Information and Genetics

Well, well, well. Welcome back, ChaseNelson. It took me some time to dig up that old thread, since you never replied to my last post.As to your assertion that I failed to answer any of your questions, I think it would behoove you to re-read the thread in question.Please respond to:1. my last paragraph on specified complexity and its problems2. my citation of Dawkins and why your argument concerning what he said is erroneous3. my examples of the immune system and cochlear system from the previous post which you have failed to address4. the three references I provided concerning the evolution of biological information5. my challenge to you to either accept MY definition of information or provide an operational one of your ownAs to your claim that I failed to respond to the final paragraph you cut-and-pasted from some creationist website, I stand by my contention that the paragraph has NOTHING to do with the topic - information and biology - and is rather a transparent attempt to divert the discussion into an abiogenesis/origin of chirality and the availability of oxygen in the early atmosphere. You don't even cite the references on your own - one of them ends in the middle of a sentence, showing not only didn't you READ the references, but merely cut and pasted the whole argument from someone else.If you want to discuss - we'll discuss. However, this time around there's going to be absolutely no tolerance on my part for straight cut and paste. If you can't synopsize in your own words the arguments, then all you're doing is re-hashing something someone else wrote - and which you may or may not understand.If you don't want a discussion under those constraints, fine. At least I won't have to wonder for three months what's going on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Peter

​

I partially agree/disagree.

​

A study of genomes would discover systemtic non-randomness even without knowing what to look for. This is evidence of specialness which indludes design but I agree it is not proof of design.

---

Hi TB:I actually partially agree with this (removing the word "design"). There is no question that genomes are pretty well adapted to their current function. Although a case could be made (and has been) that many of the non-coding sections in the genomes of various organisms are pretty good evidence that "random" substitutions and duplications do exist (I'm thinking of the Alu sequence repetition in humans repeated over a million times; the so-called "satellite DNA" in Drosophila which consists of a seven bp sequence repeated 11 million, 3.6 million, and 3.6 million times - comprising over 40% of the genome). Even if these sequences have a structural function now, it may be a question of evolution making use out of something originally "useless".The other issue with your statement, of course, is to justify the use of the terms "finely tuned" at all. Obviously a leopard or human wouldn't be a leopard or human if their respective genomes didn't "code" specifically for the products necessary to build a leopard or human, by definition. In that sense, of course they're "finely tuned" (to state the obvious). If they sequenced any other way they wouldn't build leopards and humans (duh). (A rose by any other sequence wouldn't be a rose). On the other hand, if by "finely tuned" you mean "perfect" or even "approaching perfection", then you are way off base, and the nonsense sequences present in every genome investigated to date falsify the "perfect" genotype argument.Which in a round-about way, brings me to my point. The only way we are justified in asserting that the genomes of modern, living organisms are "finely tuned" is by understanding that their current form/sequence represents the end product of billions of years of evolution. Modern organisms with genomes which promote their survival are the beneficiaries of millions of generations of survivors. The organisms whose genomes weren't "finely tuned" for their particular environment and lifestyle aren't around any more. Moreover, simply because the genotypes appear finely tuned NOW, doesn't necessarily mean that a given genotype won't be selected out in the future if conditions change.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChaseNelson:
Hello,I am by no means back as this is the first day of a hectic school year. Yes, SLPx, I know exactly what you mean--I find time for one board, and then things get busy again so I end up skipping around.[/b][/quote]Good luck with school. Hopefully you'll have the opportunity to actually respond to my final post on the original thread.

quote:

---

However, in this post, I'd like to clear up a few misconceptions that Quetzal has put forth. Most importantly, I never copied and pasted anything. If you can show me what 'creationist website' I pasted from, I'd be... well, confused (seeing I did not do such a thing)! As to the statement that I don't even READ the references I cite, I challenge you to think again. Ask me to type any given sentence on any given page of ANY of the articles/books I cited and I will give them to you. I have everything I cite right here in my room, and I have read them all. By the way, which one ends in the middle of the sentence? I'd just love to complete it for you. Along those lines, how does a mistake I make imply that I did not read the references? I find this very confusing, as well.

---

Really? How interesting. You are to be congratulated on laboriously retyping all those quotes. Perhaps to avoid such misunderstandings in the future you might want to consider synopsizing in your own words and simply reference the articles.

quote:

---

Ad hominem doesn't work, Quetzal--at least not with me. For a while I was actually worried I had done something wrong. I see now that my worry was in vain.

---

That wasn't ad hom. An ad hominem attack would be to call into question your honesty and maturity directly - for example by calling you a liar for cutting and pasting a direct Phillip Johnson misquote of Dawkins here. I'm sure since you are quoting directly from the original source you are fully aware that the ellipses cover 16 full pages (part in the preface, part on page 2, and part on page 18!) - which represents one of the largest ellipse gaps I've ever seen - and weren't drawn from page 2-3 of the book as you cite in your reference. Johnson's misquoting can be found here. Anyone notice the similarities?However, since I don't engage in this type of tactic, I won't bring it up.Hopefully someday you will decide to respond substantively. In the meantime, enjoy school.[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 08-28-2002]

Yeah, and what's really funny is that Mr. "I only use original sources and have them all right here with me at home" not only apparently pasted a misquote, but he then cited the wrong book in his "references" - the quote's from "Climbing Mount Improbable", not "Blind Watchmaker". Sigh, they never learn...here[/url]. So he could probably truthfully state he didn't get it from Johnson.[edited a second time: Naw, I take it back - I just did a side-by-side comparison, and it's definitely Johnson's text.][This message has been edited by Quetzal, 08-29-2002]

Now I have to humbly apologize to ChaseNelson. The misquote really IS from "Watchmaker", not "Mount Improbable", although beginning on page 3, not 2. (I hate it when that happens - teach me to check my own original sources.)Can someone please explain to me why Johnson and Safarti saw fit to misquote "Watchmaker" in reviews of "Mount Improbable"? These two can't get it right even when getting it wrong, or what?