Give your one best shot - against evolution

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

Rapid P.E./survival of precursor-civilizations is unacceptable for explaining accelerated DNA-mutations here.

​

---

PE doesn’t require accelerated mutations, EXACTLY the same number of germ line mutations will suffice. What PE explains is the increased chance of FIXATION of said mutation in the population due to a small, isolated population. Every single sperm carries many mutations, & the chance of getting them fixed in the population is related to the population size. Therefore evolution (change in allele frequency) occurring is greatly enhanced in a small population, even if the mutation is neutral, the advantage is even greater if the mutant gene increases fitness.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

Note: Innumerable (chains of) civilizations with flexible DNA-mutations are required for macro-evolution. This takes a lot of faith to believe.

---

This makes no sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

I can't even believe one DNA-mutation ever took place that was beneficial to survival, let alone the billions required.
The same is true concerning fossils of 'primal-life forms' (if there be such a thing).

---

Here’s two links showing advantageous mutations. http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/BC/Bacterial_Mutations.htmlhttp://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htmMark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Fred,Please quote Gitt's definition of new information.I am concerned that you know enough about new information to know it denies evolution, but are unable to define new information. Here is a post that I have posted now for the third time.......

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

​

Are you denying the ribosome and its accompanying support structure deciphers the genetic code to produce an amino-acid string? The intermediate sender is the nucleus, the ultimate sender is a higher intelligence who programmed the DNA.

---

No, I don’t deny it, I made the point in the first place in message 65.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

​

The ribosome is not a transmission, it is the product of a transmission.

​

There are countless examples of products of transmission of code that are receivers; in fact, ALL receivers are products of transmission of code! There are NO exceptions! If you can find one, then by golly you will surely get a nobel prize!

---

The ribosome is not a transmission, it is the product of a transmission. Good point, I should have chosen my words more carefully.I’ll try again.Are there any natural or non-natural examples where the product of a transmission is received by, & decoded by the same transmission product, not involving genetic material?Freds definition of new information.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

A new codon instruction that performs some function intended by the sender. For example, if a new codon arose that caused DNA transcription to jump to some other specific part of the genome to perform a useful function (a ‘JUMP’ codon), that would be new information.
This definition I used does not only apply to codons. It applies to anything that is a code: morse, C++, PowerPC machine language, english language, etc.

---

I know I’m being pedantic, but this definition doesn’t apply to anything other than codons/DNA.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

It is not possible to define all aspects of information in short posts to discussion boards on the internet. Information theory requires books to understand, and there are different levels of information. That is the reason I chose to focus on a specific aspect of information, a code, that is more easily understood by the layman. There is not an information scientist in the world who disputes that a code represents complex information.

---

I don’t need to understand all information theory, I’m just after a definition.I’ve checked your links, although interesting, don’t answer my question. This conversation can’t really progress unless we have an absolute definition of what new information actually is. The links you provided don’t even define information, except in a contextual way, let alone new information.Are you really telling me that a single, all encompassing definition of new information doesn’t exist? Or even information, I understand that there are levels of information, but it is still information. Such a definition may have to be general, but can still be accurate.Lastly, if I leave my house, open the front gate, & there is a pattern of twigs on the floor that say EAT, I then dutifully carry out this instruction by going inside & fixing a sandwich. How is this not message/information?Thanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Mark, your timing is horrible! I realize I left you hanging from last time I was here, so I promise I'll address your post next. Hopefully I can find time tomorrow morning, otherwise next week sometime. Good night!

---

NP, take your time, (not that much time, mind )

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

New information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature, such as sonar, where this coding sequence did not previously exist.

---

Would you consider an addition or deletion of a nucleotide from a gene new information, if it produced something useful for an organism? That is, that the protein (or RNA, for that matter) has changed.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Fred,Thanks for the in depth reply. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark:
[B]
Would you consider an addition or deletion of a nucleotide from a gene new information, if it produced something useful for an organism? That is, that the protein (or RNA, for that matter) has changed.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred:
[B]
No, for several reasons:It obviously does not fall within the realm of pragmatics and apobetics (expected action, intended purpose).It’s too vague an example. The word useful can become quite subjective. Also, should the organism be considered, or the population? As evolutionists love to say populations evolve not individuals. They can’t have it both ways. So if any alleged arrival of a new, useful function only benefits certain individuals in certain environments but not the population as a whole, is it really new information, or a net deterioration of the currently existing information? Case in point, by your criteria one could use the sickle-cell example and claim it is new information. Yet this is clearly a loss of information, as any info scientist will tell you. Note that I have never once encountered an informed evolutionist trained in info theory who thinks sickle-cell is an example of new information. You will only find laymen making this claim. [/QUOTE]Regarding: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred:
[B]
It obviously does not fall within the realm of pragmatics and apobetics (expected action, intended purpose). [/QUOTE]No one is saying new functional products of a mutant allele have a prior expected action, much less an intended purpose, which is why your particular take on info science re. Evolution is inappropriate, it is a strawman at this level.Thus, I’m beginning to wonder what the fuss is about. If new gene functions aren’t considered new information, then evolution doesn’t need "new information".You have said in another thread that information science is the dagger in the heart of evolution. How can this be so, when the raw material of evolution, the beneficial mutation, isn’t considered new information anyway, by your own definition? All evolution requires is new/altered function, it isn’t bothered with squabbles over whose definition is better.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Hi all,Not to be pushy, but can we take Peter B's replies to http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=49&p=10 , although it does belong here too, it would be better to let Peter expand upon his arguments there, & at the same time we can keep it all under one roof.Allows us all to keep tabs on everyone elses input without having to keep track of several threads.Hope I'm not being too bossy Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Mark:

​

You have said in another thread that information science is the dagger in the heart of evolution. How can this be so, when the raw material of evolution, the beneficial mutation, isn’t considered new information anyway, by your own definition?

​

Fred:

​

No, the problem is the subjective use of the term beneficial. As I stated earlier, many evolutionists claim the sickle-cell mutation is beneficial, and therefore must represent new information. Yet I know of no info scientist in the world who believes sickle-cell represents an increase in information. I also pointed out that creation info theorists such as Spetner would accept a bonafide beneficial mutation (one that is beneficial to the population), as increased information. I’ll repeat my point again for emphasis sake, even this less stringent requirement cannot be met by evolutionists. Evolutionists drudge up a few questionable examples, yet there should be literally billions of examples that meet Spetner’s requirement if evolution were true.

---

The problem is most definitely not the subjective use of the term beneficial. I have given you a hypothetical example, that is directly beneficial to the organism in the next generation, is it new information, or not?Sickle cell trait shows a phenotypic gain & loss of function. Now, if Gitts definition won’t allow a new function to = new information, then how can you claim that function loss = information loss, whilst maintaining the same standards?I’m talking about a hypothetical scenario, where a new function is gained via a mutation. Whether it is beneficial to the organism there & then is irrelevant. For example, an enzyme that digests cellulose in a carnivore may not immediately benefit the species, but in a few generations during a famine may decide whether a few organisms live or die. You can say it’s only new info at that stage, I really don’t mind.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

No evolution absolutely requires, it demands, the appearance of new algorithms to program for new useful features. How did we get to feathers from scales? To sonar from no sonar? From single-cell to human? It is incorrect for you to say that evolution merely requires new/altered function. It need the additional program space, plus the algorithm (that’s why informed evolutionists try to argue gene duplication/subsequent mutation & selection).

---

1/ OK, what is the nature of the algorithm that is required to produce new information that goes beyond mutation/phenotypic function gain?2/ Does evolution absolutely require new algorithms to produce new features? My earlier question asked would you consider an addition or deletion of a nucleotide from a gene new information, if it produced something useful for an organism? That is, that the protein (or RNA, for that matter) has changed. You said no.I’m sure you’ve heard of the nylon digesting bacteria, ( http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm ), where the addition of a single thymine produces an enzyme that digests nylon in a gene sequence. Here an organism has a new feature, now, either,1/ a new algorithm has produced a new feature, fulfilling your definition of new information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature, or,2/ a new feature occurred without a new algorithm, making your statement wrong. In this case it comes back to new function not requiring new information, & therefore evolution not requiring new information, as you define it.Scales to feathers, molecules to man. Evolutionary theory predicts it happened via many small incremental mutations that add/delete/improve function, rather than saltational events. If you are saying that these increments do not represent information, then so be it, but information science then cannot prohibit evolution.It seems to me that both you, & Gitt, in defining new information, have divorced new phenotypic functionality from new information. Any phenotypic gain of function isn’t new information, but it seems that any phenotypic loss of function is information loss!!??Information, as you define it, still seems irrelevant to me regarding evolution.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

The problem is most definitely not the subjective use of the term beneficial. I have given you a hypothetical example, that is directly beneficial to the organism in the next generation, is it new information, or not?

​

What hypothetical example did you give me?

---

Would you consider an addition or deletion of a nucleotide from a gene new information, if it produced something useful for an organism? That is, that the protein (or RNA, for that matter) has changed.But let’s stick to Flavobacterium sp.K172, for now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Mark:

​

Now, if Gitts definition won’t allow a new function to = new information, then how can you claim that function loss = information loss, whilst maintaining the same standards?

​

Fred:

​

Quite easily. By your logic, if your computer explodes into a ball of fire, and you toast marshmellows over it, then it must be new information since its got a new function!

​

As it pertains to our discussion, what Gitt information says is that it is impossible to have a new algorithm (subroutine) arise in the genome without a sender (ie a Programmer).

---

Seriously false analogy.1/ Keep it in context. We are talking about a self replicating molecule that codes for chemical & morphological traits. A self immolating computer doesn’t qualify on these criteria, that we are both basing our informational content on.2/ Bursting into flames may help me feed myself, but has no new function for itself, that being the key issue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

I’m talking about a hypothetical scenario, where a new function is gained via a mutation. Whether it is beneficial to the organism there & then is irrelevant.

​

My marshmellow analogy shows that it is quite relevant!

---

See above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

For example, an enzyme that digests cellulose in a carnivore may not immediately benefit the species, but in a few generations during a famine may decide whether a few organisms live or die. You can say it’s only new info at that stage, I really don’t mind.

​

No, it’s not new info if it is already pre-programmed information that is idle. You are now getting very close to the third of three common objections I get on the information problem!

---

It’s not already pre-programmed into the genome, it arose from another coding sequence via mutation. It just didn’t increase an organisms fitness until the prey ran out.Anyway, let’s change it then, cellulose digestion immediately benefits the organism that has the mutation. So now is it new information?So it’s new information when it is used immediately? But not if there’s a generational delay? Please reference this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Mark:

​

I’m sure you’ve heard of the nylon digesting bacteria, ( http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm ), where the addition of a single thymine produces an enzyme that digests nylon in a gene sequence.

​

Here an organism has a new feature.

​

Fred:

​

Is it a useful feature, or is it bad (something we can roast marshmellows over)?

---

If you have enough of them, & dry them out, I suppose you could light them.Yes, it’s a useful feature, it enabled the organism to make use of an otherwise inaccessable foodstore. It doesn’t get much more useFULL than this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Mark:

​

, now, either,

​

1/ a new algorithm has produced a new feature, fulfilling your definition of new information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature, or,

​

Fred:

​

No, I said the feature has to be useful. Why did you leave useful out? And it’s not a new algorithm, it’s a deviation of a current algorithm. It makes the organism heterozygous at that locus. That means if one has a selective advantage over the other and gains a foothold in the population, then the less fit allele might be driven to extinction over time. Is the net result a positive gain of information, or a negative gain? Those are the types of questions that need to be asked. It's also why evolutionists posit gene duplication, then mutation, to get new information in the genome.

---

Actually, it doesn’t have to be useful, I merely chose an example that was to make it more palatable to yourself. It has to be useful, if it is ultimately to be affected by natural selection, rather than genetic drift.Heterozygous at that locus? This is a bacteria we are talking about, it doesn’t have homologous gene pairs as in eukaryotes. A carbohydrate digesting gene was completely lost to all descendents of the parent, & the new allele digests nylon.And it’s not a new algorithm, it’s a deviation of a current algorithm. If the deviation is a different algorithm to the parent, then it’s a new algorithm, by definition, therefore, new information, by your definition.Let me remind you, new information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature.Or are the goalposts being moved now? So that new information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence, that is very different indeed to the original parent sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature.Your definition has been met, Fred. Flavobacterium sp.K172 has exhibited new information.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Mark:

​

If you are saying that these increments do not represent information, then so be it, but information science then cannot prohibit evolution.

​

Fred:

​

Information science prohibits evolution because of what evolution claims, that huge amounts of information have accumulated via random mutation and blind selection. Evolution also claims that the genetic code arose naturalistically. Information science also says that this is impossible.

---

Nope, evolution doesn’t claim that huge amounts of information have accumulated via random mutation and blind selection, as you define it.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Mark:

​

Heterozygous at that locus? This is a bacteria we are talking about, it doesn’t have homologous gene pairs as in eukaryotes. A carbohydrate digesting gene was completely lost to all descendents of the parent, & the new allele digests nylon.

​

Fred:

​

So now there are two alleles. Which one is better for the population? What would constitute a loss of information to you? It seems you think anything new is a net gain in information. I think this is the crux of the problem you guys are having.

---

What? Each organism has one allele, one gene. There is no homologous pair. I use the word allele to differentiate from the un-mutated, & still extant parent gene.Now you are moving the goalposts. We are discussing your claim that evolutionary information gain is impossible. Not, evolutionary information net gain is impossible. In this example, (by your definition) information has been lost & gained. But hang on!! Evolution can only lose information, why has it gained? The only issue I am addressing is that of new information being evident at all.Nevertheless, if the original carbohydrategene found it’s way back in via recombination, the bacteria would phenotypically have lost no information since both algorithms are present. Another possibility would be gene duplication before the thymine addition, leaving two consecutive copies, one of which mutates & digests nylon, the other, carbohydrate. A net gain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Mark:

​

new information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature. Or are the goalposts being moved now? So that new information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence, that is very different indeed to the original parent sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature.

​

Fred:

​

I made no such goal post adjustments. I did not stipulate that the coding sequence had to be very different indeed to the original parent sequence. Aka, strawman.

---

I only asked because it looked like the goalposts were about to go walkabout, re. the and it’s not a new algorithm, it’s a deviation of a current algorithm comment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Mark:

​

Your definition has been met, Fred. Flavobacterium sp.K172 has exhibited new information.

​

Fred:

​

I did a search of this, and found that the new information you are talking about is the result of plasmids, which means its not new information at all. Unless of course you think passing information from one hand to the other is new information! Do you?

​

---

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htmIn fact, the plasmid involved in this case is very well known and characterized. Scientists have studied both the original (pre-mutation) plasmid and the novel (post-mutation) plasmid, in great detail. It turns out that the novel plasmid's mutated DNA for production of nylonase is almost identical to a non-coding repetitive DNA sequence on the original plasmid; the difference is the single nucleotide that triggered the Frame Shift. This mutation did not exist 60 years ago. If this gene was always there, whether in a plasmid or not, we can reasonably wonder why a bacteria would have a gene for hydrolysing an artificial polymer that did not exist until just a few decades ago; and why, in the absence of such a substrate, was the gene not mutated to uselessness over the millenia?We could go off on an unnecessary paper searching tangent here, but the point surely is, we have the original carbohydrate gene sequence, we have the nylon gene sequence, & the nylon differs by a single thymine addition. Single nucleotide additions are observed, so it is entirely reasonable & plausible to assert that a thymine addition to a gene produces a new function via a new algorithm. The product of the new gene is an enzyme that allows nylon to be used nutritionally, that is, it is a new useful feature.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

New information = the presence of a new algorithm (coding sequence) in the genome that codes for a new useful feature.

---

This scenario fits your definition of new information.Your contention is that new information is impossible for evolution. This scenario shows that it is possible.Perhaps it's time to utilise that built in wriggle room you allowed for yourself in the same post you defined "new information" in. Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-10-2002]

Fred,I'm away for a long weekend, will get back to you tuesdayish.....Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Fred,Info & Genetic replies are over here now. http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=55&m=5#5Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.