PROOF against evolution

I think the discussion of information is seriously flawed and won't get into it other than to say that DNA can certainly be considered a medium for the communication of information. In fact, information theory holds that the less predictable a bit stream is, such as might be the case with junk DNA, the more information is potentially communicated. In other words, I disagree with crashfrog, which isn't to say I agree with Buzz.But it's the Washington Post article about junk DNA I wish to discuss. First, as crashfrog notes, Buzz has misinterpreted the article, though in Buzz's defense I have to say the article not only lends itself to misinterpretation, it encourages it. If you go to the Washington Post site for the article ('Junk DNA' Contains Essential Information) you'll see that Justin Gillis is a staff writer, not a science writer. He seems to have incorrectly focused on junk DNA as the significant finding. Crashfrog correctly notes that though the opening paragraph seems to be saying that it's been discovered that most junk DNA actually has a purpose, if you read the rest of the article you'll see that all they've done is discovered that some junk DNA *may* have a purpose. Hence, as crashfrog says, less DNA may be junk than we previously thought, but just a little less, not a lot less.It might help to read an article on the exact same topic by a science writer. This article is from Science News (Mining the Mouse: A rodent's DNA sheds light on the human genome), which isn't public but I've put a copy in the EvC Forum archive, and it has the proper focus, barely mentioning junk DNA.And if you read this short summary of the same research from Scientific American (Mouse Genome Sequenced), where junk DNA is referred to as "non-protein-encoding sequences" near the end of the article, you'll see where they quantify the finding and note that the number of sequences involved is a mere 2,262. The total number of such junk DNA sequences is easily above 100,000, so as crashfrog already noted, this reduces the number of junk DNA sequences by just a small amount, only 2% or 3%. Just to be absolutely clear, Buzz is therefore incorrect to claim that all junk DNA is useful information when he says: But there are several more important points. First, Buzz seems to have misinterpreted what it means to discover something new when he says in Message 57: And in Message 59: Well, yes, Buzz, we *are* interested in truth, or at least in being accurate, and so it's important to repeat that you've misinterpreted the article (again, it's easily misinterpretable, please read the other higher quality articles provided above). This research has added a little bit to our knowledge of genetics, not "upended the DNA applecart" or "retooled their instruction on it." Everything we already know about DNA remains true. What they've uncovered is evidence that some DNA sequences previously thought to be non-coding may actually have a purpose. We don't know what that purpose is, though it is speculated it may be related to turning genes on and off. And whatever it does, we don't know what the mechanism is, since it doesn't seem to follow the familiar DNA=>RNA=>protein process.Secondly, and more importantly, even if the DNA applecart had been overturned revealing new processes previously unimagined, have you given any thought, Buzz, to how this would in any way support your views? Other than discovering that DNA really isn't the basis of inheritance, how could any new discovery about the mechanisms of genetics help you?Thirdly, and even more importantly, Buzz seems to be forgetting that tentativity is foundational to science, that all our scientific knowledge is considered tentative and open to reinterpretation or replacement in light of new knowledge of understanding. In other words, this research is just one little bit of scientific progress improving and extending what we know. Finding out something new that we didn't know before is what science is all about. Buzz seems to think that this is a weakness of science when it is actually what science is all about.But the other important point is that this diversion into whether junk DNA is actually junk or not is just that: a diversion. If Buzz and crashfrog were originally discussing information then I think they should resume that topic.--Percy

Congratulations, Buzz, for yet another post that doesn't rebut a single point but simply makes some unsupported assertions. Specifically: As misunderstood by you, it wasn't off topic, but the research actually has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make. Now that the content of the articles has been explained to you, you can either rebut and point out where the explanations were wrong, or you can accept the explanation and withdraw your point. Simply asserting that it was *too* on topic is poor form, not to mention a violation of the guidelines. This is getting so tiresome. We have to explain the science to you, then we have to convince you the science is not made up, then we have to explain, often at length, why your ideas contradict science, then we have to tell you how to debate, then we have to keep reminding you how to debate. Your persistence is not in question here, Buzz. Okay, already, we can see you're persistent. Could you please start replying meaningfully? Yet another meaningless, unsupported bare assertion, and another violation of the guidelines. Bare unsupported assertion and another violation...oh, never mind. And you never said who Nancy Pearcy was. Geez, Buzz, as already explained at length by me in Message 61 and supported by links to two additional articles that explain the research by Dr. Lander's group much more accurately than the Washington Post article, you misinterpreted what you read. You either have to rebut my explanation, or explain how your point still follows from a correct interpretation of the articles. You can't just keep repeating your points.--Percy

No, Buzz, it's an attempt to persuade you to begin following the Forum Guidelines, which you agreed to follow when you signed on, specifically rule 2: Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration. Buzz, if your goal is to stymie open debate and cause frustration, then you're scoring plenty of points. Congratulations. But if your goal is to intelligently discuss the issues and give sincere and informed responses to the points raised, then you're deep into the negative numbers.There are tons of examples, but let's just take the latest one, my Message 61 which explained how you misinterpreted the Washington Post article. Why don't we just start there? Either explain how the explanation I provided was wrong (in other words, provide rebuttal), or withdraw your point. So far all you've done is pretend the main ponit of the message doesn't exist. I'm not going to respond to anything else in your message so as to give you no opportunity or excuse to once again avoid the issue (except to mention that you misspelled Pearcey as Pearcy, which is why a search of Pearcy turned up nothing but the message with your misspelling).--Percy

First, it shouldn't be necessary to prove the failure to in any way address an important and significant point to someone qualified to discuss the subject. I don't believe you're dishonest or duplicitous, only that your knowledge isn't yet at a point where you're able to recognize which points are important, even when they're pointed out to you. I think you're rushing into debate with too little knowledge and understanding, another point that I have made several times and that you have ignored each time.Note that your failure to address important points is a common complaint people have about you, most recently Zhimbo in Message 70, and then there's your complete abandonment of the Analysis of Amos 9:11-15 as Prophecy, Frozen Tropical Animals and Buz's seashell claim threads in mid-discussion. Most people you've debated with here have this same complaint. You've established a clear and unmistakable pattern of behavior, Buzz. There's nothing ambiguous about it.Second, proving it is easily done. In Message 61 I explained, at length and using links to two better written articles on the same research from Science News and Scientific American, how you had misinterpreted the Washington Post article. You thought the article was saying that junk DNA wasn't junk, but was actually important, and you used this interpretation to support your rebuttal to crashfrog's Message 50 where he says that most DNA is junk, and so most mutations do not occur where any important information exists . I explained that it was only saying that *some* junk DNA *may* have a purpose, and that it amounted to only 2% or 3% of junk DNA, and that therefore your rebuttal to crashfrog fails, and that his original claim that most DNA is junk stands. Instead of replying to this rebuttal by pointing out where it was wrong or mistaken, you ignored it and simply listed a bunch of bare assertions, including a simple repetition of your original assertion about junk DNA in point 4 of your Message 62. In other words, you're ignoring my rebuttal and continuing as if your original point had never been challenged. This is a violation of rule 2 of the Forum Guidelines: Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.EvC Forum was created not to be just another "me, too" Creation/Evolution site, but to provide a place where discussion could actually move forward by including a couple simple but important debating guidelines within the forum guidelines. Achieving this goal is proving more difficult than I would ever have guessed, especially when nice guys like you become so determined to do whatever you damn well please and hang the rules.Please follow the guidelines, Buzz. Score as many points as you like, but please follow the guidelines. If you choose not to, please note the enforcement paragraph at the bottom of the Forum Guidelines page.--Percy

Not sure why you say this. What advantage are you thinking of? While this could easily change in the future as genetics and microbiology research continues, there is no scientifically established function at present for almost all non-coding DNA sequences, only evidence supporting that some of it may do something. Junk DNA seems a perfectly acceptable, and the most widely understand, way to refer to them at the present time. Am I missing something?--Percy

Buzsaw, Crashfrog and Mammuthus,The points about "junk DNA" being poor terminology make sense to me, and I have no problem abandoning the term here. Unfortunately, despite its drawbacks it seems likely it will remain a term in widespread use elsewhere.Trying to undo the damange I've done by helping bring this thread back on topic, I think the last on-topic point was the one by Buzz that RM couldn't produce life's complexity. I think the points concerning junk DNA (whoops) are not really relevant. Just before that Buzz had commented that the human genome is the most complex, which of course isn't true, and Crashfrog pointed this out.I'm not sure how Buzz's line of argument disproves evolution, anyway.--Percy

The Creationist position confuses meaning with information. In formal information theory, information is an abstract and quantifiable concept representing the capacity of a communications channel, storage medium, etc, to carry or store information. In it's simplest form the capacity is equal to 2 raised to the power of the number of bits, but there are all kinds of coding schemes that can come into play and that improve reliability at the cost of redundancy.As formally defined, the less predictable the next bit in a stream, the greater its information content. A truly random bit stream is the maximum amount of information that a channel can carry.Creationists confuse information with meaning and argue that a random bit stream carries no information, when what they should really say is that a random bit stream has no meaning.Claude Shannon's original paper on information theory is not too hard to follow. In fact, anyone can understand the non-mathematical portions: http://cm.bell-labs.com/...s/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf--Percy

Hi, Buzz!First, a quick correction: Percy is not spelled "Percey". Two points in reply:

1. I meant meaningless in the context of my post, which was about your misinterpretation of the Washington Post article, and never mentions RM or NS. Perhaps irrelevant would have been a better choice of words. Maybe your point was intended to be interpreted in terms of your earlier discussion with Crashfrog?
   ​
2. Your statement is incorrect. NS only requires a storehouse of variation within the population's genome upon which to draw. RM adds to the storehouse. Your later clarification that "NS wouldn't happen before alleged RM" I find no fault with, assuming you mean that RM is necessary to building up a storehouse of variation.

Perhaps we can return to the original point of my Message 61, which explained at length and with references to two much more clear descriptions of the same research from Science News and Scientific American how you had misinterpreted the Washington Post article. Is the proper meaning now clear?Or perhaps we can return to the discussion about information in the genome in light of the clarification about information theory that I offered in Message 84. Is it now clear how the Creationist position on information erroneously confuses meaning with the concept of information as defined by information theory? You might find it helpful to first read and understand Claude Shannon's paper: http://cm.bell-labs.com/...s/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdfThere is no urgency to reply. Please take all the time you need.--Percy

Hi, Buzz!There's no need to wait for a response from me since PaulK covered the issue very succinctly in Message 89, but as long as I'm posting a message I may as well try to clarify the point a bit more.While I'm sure some staff reporters can do a fine job reporting science, and while maybe even Justin Gillis usually does a fine job and was perhaps just having a bad day, the evidence of his gross exaggeration is right before your eyes.First Mr. Gillis says this (and a lot of other stuff along the same lines, but I'll just quote this short portion): In Mr. Gillis's lingo, which may be of his own invention, genes are the machinery and the junk DNA that's actually functional is the instruction manual. How big is this instruction manual? Well, later in the article Mr. Gillis says this, which is in very close agreement with the other two articles from Science News and SciAm: So this instruction book is as much as 3% of the junk DNA. Does that sound like a "large proportion" to you? If we take a typical 90% junk DNA genome and reduce the junk DNA by 3%, that leaves 87.3% junk DNA. That's not the impression Mr. Gillis left you with, is it? In the opening paragraphs of the article he made it sound like most of the junk DNA actually had been discovered to have a purpose, didn't he? But using Mr. Gillis's own numbers it turns out that 87.3% of the junk DNA is still junk.About Shannon and information, I'm sorry you didn't find Shannon's paper helpful. Shannon is the father of information theory. I will be referring you to his paper again.As I already explained, the Creationist position confuses information and meaning. In information theory, information is a formal term for the capacity of a communications channel or storage medium. The first couple pages of Shannon's paper define, among other things, what a legal message is. For instance, if we have a four-bit channel then these might be the legal messages: What is the meaning of these messages? That's for people to decide. We can assign whatever meanings we like, and those meanings have nothing to do with information theory.A common information theory nostrum is that the most dense information is a genuinely random bit stream. This is usually where the Creationists reply that a stream of random bits could not possibly communicate any information, but this is because they're confusing meaning with information. True, a random stream of bits is meaningless, but we're not trying to communicate meaning, we're trying to communicate a message, which means we're trying to communicate one of the 16 4-bit messages listed above. A random stream of 4 bits will always be one of the above messages.The problem Shannon is trying to solve is how to communicate information when there is noise in the channel. In other words, what if the communication channel introduces errors into the bitstream. We might send the message "0000" and have "0001" come out the other end. The change of the last bit from "0" to "1" is due to the introduction of error. The way to combat error is through the introduction of redundancy. For example, we might decide to send each bit twice, which would make our messages look like this: This has an interesting side effect, which is that once you read the first bit, you already know the second, unless there's an error. And the same for the third bit. Once you know the third bit, you already know the fourth, again, unless there's an error, and so forth. This approach is called redundancy, and there are many different coding techniques that apply it.It is also the source of another oft heard information theory nostrum that you can't tell someone something he already knows. That's why the 2nd, 4th, 6th and 8th bits communicate no information unless there's an error, because the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th bits have already told us what those bits must be. Redundancy reduces the efficiency of a communications channel because in the absence of error we already know what every other bit is going to be.It also makes clear why a random bit stream communicates more information, because if the bit stream is truly random then the even numbered bits are no longer a function of the odd numbered bits, and so they can take on any value. Hence, our ability to predict these bits based upon our coding scheme is lost, we no longer know what they'll be, and the next bit will always be telling us something we didn't already know. Of course, half the time it will be telling us that there's an error, but that's something we didn't know.This might seem arcane and difficult, but think on it a while and see if it starts to make sense.--Percy

No, Buzz, he's talking about DNA. Protein is *not* genetic material, and while RNA can be considered genetic material depending upon context, Gillis's article is not that context. Here's a quote from yet another article (Not Found | Jacobs School of Engineering) indicating your misunderstanding: And this from an article in Forbes (404) explains in greater detail the process Lander alludes to in the Washington Post article, and clearly indicating that they're talking about DNA: Here's another from Bio-ITWorld (http://www.bio-itworld.com/archive/021003/paperview.html) explaining Lander's views and clearly indicating he's talking about DNA: But the best reason we know that Mr. Gillis means DNA when he uses the term "genetic material" comes from Mr. Gillis himself right in the first sentence of the article: Do you ever stop to wonder why you're so often accused of misunderstanding what you read? Could so many other people who have never met really all reach the same conclusion if there were no objective basis for it? The only common element in all this is *you*.You are so incredibly persistent in your misunderstandings that this must be a common theme running throughout your life. I'll bet you don't know 1% of what's going on with the people around you because no one tells you anything for fear you'll get stuck in one of your misunderstandings and make life miserable for everyone for weeks on end, just like here. I think you're just a more polite Syamsu, and if this continues much longer would suggest that your earlier decision to inhabit only the Free For All forum was appropriate.Moving on to Shannon and information, let us use an example that illustrates just how random mutation creates information. Take a gene in a population of organisms that codes for eye color. The population has only three eye colors, each coded by a specific 4-bit sequence or message (we'll use 1's and 0's to keep things simple, but they could as easily be the CAGT nucleotides of DNA). Please keep in mind that the 4-bit sequences are the messages, while the colors are the expressions of those messages, in other words, the meaning.No other sequence ever appears for this gene until a random mutation occurs due to copying error during reproduction, and our message list increases by one: New information has been added to the gene pool for our population. Where before there were only three eye colors, now there are four. If the yellow message (the proper term is allele) is dominant then the organism has yellow eyes, otherwise its eyes will be the color of the dominant message. If it is recessive then it will have to await spreading a bit through the population until an organism receives two copies of the gene, and only then will the population gain a member with yellow eyes.Of course, as we've already discussed here, favorable mutations are rare. It is much more likely that a copying error in a coding DNA sequence would result in a negative outcome, eg: [Added by edit: I accidentally left out the concluding point to this message, but I've posted it in Message 104. --Percy]--Percy[This message has been edited by Percipient, 07-17-2003]

If this is true then how about you stop putting us through the ringer by arguing the most indefensible positions at length. You obviously are seeing much of this material for the first time, so how in the world can you justify placing such a high value on your interpretations when everyone else is telling you you've made yet another misinterpretation? If it's not in your nature to dig in your heels whether you know what you're talking about or not, then why are you doing this?Just because we disagree with you about evolution does not mean we're liars and cheaters trying to fool and trick you at every turn, nor are we dumpkoffs encountering material like genetics for the first time, some of us being informed laypeople and others of us being actual experts in genetics. We can't lie or be significantly mistaken about this stuff without being quickly corrected by the others here. Mammuthus and Crashfrog didn't even let me get away with the relatively minor transgression of using the term "junk DNA" (I'm still using it, I know - sorry, guys, it's just too convenient a term). Do you really think we're willing to distort our science by lying just so we can score a point in a discussion? That would be suicide, because we'd constantly find ourselves backing positions that conflict with genuine knowledge, and the web of deceit would soon be smothered.The obvious effort in researching "genetic material" is most welcome, but let me ask you something. Have you ever tried to translate a passage in a foreign language with which you're unfamiliar using only an English/Other-language dictionary? If so, then you know how poorly this works, particularly if you're translating a passage on a topic you're not familiar with. It turns out that understanding context is key to proper translation, and if you don't understand the context because you're unfamiliar with the topic then you can't render a proper translation.So if you don't understand the context, then reading definitions often doesn't help much. And any writer of talent is going to vary his vocabulary and variously stress and strain the dictionary definitions to keep his writing interesting. In other words, your efforts at understanding what Gillis meant by "genetic material" by looking up definitions is an admirable and necessary first effort, but it doesn't come close to equaling the advantage gained by reading widely on the topic to gain some contextual landmarks to guide your growing understanding. There's that argument from personal incredulity again! You know, you're not the only one who can engage in personal incredulity. For example, I just can't believe how someone so obviously nice and intelligent as yourself can think that just because something "feels" wrong that therefore it must be wrong.If evolution is wrong then the scientific evidence opposing it must be out there. Just don't go believing that Wyatt's wheel, Carl's hammer or Hovind's dinosaur have anything to do with science.By the way, "enthropic" is not a word, I think you meant "entropic activity". Since the law of entropy is never violated (I'm speaking on a non-quantum scale), all activity is entropic. You ask why is all this biological activity happening here and not elsewhere? Could it be because earth is at a beneficial location, neither too far nor too close to the sun? At heart, life is just very complicated chemistry, and so conditions must be warm enough to permit chemical activity, but not so warm that chemical bonds can't form.Would it change your "feeling" about this if they eventually discover life on other planets, say, Europa, a moon of Jupiter, where they suspect life may exist beneath the icy outer layer?--Percy

Hi Buzz,This is an addendum to my Message 99. I somehow forget to include the important point.Shannon measures information by taking the log₂ of the number of messages: In the case of our original population we had three messages: The amount of information for the three messages (alleles) of this gene is: A random mutation produced a new message (allele) in our population: The amount of information for the four messages (alleles) of this gene is: So the amount of information in the population for this gene has gone from 1.58 to 2.00. In other words, information in actual information theory (which isn't what you learn if you read Pearcey and Gitt) is measurable and quantifiable, and this clearly demonstrates that RM *can* create new information.Whether it creates new meaning or not is another matter. For instance, our new allele could have still caused brown eyes: --Percy

1LTD says that energy in a system is conserved, that it can be neither created nor destroyed. It not only has nothing to do with information, even if there were an analogous conservation of information law that held that information could neither be created nor destroyed (there isn't), it would conflict with your first argument where you say you don't deny that RM can create new information.Can you tell that either Pearcey and Gitt are jerking you all the way around the block, or you don't have any idea what they're saying? Now I'm sure we'll now start a long multi-post series while you protest that you do *too* understand what they're saying. How do you prevent it from producing large amounts of information? You run a tiny concentration of salt into the sea for millions of years and you get salty oceans. You create a tiny amount of random genomic change in each generation for millions of years and you get lots of variation. How can information generated truly randomly be repetitive?--Percy

Hi, Paul!Thanks for quoting some of Gitt's position. About this point: This is the exact opposite of actual information theory, the science begun by Claude Shannon with his landmark paper A Mathematical Theory of Communication: In other words, the meaning isn't irrelevant to us, but it *is* irrelevant to the engineering problem of communicating information. Information theory addresses the engineering problem of communications, not the semantic issues.Buzz, I haven't read anything by Pearcey or Gitt, but from your contradictory message it seems quite likely that they don't agree with each other. Your attempt to synthesize a single explanation while drawing upon both was bound to get you into trouble.--Percy

Hi, Buzz!Your Message 121 sounded like an exit statement, but I'm going to reply to this anyway. That's all you're going to say, that you meant 2LTD instead of 1LTD? How does 2LTD make any more sense than 1LTD? 2LTD says that the entropy of a system can never decrease. 2LTD has as little to do with information as 1LTD. I don't think you paused for even a second to consider the analogy. Here's the progression with salt, millennium by millennium:

start:          initial condition, no salt
1st millennium:  X grams of salt per liter of ocean
2nd millennium: 2X grams of salt per liter of ocean
3rd millennium: 3X grams of salt per liter of ocean
4th millennium: 4X grams of salt per liter of ocean
5th millennium: 5X grams of salt per liter of ocean
etc...

Since there are usually multiple copying errors in every reproductive event, mutations accumulate in the genome just like salt accumulates in the ocean. Here's the progession with a genome, millennium by millennium:

start:          initial condition, no mutations
1st millennium:  X mutations
2nd millennium: 2X mutations
3rd millennium: 3X mutations
4th millennium: 4X mutations
5th millennium: 5X mutations
etc...

In other words, Buzz, the accumulation of increasing amounts of variation in the form of mutations is a natural and inevitable process. If you're going to claim it doesn't happen then you have to name what would prevent it. Observing what, Buzz? The evolution of organisms on another planet? For the sake of argument, let's say there's other life out there in the universe. Let's even say it's on a planet orbiting the closest star. How would we observe it?And how about answering an earlier question that you ignored. If we happen to discover life on Mars or Europa, what would it mean to this claim of yours? Of course it does things repetitively, but you're looking at it the wrong way. Waves and tornadoes and hurricanes do the same basic things over and over again, and so do mutations. The changes caused by all these things accumulate. For the most part, each wave is a lot like every other wave, and every single base-pair substitution mutation is pretty much just every other. But just as each wave beats down the shore a little more, each mutation causes a greater difference from the original form. Each random mutation changes a random base-pair in a random way, and these changes accumulate over time just like salt in the ocean.Let's say you have a genome with a million base-pairs, and that the mutation rate per reproductive event is 5x10^-6, and let's only consider single base-pair substitutions. That gives us, on average, 5 mutations in each offspring. Since the offspring pass the mutations on to their progeny, the mutations accumulate over time. Since the mutations are random, they'll occur in random places over the million base pairs.Now, Buzz, in light of this, please try to make your point again.May I say that after you're brief flight to the Free For All forum and after you stated that perhaps because of limited time you had insufficiently studied the issues, you have picked up precisely where you left off: rapid and extremely poorly thought out and unresearched responses. I regret that you are becoming the object of personalizations that run counter to the Forum Guidelines, but I find it difficult to fault the frustration caused by your approach which not only violates the guidelines, but just as significantly also requires people to make the same points over and over and over again. And usually in increasing detail that has as little chance you'll comprehend it as the prior attempts.My original suggestion from long ago stands. Do some background reading. Don't give a knee-jerk answer with the first thing that pops into your head. Instead, research your answers, like you did with "genetic material". And don't give up. I've watched some pretty impressive improvements in knowledge and understanding of science at this very website.--Percy