs when information is only lost?
Wings
No wings
Wings
No wings
All by loss of information? Did they 1st lose the information on how to make wings, then 2nd lose the information on how to lose the information on how to make wings, and then 3rd lose the information on how to lose the information on how to lose the information on how to make wings? How can you lose information to not do something that you have lost the information to do?
We can calculate the effect of such information on evolution as follows:
  1. Wings
  2. No wings = (a) + informationa = Wings + informationa
  3. Wings = (b) + informationb = No wings + informationb = (a) + informationa + informationb = Wings + informationa + informationb
Wings - Wings = informationa + informationb = 0
informationa + informationb = 0
informationa = 0 - informationb
Either information is gained in one case, or the information content that affects evolution ≡ 0
Obviously if information is always lost, that then this concept of information has no effect on what can and cannot evolve.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
Edited by RAZD, : fixed nature link

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 796 by Brad H, posted 01-24-2010 3:00 AM Brad H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 821 by Brad H, posted 01-25-2010 6:26 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 825 of 1273 (544273)
01-25-2010 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 821 by Brad H
01-25-2010 6:26 AM


Re: addition, subtraction, addition, subtraction, where does it end?
Hi again Brad H
You're right, No they weren't "there" before, but they were somewhere before. What we are looking for is the addition of information that did not previously exist. Lets face it, if we wanted to get from pond scum to pandas, we would need the addition of a lot of "new" information into the DNA. Insertion mutations just don't explain that.
To begin with, new DNA formed during reproduction were not "somewhere before" on the DNA strand, but were assembled from molecules in the process of duplication.
Second, many insertions are copies of other sections of DNA, so they were not "somewhere before" on the new DNA strand either.
Third, DNA is composed of four basic molecules in a pattern, and in a very mundane sense all such patterns existed before, there is nothing new under the sun, and the only difference is where these sections are such that they affect the coding of proteins. An insertion in a section that affects the coding of proteins is indeed new in that section.
Do 123456789 and 1213456789 have the same information?
First I want to point out that for some reason your link didn't work for me.
Yes, I noted that. Apparently Nature has moved the original abstract (all you can access without a sign in). I did, however provide the full Nature citation, so it is possible to look it up. I'll see if I can find the new location.
But secondly I would like to point out that you are making the leap from observed DNA mutations to phenotype changes with the assumption that the one is the cause of the other, without (I presume) observable evidence. I mean unless you can provide a link to a scientific paper where a study was done in which the Phasmatodea were bred and observed spawning a population with wings, and then a later population without, etc...and also in which the DNA of each population was carefully studied and shown to have changed, then you really have no argument.
Are you making the mistake of thinking that a phenotype that is fixed in a species can happen without genetic changes?
We can also discuss Barry Hall's experiment with E.col. where lactose mechanism was disrupted and a new one evolved.
Again, either new "information" is involved or "information" is irrelevant to what can and cannot evolve. There are many such experiments.
But since you brought up insect wings, I wonder if you have ever considered the metamorphosis of insects like the butterfly? Complex enzymes literally digest the caterpillar in the crysalis. It becomes a "soup" of disjointed tissue and cells but within four days it emerges a fully developed winged butterfly. No current knowledge of chemistry, physics, genetics, or molecular biology can account for or even begin to guess at what "natural" causes produced this process.
Ever notice how, whenever a creationist is given information that contradicts their belief, they try to change the subject?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 821 by Brad H, posted 01-25-2010 6:26 AM Brad H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 834 by Brad H, posted 01-25-2010 11:07 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 845 of 1273 (544318)
01-25-2010 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 828 by Straggler
01-25-2010 8:42 AM


Re: Creationism ID and PR - teaching science and philosophy
Hi Straggler, I'm going to agree with you on this.
The actual arguments and evidential claims in favour of ID are agnostic about who or what the designer is. Irreducible complexity, conservation of information, the obviousness of design in nature etc. etc. Whatever.
Those predominantly (but I maintain not exclusively) presently making those arguments and claims in a very high profile manner are not at all agnostic about who or what the designer is. They are creationist Christians. I don’t dispute that at all.
By simply saying ID is nonsense because creationism is obviously nonsense and all IDists are creationists really — as you are doing here - does no good to the pro-science cause in my opinion. It alienates those (whom I would argue are vast in number) who hold a vague and largely unconsidered notion of an intelligent designer but who are not in any way part of the creationist lobby.
Just because the concept originated in a covert consortium of embittered creationists, does not mean that the man in the street can look at the concept, accept it for what it says, and not pick up the creationist baggage that the consortium wallow in.
It pushes those people away from actually considering the issues and evidence straight into the eager arms of the creationists who are willing to adopt whatever strategy achieves the most publicly popular outcome in their favour. The wedge in action.
To my mind it is far better, indeed necessary, to make the scientific case against ID on it’s own merits. Intelligent Design is evidentially bankrupt. We can show that regardless of who is making the pro-ID arguments. Given the current climate we should be exposing ID for what it is to the most people possible. Not just creo-bashing for it’s own sake.
I have actually advocated teaching ID in as scientific a manner as possible, starting with the basic philosophy (ie - in a philosophy class, perhaps about the philosophy of science), and then seeing what logical conclusions can be derived and where this leads us in terms of scientific testing.
This could use the appeal of ID to the non-scientific people and to draw them in and get them interested in the science aspects of the issue.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 828 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2010 8:42 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 848 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2010 1:14 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 864 of 1273 (544374)
01-25-2010 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 848 by Straggler
01-25-2010 1:14 PM


Re: Creationism ID and PR - teaching science and philosophy
Hi Straggler, well I've noted that your position is often closer to mine than you may think, there's just one bug-bear where this breaks down, and that really is about where you draw the (thin) line between what you think is reasonable and what I think is reasonable.
I really don't want to start another dispute between you and I but in a thread called "What is ID" I have to take the opportunity to ask the following:
Where do you think ID starts?
I've followed your posts without reply, for similar reasons. I've been thinking of a new ID thread for me on this, but have been waiting for the current crop to cool down (or run down) before jumping in.
In the meantime you (and anyone else interested) can look over Is ID properly pursued? for one of my (older) perspectives. I find it curious that the normal ID crowd does not want to discuss this issue.
It may also clear up some other issues for you ...
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 848 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2010 1:14 PM Straggler has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 865 of 1273 (544380)
01-25-2010 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 852 by Straggler
01-25-2010 2:20 PM


prediction?
Hi again,
Given that ID has been around so long in one form or another and that it seems like almost second nature for us as a species to invoke a purposeful designer wherever we see order or function in nature - I would hazard the guess that it wil be another form of ID repackaged to appeal to the masses.
Given that the DI has backed away (beat a hasty retreat?) from getting their curriculum in the schools, and the various comments about philosophy and the philosophy of science, I think they may try an approach along those lines - they can say to scientists that it's philosophy and to (gullible) believers that it's about how science is done.
If they do, this will get around the not-in-science-class issue.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 852 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2010 2:20 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 872 by Straggler, posted 01-26-2010 7:41 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 867 of 1273 (544390)
01-25-2010 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 834 by Brad H
01-25-2010 11:07 AM


Re: addition, subtraction, addition, subtraction, where does it end?
Hi again Brad, you seem to be settling in a little here, and I'd like to echo Buzsaw about staying around.
Lets get real here Raz, if I copied and pasted material here, obtained from another web site and I used your logic that they were all brand new letters that only exist here for the first time, how long do you think I would last before I got booted for plagiarism? A copy of something does not explain its origination.
Curiously, DNA does not need to worry about plagiarism suits, which is a good thing, seeing how often it plagiarizes itself.
Indeed, let's get real: DNA is composed of strings of amino acids in a very restrictive alignment.
DNA - Wikipedia
quote:
Chemically, DNA consists of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides, with backbones made of sugars and phosphate groups joined by ester bonds. These two strands run in opposite directions to each other and are therefore anti-parallel. Attached to each sugar is one of four types of molecules called bases. It is the sequence of these four bases along the backbone that encodes information. This information is read using the genetic code, which specifies the sequence of the amino acids within proteins. The code is read by copying stretches of DNA into the related nucleic acid RNA, in a process called transcription.
The DNA double helix is stabilized by hydrogen bonds between the bases attached to the two strands. The four bases found in DNA are adenine (abbreviated A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T). These four bases are attached to the sugar/phosphate to form the complete nucleotide, as shown for adenosine monophosphate.
These bases are classified into two types; adenine and guanine are fused five- and six-membered heterocyclic compounds called purines, while cytosine and thymine are six-membered rings called pyrimidines.[8]
So along any strand you have A, G, C, or T in various repeating patterns. DNA is so long, generally, that all the patterns of A with A, G, C or T on each side of it are already present somewhere, as are all the patterns with the other bases in the center. There just is not that many different patterns available for DNA at the molecule to molecule level.
Basically this means that the claim that any mutation is just a repeat of some section elsewhere is mundanely true, no matter what the effect of the change is on the organism metabolizing food, reproducing and surviving. Being mundanely true means that it has no predictive power on what can and what cannot evolve as a result.
No matter how you cut the mustard, any point insertion will duplicate a segment of DNA elsewhere in the strand ... so there is nothing new eh?
Wrong. The difference lies in what the various sections of DNA do -- either in replication, organism development, or in normal production of proteins within the cell.
In Message 825 I asked you whether 123456789 and 1213456789 have the same information, and you blanked. The problem for you is threefold:
  • that the additional number is indeed an increase in information, in the normal information theory meaning, thus any point insertion is indeed an increase of information,
  • that a second mutation can remove the addition, thereby reverting to the original condition, and one or the other of these mutations necessarily violates your "no increase in information" position,
  • finally, when we talk about DNA rather than just numbers, we can have a section of DNA that codes for a protein being interrupted by this insertion, changing the protein output.
This final point means that a new function is derived for this section of DNA regardless of whether the specific pattern was found elsewhere. Let me quote another poster here:
Biologists have known since the 1960's that the ability of the cell to build functional proteins depends upon the precise sequence of DNA bases.
Taq Message 863: They claim no such thing. DNA sequences can sustain many changes without affecting protein function. On the flip side, a single mutation can change the protein's function drastically, a single mutation can produce a functional protein from a previously non-functioning DNA sequence, etc. All of these have been observed.
This modified protein production is enough to cause deleterious (deadly) effect on a growing organism, or a neutral effect in the current ecology, or a beneficial effect ... let me quote Taq again:
What I am saying is that all mutations which occur (beneficial or detrimental) are the result of loss of information or loss of specificity or in other cases insertions and deletions.
Taq Message 861: Then evolution does not need a gain in information in order for it to occur. All evolution needs is a change in variation due to mutation, and that is exactly what is observed. If we were to observe every mutation occuring from the first life to current humans you would conclude that every single DNA change is a loss in information.
In other words, what you claim could be mundanely true, yet it would also be incapable of restricting evolution in any way shape or form, and thus it becomes (is) a useless concept of no predictive value to science in any way.
As an example, let me quote another post by Taq
However what I am stating is that I have never heard of a phenotype changing as a result of "observed" added (new) information to the chromosomal DNA.
Taq Message 860: Meet the Nylon Bug:
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
This bacteria evolved a new enzyme capable of breaking down nylon oligomers. This new enzyme arose by the insertion of a single base resulting in a new reading frame.
It does not matter that this occurred as a point mutation or a "frame shift", as Traderdrew would have it in (Message 817), as you will notice that what he says"
... However, it could very well mean the frameshift that occurred to produce that new nylonase enzyme was part of a larger designed system allowing adaptations. ...
Is precisely what I predicted above: mundanely true but irrelevant to the ability of evolution to adapt to new ecological conditions. It is still a beneficial mutation, it still adds to the ability of the organism to survive and reproduce, which is all that evolution requires to be true. The "larger designed system" is evolution.
Yes and how many thousands of years do you suppose that rocks and sticks have existed?
Irrelevant to this thread. If you want to discuss ages of things, we can do that at the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread, as I believe I have recommended before. Once you can explain all the correlations we can then get down to a common understanding of the age of the earth in this and other discussions. Until then you are just avoiding this issue.
Are you making the mistake of thinking that a phenotype that is fixed in a species can happen without genetic changes?
Actually yes Raz, I am. But I am not stating that they always happen without genetic changes. There are actually a number of mechanisms that can bring about changes in a populations traits.
Then, perhaps, you could share these, and then show how they actually apply to the walkingstick wing\wingless\wing\wingless pattern given in Message 809. Asserting that something can occur so it is responsible for any piece of evidence you don't like doesn't actually show that in fact this is the case. Here is the rest of the original link (I've also fixed it in the previous post):
Volume 421 Issue 6920, 16 January 2003
Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects | Nature
quote:
The evolution of wings was the central adaptation allowing insects to escape predators, exploit scattered resources, and disperse into new niches, resulting in radiations into vast numbers of species1. Despite the presumed evolutionary advantages associated with full-sized wings (macroptery), nearly all pterygote (winged) orders have many partially winged (brachypterous) or wingless (apterous) lineages, and some entire orders are secondarily wingless (for example, fleas, lice, grylloblattids and mantophasmatids), with about 5% of extant pterygote species being flightless2, 3. Thousands of independent transitions from a winged form to winglessness have occurred during the course of insect evolution; however, an evolutionary reversal from a flightless to a volant form has never been demonstrated clearly for any pterygote lineage. Such a reversal is considered highly unlikely because complex interactions between nerves, muscles, sclerites and wing foils are required to accommodate flight4. Here we show that stick insects (order Phasmatodea) diversified as wingless insects and that wings were derived secondarily, perhaps on many occasions. These results suggest that wing developmental pathways are conserved in wingless phasmids, and that 're-evolution' of wings has had an unrecognized role in insect diversification.
Now notice that I will allow the blockage of wing formation to occur by a mutation, and that this blockage can be reversed by removing the mutation, and that a subsequent mutation can block it again, creating the pattern seen, however this is precisely the scenario (2) given above:
quote:
2. that a second mutation can remove the addition, thereby reverting to the original condition, and one or the other mutations violates your "no increase in information" position,
I await your explanation.
However what I am stating is that I have never heard of a phenotype changing as a result of "observed" added (new) information to the chromosomal DNA.
Argument from ignorance or denial. Curiously what you know, what you believe, what you think, and what you deny, are completely irrelevant to what occurs in the real world. Your opinion cannot affect reality.
And that is the only thing (as far as biological evidence goes) that can convince any reasonably minded skeptic of universal common decent.
I prefer the term open minded skeptic, however you mean what might convince you IF we can convince you that such evidence exists. Calling yourself a "reasonably minded skeptic" means nothing to me until you show that you are equally skeptical of creationist and IDological claims. If you swallow unreliable creationist or IDological claims, like complexity, information and irreducible complexity, yada yada, without any skepticism, then you are not skeptical in the real sense. See Pseudoskepticism and logic:
Message 1: http://en.wikipedia.org.../Pseudoskepticism#Pseudoskepticism
quote:
The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved.
Message 4: Skepticism - Wikipedia
quote:
False claims of skepticism
Advocates of discredited intellectual positions such as AIDS denial and Holocaust denial will sometimes seek to characterize themselves as "skeptics" despite cherry picking evidence that conforms to a pre-existing belief.[6] According to Richard Wilson, who highlights the phenomenon in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008), the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position".
Many creationist and IDological claims belong in the discredited category, claims like a young earth, irreducibly complexity, and specified complexity ...
An open minded skeptic, on the other hand, allows that what they are skeptical of may be true.
Thus far in all of the history of the human experience we have only observed this kind of csi formed by intelligent causes and therefore we conclude that the csi observed in DNA must also have an intelligent cause.
Aside from the (repeated) argument from ignorance, let me introduce you to a little diagram of mine:
This is the logical fallacy of
All A is B
B
Therefore A
Also known as affirming the consequent.
Logical fallacies are not things that open minded skeptics use for forming conclusions about reality.
I'll let others discuss with you whether or not a single example of "csi" exists as defined by Dembski -- see critique by Jason Rosenhouse here:
quote:
Every aspect of this argument is mistaken, as shown by numerous philosophers and scientists since Dembski first presented his ideas. Dembski's claim that CSI is both well-defined and reliably indicates design is highly dubious, but here I will only address the problems with applying his ideas to biology.
Which Jason does with ease. Your reference to CSI is precisely what I mean about swallowing IDologist claims without any real skepticism.
But on the other hand, on this thread we are discussing ID. Intelligent design proponents suggests that information in the DNA code of all living organisms is highly complex and highly specified.
Curiously, I am an intelligent design proponent - I am a deist - the original kind. As a deist, I suggest to you that there is no conflict at all between evolution from the first cell to the present day and the basic concept of intelligent design (properly pursued), nor do I need to play semantic games with reality. If you want to discuss this issue more, I'll be happy to oblige. You may also want to read Is ID properly pursued? for some background.
What I suspect, given your avatar and several comments, is that you are not a real ID proponent, but a creationist wearing second hand ID clothes - that you will choose creationism over ID when they contradict - so many "IDologists" do, sad to say. A real ID proponent, in my humble opinion, does not need any creationist baggage.
Enjoy.
ps -- thanks Taq for your posts.
Edited by RAZD, : another Taq quote
Edited by RAZD, : englis

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 834 by Brad H, posted 01-25-2010 11:07 AM Brad H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 868 by Coyote, posted 01-25-2010 10:32 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 875 by traderdrew, posted 01-26-2010 12:11 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 939 by Brad H, posted 01-28-2010 1:42 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 932 of 1273 (544714)
01-27-2010 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 875 by traderdrew
01-26-2010 12:11 PM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 875 by traderdrew, posted 01-26-2010 12:11 PM traderdrew has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 952 of 1273 (544868)
01-28-2010 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 939 by Brad H
01-28-2010 1:42 PM


Re: addition, subtraction, addition, subtraction, where does it end?
Hi Brad H
Raz a lot of your comments I recently covered with Taq and Wounded King, so if you would, please glance over those and if there is something that you said in this post that I didn't address, please let me know.
This thread is so fractured into subtopics that I have stopped reading it for the most part. If you can list the particular posts I'll read them. To do this, all you need to do is look at the top of the message where it gives the message number:
Message 939 of 951 (544696)
... as for your post that I'm replying to here as an example ... and put the number in parenthesis into this dbcode:
[mid=544696]
It becomes Message 939. This message id number is unique to the message, so I can post that code into any message on any forum and it links to your message #939 here.
Sure thing Raz. First, I couldn't tell by your post if the Nature article was citing any case study of an actual experiment done with Phasmatodea, or if it was entirely just another speculative story based on attempts to piece together the past. It did note some speculation in the portion that you quoted. (...wings were derived secondarily, "perhaps" on many occasions.) My emphasis added. My point of course is I was asking for an example of "observed" added new information to the DNA and not someone's surmising that that is what occurred. ...
The original link went to a public pdf copy of the article. Unfortunately I didn't keep a pdf copy and they have since archived it with just the abstract public. Again, my impression is that it is done based on genetic cladogram analysis, and it is entirely possible to find several known instances of divergence but not find all of them - science is tentative, after all.
With reply to your comment about what can cause certain adaptive traits such as wings to appear, disappear and reappear, I can think of a couple just off the top of my head. In HS my old biology teacher once explained that a group of flying beetles migrated to a small island. Strong winds would cause the flying beetles to keep getting knocked into the sea, however some offspring born with a genetic defect couldn't fly. The defect actually caused them to be able to survive in that environment and thrive. However any members born with ability to fly would continue to be blown out to sea and die. However if the species were thrust back into a main land environment, they would eventually revert back to the fliers being the dominant ones in the population.
You will excuse me while I chuckle a bit here. Here's the history of this issue with your comment in the middle:
Are you making the mistake of thinking that a phenotype that is fixed in a species can happen without genetic changes?
Actually yes Raz, I am. But I am not stating that they always happen without genetic changes. There are actually a number of mechanisms that can bring about changes in a populations traits.
Then, perhaps, you could share these, and then show how they actually apply to the walkingstick wing\wingless\wing\wingless pattern given in Message 809.
What I was asking for was an explanation for a mechanism that was not genetic.
What you have suggested is a genetic mechanism: a genetic mutation for wingless beetles being selected as an adaptation to an island ecology that leads to improved survival and reproduction.
Another example of how these things work is the famous Peppered Moth that always gets brought up in these debates. Within any species there are often trillions of varieties of alleles that natural selection has to work with.
Please see Peppered Moths and Natural Selection. Yes once again what we have is a change in the frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to changing ecological conditions (and melanic mutations are a common\easy mutation to find). Again, this is a genetic explanation, and not a non-genetic explanation.
Brad :However what I am stating is that I have never heard of a phenotype changing as a result of "observed" added (new) information to the chromosomal DNA.
Raz: ... Curiously what you know, what you believe, what you think, and what you deny, are completely irrelevant to what occurs in the real world. ...
... I was expressing a fact. The fact that I have not heard something. ... So when I say I have never heard of something, I am merely leaving it open for the possibility that one of my opponents might actually have more information than I on that subject. And if that be the case I am welcoming them to enlighten me.
So we are back to the walkingstick in Message 809:
quote:
Second, we have the case of walkingstick insects.
See Figure 1 from Nature 421, 264 - 267 (16 January 2003); doi:10.1038/nature01313 (reproduced below)
Walkingstick insects originally started out as winged insects (blue at start and top row). That diversified.
And some lost wings (red). And diversified.
And some regained wings (blue again). And diversified.
And one lost wings again (Lapaphus parakensis, below, red again).

Can you explain how this occurs when information is only lost?
Wings
No wings
Wings
No wings
All by loss of information? Did they 1st lose the information on how to make wings, then 2nd lose the information on how to lose the information on how to make wings, and then 3rd lose the information on how to lose the information on how to lose the information on how to make wings? How can you lose information to not do something that you have lost the information to do?
We can calculate the effect of such information on evolution as follows:
  1. Wings
  2. No wings = (a) + informationa = Wings + informationa
    IF going from (a) to (b) involves a loss of information then informationa is positive
  3. Wings = (b) + informationb = No wings + informationb = (a) + informationa + informationb = Wings + informationa + informationb
    IF going from (b) to (c) involves a loss of information then informationb is positive
Wings - Wings = informationa + informationb = 0
informationa + informationb = 0
informationa = 0 - informationb
Either information is gained in one case, or the information content that affects evolution ≡ 0
Obviously if information is always lost, that then this concept of information has no effect on what can and cannot evolve.
Comments in pink added for emphasis.
Now remember your claim:
Brad :However what I am stating is that I have never heard of a phenotype changing as a result of "observed" added (new) information to the chromosomal DNA.
So no more island beetles and peppered moth genetics with changes in the frequencies of hereditary traits in a few generations. These are fully established species that undergo continuing speciation where the wing/wingless traits are fixed in the whole population.
Look at the graphic again, and note that each branching in the cladogram represents a speciation event.
Now I will be perfectly happy to have you confirm your claim that you have "never heard of a phenotype changing as a result of "observed" added (new) information to the chromosomal DNA" by admitting that the information content that affects evolution ≡ 0, because I would agree with you.
Of course this means that the whole ID bandwagon about "information yada yada" has just been completely derailed.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 939 by Brad H, posted 01-28-2010 1:42 PM Brad H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 980 by Brad H, posted 02-07-2010 4:25 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 990 of 1273 (546034)
02-07-2010 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 980 by Brad H
02-07-2010 4:25 AM


the walkingstick problem - either "information" increases or it is irrelevant
Hi Brad H, thanks.
My apology Razd, I'm afraid I had tunnel vision when I made those comments. obviously they are genetic changes. I was focused on mutations which occur that add information to the genome. Not just changes to the genome in general.
So now we have obvious genetic changes, good. Now let's connect that with your previous claims:
Brad H Message 796: ... I should point out also that of course beneficial mutations occur. No one is denying that at all. What I am saying is that all mutations which occur (beneficial or detrimental) are the result of loss of information or loss of specificity or in other cases insertions and deletions. ...
Claim #1: all mutations result in a loss of information or function.
RAZD Message 809: Walkingstick insects originally started out as winged insects (blue at start and top row). That diversified.
And some lost wings (red). And diversified.
And some regained wings (blue again). And diversified.
And one lost wings again (Lapaphus parakensis, below, red again).
{picture not shown for brevity}
Can you explain how this occurs when information is only lost?
Brad H Message 821: But secondly I would like to point out that you are making the leap from observed DNA mutations to phenotype changes with the assumption that the one is the cause of the other, without (I presume) observable evidence.
Claim #2: phenotypic change can occur without genetic change.
RAZD Message 825: Are you making the mistake of thinking that a phenotype that is fixed in a species can happen without genetic changes?
BRAD H Message 834: Actually yes Raz, I am. But I am not stating that they always happen without genetic changes. There are actually a number of mechanisms that can bring about changes in a populations traits. However what I am stating is that I have never heard of a phenotype changing as a result of "observed" added (new) information to the chromosomal DNA.
Claim #3: there are a number of mechanisms that can change the phenotypes in a whole population of organisms.
RAZD Message 867: Then, perhaps, you could share these, and then show how they actually apply to the walkingstick wing\wingless\wing\wingless pattern given in Message 809Message 809. Asserting that something can occur so it is responsible for any piece of evidence you don't like doesn't actually show that in fact this is the case. Here is the rest of the original link (I've also fixed it in the previous post):
Volume 421 Issue 6920, 16 January 2003
{picture omitted for brevity}
Nature - Not Found
My apology Razd, I'm afraid I had tunnel vision when I made those comments. obviously they are genetic changes. I was focused on mutations which occur that add information to the genome.
So you have backed away from the non-genetic explanations of phenotypic change, and we are back, once again, to the walkingstick evidence originally provided in Message 809:
quote:
... we have the case of walkingstick insects.
See Figure 1 from Nature 421, 264 - 267 (16 January 2003); doi:10.1038/nature01313 (reproduced below)
Walkingstick insects originally started out as winged insects (blue at start and top row). That diversified.
And some lost wings (red). And diversified.
And some regained wings (blue again). And diversified.
And one lost wings again (Lapaphus parakensis, below, red again).

Can you explain how this occurs when information is only lost?
Wings
No wings
Wings
No wings
All by loss of information? Did they 1st lose the information on how to make wings, then 2nd lose the information on how to lose the information on how to make wings, and then 3rd lose the information on how to lose the information on how to lose the information on how to make wings? How can you lose information to not do something that you have lost the information to do?
We can calculate the effect of such information on evolution as follows:
  1. Wings
  2. No wings = (a) + informationa = Wings + informationa
    IF going from (a) to (b) involves a loss of information then informationa is positive
  3. Wings = (b) + informationb = No wings + informationb = (a) + informationa + informationb = Wings + informationa + informationb
    IF going from (b) to (c) involves a loss of information then informationb is positive
Wings - Wings = informationa + informationb = 0
informationa + informationb = 0
informationa = 0 - informationb
Either information is gained in one case, or the information content that affects evolution ≡ 0
Obviously if information is always lost, that then this concept of information has no effect on what can and cannot evolve.
Comments in pink added for emphasis.
Now remember your claim:
Brad :However what I am stating is that I have never heard of a phenotype changing as a result of "observed" added (new) information to the chromosomal DNA.
Look at the graphic again, and note that each branching in the cladogram represents a speciation event.
... obviously they are genetic changes. ...
Claim #1: all mutations result in a loss of information or function.
By your latest admission, this is now either falsified, OR the "information" concept involved is rendered irrelevant to evolution.
So do we get an admission that either information must have been added at one of these events or that the concept of "information" involved is useless in predicting what can and what cannot evolve?
Again, I will be perfectly happy to have you confirm your claim that you have "never heard of a phenotype changing as a result of "observed" added (new) information to the chromosomal DNA" by admitting that the information content that affects evolution ≡ 0, because I would agree with you.
Of course this means that the whole ID bandwagon about "information yada yada" has just been completely derailed.
Your alternative is to provide your explanation of
Claim #2: phenotypic change can occur without genetic change.
Claim #3: there are a number of mechanisms that can change the phenotypes in a whole population of organisms.
And how this applies to each of the entire species at each level of the above diagram. Without such explanation -- plus evidence of it actually applying to these situations.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : changed subtitle so not confused with other side threads

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 980 by Brad H, posted 02-07-2010 4:25 AM Brad H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1004 by Brad H, posted 02-11-2010 3:00 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1010 of 1273 (546590)
02-11-2010 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1003 by Brad H
02-11-2010 3:00 PM


age information here
Hi Brad H, still slugging away eh?
Now if you care to direct this conversation to the nearest "Age of the Earth" discussion, I'll be happy to continue it.
See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for starters. Note that the issue is not just the various methods for counting the miimum ages by various means, but the correlations between them.
See you there?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1003 by Brad H, posted 02-11-2010 3:00 PM Brad H has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1011 of 1273 (546592)
02-11-2010 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1004 by Brad H
02-11-2010 3:00 PM


Re: the walkingstick problem - either "information" increases or it is irrelevant
Hi Brad H, thanks,
The beetle example I gave explains just fine how an organism can go from flier, to nonflying, back to flier, merely by manipulating the code that already exists within the gene pool.
And you previously agreed that this does not apply to traits fixed by speciation events as shown on the diagram.
Also the walking stick fossil record (like all of the fossil record) is only evidence of a certain species existence.
You are still not paying attention. First, this does not use any fossil evidence, as the evidence is genetic, and second, the diagram includes 39 living species in the order Phasmatodea, and this includes several genera and family groups within the order.
This is not comparable to your beetle species, which only lost wings.
Message 809: See Figure 1 from Nature 421, 264 - 267 (16 January 2003); doi:10.1038/nature01313 (reproduced below)
Walkingstick insects originally started out as winged insects (blue at start and top row). That diversified.
And some lost wings (red). And diversified.
And some regained wings (blue again). And diversified.
And one lost wings again (Lapaphus parakensis, below, red again).

Can you explain how this occurs when information is only lost?
Wings
No wings
Wings
No wings
All by loss of information?
You have not explained this yet in any way that can account for what is shown in the diagram.
All presumed relationships and ages are merely just that...presumptions.
And once again I direct you to see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, as I have several times already (including one most recently in Message 1010 in answer to your request. It is rather dishonest in my opinion to keep making comments like this and not dealing with the age issue first.
You are referring to your graph as if it is iron clad. Yet you have no basis for such an assumption. Unless the entomologists conclusions of species relational branching were actually observed and documented, they have no evidence that they are in fact related or in which order they are related.
Again, the diagram is a cladogram based on genetic analysis. Here is the abstract for the article again:
Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects | Nature
quote:
Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects
Michael F. Whiting, Sven Bradler & Taylor Maxwell
Nature 421, 264-267 (16 January 2003) | doi:10.1038/nature01313; Received 29 May 2002; Accepted 31 October 2002
... Here we show that stick insects (order Phasmatodea) diversified as wingless insects and that wings were derived secondarily, perhaps on many occasions. These results suggest that wing developmental pathways are conserved in wingless phasmids, and that 're-evolution' of wings has had an unrecognized role in insect diversification.
Please also note what I said in Message 867 about reversing mutations:
In Message 825 I asked you whether 123456789 and 1213456789 have the same information, and you blanked. The problem for you is threefold:
  1. that the additional number is indeed an increase in information, in the normal information theory meaning, thus any point insertion is indeed an increase of information,
  2. that a second mutation can remove the addition, thereby reverting to the original condition, and one or the other of these mutations necessarily violates your "no increase in information" position,
  3. finally, when we talk about DNA rather than just numbers, we can have a section of DNA that codes for a protein being interrupted by this insertion, changing the protein output.
So if we see an on again off again situation, where you are not dealing with the change in the proportions of existing alleles in a population (as in the peppered moths), then you have the situation #2 above.
This is the condition we see with the walkingsticks: there are a few species where the female is wingless and the male has wings, but none of the remaining species in the diagram have a mixture of some with wings and some without wings in their populations.
Message 809 We can calculate the effect of such information on evolution as follows:
  1. Wings
  2. No wings = (a) + informationa = Wings + informationa
    IF going from (a) to (b) involves a loss of information then informationa is positive
  3. Wings = (b) + informationb = No wings + informationb = (a) + informationa + informationb = Wings + informationa + informationb
    IF going from (b) to (c) involves a loss of information then informationb is positive
Wings - Wings = informationa + informationb = 0
informationa + informationb = 0
informationa = 0 - informationb
Either information is gained in one case, or the information content that affects evolution ≡ 0
Obviously if information is always lost, that then this concept of information has no effect on what can and cannot evolve.
Comments in yellow added for emphasis.
So far you have not convinced me that "information" as you define it - something that is always lost - is worth consideration as any critique of what can or cannot evolve.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1004 by Brad H, posted 02-11-2010 3:00 PM Brad H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1016 by Brad H, posted 02-12-2010 11:39 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1035 of 1273 (546763)
02-13-2010 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1016 by Brad H
02-12-2010 11:39 AM


Re: the walkingstick problem - either "information" increases or it is irrelevant
Hi again Brad H, still avoiding the issues?

Issue #1: Age

See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for starters. Note that the issue is not just the various methods for counting the miimum ages by various means, but the correlations between them.
Thanks Razd. I'll check it out. I'll wait to see your post there addressed to me and then I will respond.
And once again I direct you to see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, as I have several times already (including one most recently in Message 1010 in answer to your request. It is rather dishonest in my opinion to keep making comments like this and not dealing with the age issue first.
But Razd, I am only just now in this message responding to Message 1010. So isn't it just a little bit unfair for you to call me dishonest? I said (in this message) that I was waiting for you to address me on that other site, and you haven't yet, so are you being dishonest? Why haven't you done so?
First off, you should not need me to post specifically to you as the entire thread was written for you (and other creationists that complain about the age of the earth not matching what they want it to be). This is just conflict avoidance behavior.
Second, your post Message 1003 was not the first time you mentioned the issue of age in this forum.
See Message 33: happy birthday.

Issue #2: Walkingsticks

I don't see an explanation as to why the two would not be comparable. Please note that just saying its not, doesn't help me understand why?
Because your theoretical beetle is a single species, whereas the walkingsticks are an order composed of some 39 extant species, each with different genomes.
Because your theoretical beetle still has alleles for wings that are continuously selected against by the island ecology, wissuhereas there are whole species that are wingless without the selection pressure of island ecology.
Because your theoretical beetle is theoretical while the walkingstick differences are documented observed objective fact.
I think at this point Razd, it would be better if I just hold off on commenting any further on your diagram, until you have provided me with a link that better explains exactly how its conclusions were constructed.
This is just more conflict avoidance behavior. Sorry, I don't do your homework for you. I have given you the available information on the web, and if this is not sufficient for you, then the onus is on you to look up the source document in your local library. Here is the source information again:
Message 867:
Are you making the mistake of thinking that a phenotype that is fixed in a species can happen without genetic changes?
Actually yes Raz, I am. But I am not stating that they always happen without genetic changes. There are actually a number of mechanisms that can bring about changes in a populations traits.
Then, perhaps, you could share these, and then show how they actually apply to the walkingstick wing\wingless\wing\wingless pattern given in Message 809. Asserting that something can occur so it is responsible for any piece of evidence you don't like doesn't actually show that in fact this is the case. Here is the rest of the original link (I've also fixed it in the previous post):
Volume 421 Issue 6920, 16 January 2003
Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects | Nature
quote:
The evolution of wings was the central adaptation allowing insects to escape predators, exploit scattered resources, and disperse into new niches, resulting in radiations into vast numbers of species1. Despite the presumed evolutionary advantages associated with full-sized wings (macroptery), nearly all pterygote (winged) orders have many partially winged (brachypterous) or wingless (apterous) lineages, and some entire orders are secondarily wingless (for example, fleas, lice, grylloblattids and mantophasmatids), with about 5% of extant pterygote species being flightless2, 3. Thousands of independent transitions from a winged form to winglessness have occurred during the course of insect evolution; however, an evolutionary reversal from a flightless to a volant form has never been demonstrated clearly for any pterygote lineage. Such a reversal is considered highly unlikely because complex interactions between nerves, muscles, sclerites and wing foils are required to accommodate flight4. Here we show that stick insects (order Phasmatodea) diversified as wingless insects and that wings were derived secondarily, perhaps on many occasions. These results suggest that wing developmental pathways are conserved in wingless phasmids, and that 're-evolution' of wings has had an unrecognized role in insect diversification.
Now notice that I will allow the blockage of wing formation to occur by a mutation, and that this blockage can be reversed by removing the mutation, and that a subsequent mutation can block it again, creating the pattern seen, however this is precisely the scenario (2) given above:
quote:
2. that a second mutation can remove the addition, thereby reverting to the original condition, and one or the other mutations violates your "no increase in information" position,
I await your explanation.
I myself know nothing about walking sticks. But I am a very quick learner, I just need a complete paper to look at.
It should be available in your local library.

Issue #3: "new" and "information loss" are useless concepts

In Message 825 I asked you whether 123456789 and 1213456789 have the same information, and you blanked.
My bad. I missed that some how. But the answer is "no" they do not have the exact same information potential. And yes it is an increase in information. But is it "new" information or just repeated, and does the outcome cause a benefit?
Ah, so you are going to play the "hid the pea" game with semantics.
When we look at actual DNA we see that we are limited to repetitions of A, G, C and T, as pointed out in Message 867:
Indeed, let's get real: DNA is composed of strings of amino acids in a very restrictive alignment.
DNA - Wikipedia
quote:
Chemically, DNA consists of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides, with backbones made of sugars and phosphate groups joined by ester bonds. These two strands run in opposite directions to each other and are therefore anti-parallel. Attached to each sugar is one of four types of molecules called bases. It is the sequence of these four bases along the backbone that encodes information. This information is read using the genetic code, which specifies the sequence of the amino acids within proteins. The code is read by copying stretches of DNA into the related nucleic acid RNA, in a process called transcription.
The DNA double helix is stabilized by hydrogen bonds between the bases attached to the two strands. The four bases found in DNA are adenine (abbreviated A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T). These four bases are attached to the sugar/phosphate to form the complete nucleotide, as shown for adenosine monophosphate.
These bases are classified into two types; adenine and guanine are fused five- and six-membered heterocyclic compounds called purines, while cytosine and thymine are six-membered rings called pyrimidines.[8]
So along any strand you have A, G, C, or T in various repeating patterns. DNA is so long, generally, that all the patterns of A with A, G, C or T on each side of it are already present somewhere, as are all the patterns with the other bases in the center. There just is not that many different patterns available for DNA at the molecule to molecule level.
Basically this means that the claim that any mutation is just a repeat of some section elsewhere is mundanely true, no matter what the effect of the change is on the organism metabolizing food, reproducing and surviving. Being mundanely true means that it has no predictive power on what can and what cannot evolve as a result.
No matter how you cut the mustard, any point insertion will duplicate a segment of DNA elsewhere in the strand ... so there is nothing new eh?
So any insertion of any one of these four basic DNA elements will never be a "new" combination, as they exist many times elsewhere in DNA. The problem is that this conflicts with your other statement regarding "new" information:
Message 1004: Everything I have said is within the context of NEW genetic information being added to the genome via random mutation with a positive outcome. And that is what I am denying ever takes place. I am not denying that several manipulations can take place to allow for a positive outcome, but they are never the addition of new information. ... At some point, to get from pond scum to people, there had to have been NEW additions taking place in the genetic code. It is these NEW additions that we never observe in biology.
The difference between "pond scum" and "people" is that there are different arrangements of those same four basic DNA elements, so either these differences are not "new" information or insertion of any of the four basic DNA elements into a strand of DNA can produce "new" information ...
... or your concept of "new" is as useless as your definition of "information" as something that is always lost.
Certainly there is no restriction on making the various changes in DNA other than the survival and breeding of the organism involve. Curiously, this means that evolution can proceed unhindered by your claims of "information loss" and "no new information" -- reality is once again unaffected in any way by your opinion.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1016 by Brad H, posted 02-12-2010 11:39 AM Brad H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1061 by Brad H, posted 02-21-2010 4:54 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1068 of 1273 (547674)
02-21-2010 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1061 by Brad H
02-21-2010 4:54 AM


And another dodge around the bush of reason ....
Hi Brad H,
Wow, I haven't seen the "I don't do your homework for you" response in a long while. I should point out to all that what you are actually saying is: "Evolution is true because of the evidence of walkingstick gene mutation, but I am not going to prove the gene mutation really took place, that's on you."
In other words you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. It is an easy matter to actually look up the information, but it seems you cannot be bothered.
Sorry my poker friend, I call. You say you have a full house, so now its your job to show me your cards. Your abstract is not evidence for anything. Note the below quote.
Sorry, I called your bluff first -- you know, the one where you said information was only lost? The one where you said you had an explanation for the wings to no wings to wings changes, one that did not involve the addition of information?
RAZD Message 809: Can you explain how this occurs when information is only lost?
RAZD Message 825: Are you making the mistake of thinking that a phenotype that is fixed in a species can happen without genetic changes? ... Again, either new "information" is involved or "information" is irrelevant to what can and cannot evolve. There are many such experiments.
RAZD Message 867: Then, perhaps, you could share these, and then show how they actually apply to the walkingstick wing\wingless\wing\wingless pattern given in Message 809. Asserting that something can occur so it is responsible for any piece of evidence you don't like doesn't actually show that in fact this is the case. Here is the rest of the original link (I've also fixed it in the previous post):
Nature - Not Found
I await your explanation.
RAZD Message 952: You will excuse me while I chuckle a bit here. Here's the history of this issue with your comment in the middle:
What I was asking for was an explanation for a mechanism that was not genetic.
What you have suggested is a genetic mechanism: a genetic mutation for wingless beetles being selected as an adaptation to an island ecology that leads to improved survival and reproduction.
So we are back to the walkingstick in Message 809:
Now I will be perfectly happy to have you confirm your claim that you have "never heard of a phenotype changing as a result of "observed" added (new) information to the chromosomal DNA" by admitting that the information content that affects evolution ≡ 0, because I would agree with you.
Of course this means that the whole ID bandwagon about "information yada yada" has just been completely derailed.
RAZD Message 990: So now we have obvious genetic changes, good. Now let's connect that with your previous claims:
Claim #1: all mutations result in a loss of information or function.
So you have backed away from the non-genetic explanations of phenotypic change, and we are back, once again, to the walkingstick evidence originally provided in Message 809:
By your latest admission, this is now either falsified, OR the "information" concept involved is rendered irrelevant to evolution.
So do we get an admission that either information must have been added at one of these events or that the concept of "information" involved is useless in predicting what can and what cannot evolve?
Again, I will be perfectly happy to have you confirm your claim that you have "never heard of a phenotype changing as a result of "observed" added (new) information to the chromosomal DNA" by admitting that the information content that affects evolution ≡ 0, because I would agree with you.
RAZD Message 1011: You are still not paying attention. First, this does not use any fossil evidence, as the evidence is genetic, and second, the diagram includes 39 living species in the order Phasmatodea, and this includes several genera and family groups within the order.
This is not comparable to your beetle species, which only lost wings.
You have not explained this yet in any way that can account for what is shown in the diagram
Again, the diagram is a cladogram based on genetic analysis. Here is the abstract for the article again:
Nature - Not Found
Please also note what I said in Message 867 about reversing mutations:
So if we see an on again off again situation, where you are not dealing with the change in the proportions of existing alleles in a population (as in the peppered moths), then you have the situation #2 above.
This is the condition we see with the walkingsticks: there are a few species where the female is wingless and the male has wings, but none of the remaining species in the diagram have a mixture of some with wings and some without wings in their populations.
So far you have not convinced me that "information" as you define it - something that is always lost - is worth consideration as any critique of what can or cannot evolve.
RAZD Message 1035: Hi again Brad H, still avoiding the issues?
This is just more conflict avoidance behavior. Sorry, I don't do your homework for you. I have given you the available information on the web, and if this is not sufficient for you, then the onus is on you to look up the source document in your local library. Here is the source information again:
Nature - Not Found
Certainly there is no restriction on making the various changes in DNA other than the survival and breeding of the organism involve. Curiously, this means that evolution can proceed unhindered by your claims of "information loss" and "no new information" -- reality is once again unaffected in any way by your opinion.
The astute reader will note that your bluff has been called seven (7) times (eight including this one), and that you have consistently avoided the issue.
What we have here is continued avoidance of actually showing something\anything that makes a valid argument for this.
quote: "The evolution of wheels was the central adaptation allowing people to escape predators, exploit scattered resources, and disperse into new niches, resulting in radiations into vast numbers of wheeled automobiles. Despite the presumed evolutionary advantages associated with full-sized wheels, nearly all automobiles have many partially wheeled or wheelless lineages, and some entire orders are secondarily wheelless, with about 5% of extant types being roller less. Thousands of independent transitions from a wheel form to wheelless form, have occurred during the course of automobile evolution; however, an evolutionary reversal from a wheelless to a volant form has never been demonstrated clearly for any auto lineage. Such a reversal is considered highly unlikely because complex interactions between barrings, axles, brakes and wheel bushings are required to accommodate controlled rolling. Here we show that automobiles diversified as wheels were derived secondarily, perhaps on many occasions. These results suggest that 're-evolution' of the wheel has had an unrecognized role in auto diversification."
I used almost verbatim the exact same language in the above quote as you did in yours. My tale sounds silly only because you and I both know that wheels were designed and not evolved.
Which only proves that it is a bad analogy because it is incapable of matching reality. What you in essence are saying is that because you cannot explain the wings to no wings to wings changes, your are now insinuating that they were designed instead of evolved.
In other words, because you will not admit to yourself that information must be increased here, and that you believe this cannot occur without design, that therefore design must be involved.
Sorry, poor logic is still poor logic. Avoiding the issue is still avoiding the issue.
All you have shown is that when confronted with evidence that disproves your point, you call out the "god-did-it" canon, just as you did on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 Message 34:
Which is the claim that if God created certain features to "look old," then who's to say that God did not just create everything last Thursday, complete with vivid past childhood memories and all? Well in answer to that I reply, yes that is exactly what this is LIKE.
Whatever fantasy you like to believe is now fully explained by Bradology: if the evidence is inconvenient, it is because god made it that way just to fool you.
The astute reader knows that you are avoiding the issue, and that these excuses to avoid it are rather pathetic conflict avoidance behaviors. Pathetic in, pathetic out. Let me leave you with these definitions:
Cognitive dissonance(Wikipedia, 2009)
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, and also the awareness of one's behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
A powerful cause of dissonance is when an idea conflicts with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." This can lead to rationalization when a person is presented with evidence of a bad choice. It can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.
delusion -noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
  1.     a. The act or process of deluding.
        b. The state of being deluded.
  2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
  3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
The onus is on you to prove your point, and to do that you need to do the necessary homework to provide the proper substantiation for your argument.
You have failed to substantiate your argument in any way.
Therefore, either "information" is added or "information" is irrelevant.
Q.E.D.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : ?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1061 by Brad H, posted 02-21-2010 4:54 AM Brad H has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1069 of 1273 (547676)
02-21-2010 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1061 by Brad H
02-21-2010 4:54 AM


Obviously erroneous
Hi Brad,
So you have proven that you have no argument to explain the wings - no wings - wings changes in the walkingsticks, and are not interested in finding the truth.
Now lets deal with this poor pathetic excuse for logic:
The difference between "pond scum" and "people" is that there are different arrangements of those same four basic DNA elements, so either these differences are not "new" information or insertion of any of the four basic DNA elements into a strand of DNA can produce "new" information ...
Yes, and a stop sign uses 4 of the same 26 letters that can be found in Darwin's book, Origin of Species. But obviously a lot of new information must be added to the four letters STOP to convert it to an intelligible book.
And rather obviously, when it comes to DNA you do not have 26 letters, only the 4 base groups, A, G, C and T. What you spell is constrained to combinations of those letters.
Therefore you analogy fails even before it begins, because it is incapable of representing reality.
Amoebas to amphibians evolution ...
Try again, amoebas are modern organisms ... the word you are looking for is eukaryote. Amoebas are eukaryotes, but they did not necessarily evolve into amphibians, there being a whole world of eukaryotes to "chose" from. Not all eukaryotes are amoebas.
... requires information that codes for eyes, limbs, reproductive organs, brains, lungs, blood vessels, etc... to be added.
And you have failed to show any reason to think that such "information" either cannot evolve or (whatever it is) is significant to what can evolve. If in doubt, read Message 1068.
That is what I am talking about that we do not observe.
Because you won't look at it doesn't mean that others can't see the evidence. If in doubt, read Message 1068 again.
Biology should show this process taking place at least in some small way.
It has. Numerous times. Evolution - the change in proportions of hereditary traits in breeding populations in response to ecological opportunity - is observed in every species living today, in the historical record, in the fossil record and in the genetic record. Evolution has also been observed to result in speciation - the division of parent populations into genetically isolated daughter populations - and this results in the formation of nested hierarchies of common descent. For example, the evolution of the mammal ear from the reptile ear is clearly documented in the fossil record of the therapsids.
Again, either "information" can evolve or the term is meaningless when talking about what can and what cannot evolve.
. Its not just the adding of more letters, but the very specific arranging of the letters, that needs to be explained as well.
AAANNNDDD ... mutation and natural selection happen to explain that very well. Ergo no problem for evolution.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : ]

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1061 by Brad H, posted 02-21-2010 4:54 AM Brad H has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024