Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 4:39 AM
18 online now:
Heathen, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,107 Year: 5,144/19,786 Month: 1,266/873 Week: 162/460 Day: 7/97 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Author Topic:   Give your one best shot - against evolution
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 151 of 224 (12961)
07-07-2002 2:26 PM


Just for fun, one can take a look and see what 'evolutionist Dr.Tom Schneider thinks about Fred's arguments:

http://www.fred.net/tds/anti/fred.williams/


    
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 2964 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 152 of 224 (12962)
07-07-2002 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by mark24
07-06-2002 5:59 AM


quote:
Please quote Gitt's definition of new information.

Sorry, no time. You’ll have to search the web or get his book.

quote:
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?

If I understand you correctly, I think you are asking for an analogy to the ribosome/DNA relationship, where an end product encoded in the DNA (ribosome) itself is used to translate code from the very source (nucleus DNA) that produced the ribosome. One such analogy would be where a host transmits to a storage device an FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array) configuration that will enable the storage device to translate a specific protocol to follow. The host then uses the protocol to communicate specific instructions to the recently installed hardware configuration on the storage device. The FPGA (ie ribosome) is encoded at the host (ie nucleus DNA) and also serves to decode subsequent instructions from the host.

quote:
Me: 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.


You misunderstand. If a new instruction arose in C++, say to do a new type of conditional jump instruction, this would constitute new information.

quote:
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.

And this is precisely how some evolutionists attempt to brush-aside the information problem (see Joe Meert for recent example).

quote:
Are you really telling me that a single, all encompassing definition of “new information” doesn’t exist?

Not one that everyone agrees on, because of the obvious implications to the origins question.

quote:
Such a definition may have to be general, but can still be accurate.

My abridged “definition” given to you, or the one given to Joe and elucidated to TrueCreation, serve as accurate statements of what new information is. Perhaps we can call them corollaries of information.

quote:
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?

It may or may not be. This provides a good example of Gitt information. If someone arranged the twigs, then obviously it is information. It has syntax and semantics (English language), and pragmatics and apobetics (expected action, intended result). If the twigs were arranged randomly (wind, etc), then there is no expected action and intended result. You would chow down when you shouldn’t have! (actually, your example would be better served if the message was something like ‘HELP’, as that would more likely draw attention; it would be silly for someone to write the message ‘eat’, and even sillier for you to blindly follow it ).
What if the message was ‘help’ but in a foreign language? Unless you recognized a clear pattern (especially if it was in Chinese), chances are you would dismiss it as random. But because you failed to see it doesn’t mean it’s not information. It is information, just unrealized information (as Dembski likes to call it). It has semantics, syntax, pragmatics, and apobetics.

quote:
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.

No, for several reasons:

1) It obviously does not fall within the realm of pragmatics and apobetics (expected action, intended purpose).

2) 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.

How do informed evolutionists try to deal with the info problem? They often postulate that new information can be added via gene duplication and subsequent mutation of that gene. That way, the original information is still present, and new information can arise on the new duplicate via mutation/selection. If we ignore the top two layers of Gitt information (which would render this mechanism as an impossible method for originating new information), then a door opens where one could, with a wild imagination, envision an algorithm arising to produce some protein or set of proteins that provide a new, useful function for the population. As Dr Lee Spetner pointed out in his book “Not by Chance”, there is not one single compelling example of this occurring at the genetic level. Yet there should be a myriad of examples available if evolution is true. Again note that Spetner’s requirement is a watered-down version of information when compared to Gitt information. Even the less stringent definition used by Spetner poses devastating problems for NeoDarwinian evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by mark24, posted 07-06-2002 5:59 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by edge, posted 07-07-2002 3:46 PM Fred Williams has responded
 Message 155 by mark24, posted 07-07-2002 6:18 PM Fred Williams has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4518
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 153 of 224 (12966)
07-07-2002 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Fred Williams
07-07-2002 2:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Note that Dr. Schnieder only deals with Shannon information (or traditional communication theory). He rejects Gitt information for obvious reasons (it would force him to be a creationist, something he does not desire.

Or it could be that he does not believe that Gitt Information is entirely analogous to biological systems.

Yes, Fred, your (perhaps not so) favorite bonehead geologist here still wondering how you apply Gitt Information to biological systems. I admit to being relatively ignorant of IT, and that is why I have come to rely upon you for enlightenment. Many of the websites you and others recommend get bogged down in jargon that I do not have the time to become entirely familiar with. That is why I have asked so many basic questions that you don't seem to care to answer.

Now, I agree that IT might explain, model or even describe the genome and pathways of development, but I simply do not see it as anything more than a model based on assumptions (oh, dread!). And unfortunately, I have been exposed to too many numerical models of complex natural systems that utterly fail to represent reality. Because of this I feel a substantial degree of skepticism regarding the engineer's ability to take into account all of the variables in such a system, especially when some of the science is still cutting edge. That is why I ask so many stupid questions.

For the benefit of myself and others here, I have located what I think Gitt's laws are.


"(1) No information can exist without a code.
(2) No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.
(3) No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.
(4) No information can exist in purely statistical processes.
(5) No information can exist without a transmitter.
(6) No information chain can exist without a mental origin.
(7) No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.
(8) No information can exist without a will."

Actually, as a natural scientist, I disagree with virtually every one of these. It seems that Gitt is stacking the deck here, defining what information is and then saying, "Aha! Evolution is impossible!"

He goes on to say:

"The Bible has long made it clear that the creation of the original groups of fully operational living creatures, programmed to transmit their information to their descendants, was the deliberate act of the mind and the will of the Creator, the great Logos Jesus Christ.

We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation."2

Actually, it is not really clear here whether Gitt seems more interested in the agenda of proving his religious philosophy or practicing a scientific method of inquiry.

What I don't get is if the 'Logos Jesus Christ' is the sender of this information, who is the receiver? What conscious mind is sending the message from organism to organism? What is the will behind the code for a protein? Based on this simple-minded analysis it would appear to me that Schneider has a much more credible concept of IT and how it applies to natural systems than Gitt.

quote:
Please quote Gitt's definition of new information.

Fred: Sorry, no time. You’ll have to search the web or get his book.


And yet you can write nice long posts, and even start new threads ("Page's Misuse...."). Come on, Fred, we thirst for knowledge. How about just a sentence or two? Or maybe your own opinion?

quote:
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.

Fred: And this is precisely how some evolutionists attempt to brush-aside the information problem (see Joe Meert for recent example).


Sorry, Fred, but it's beginning to sound like an excuse. I could just as easily say, "... and this is how Fred attempts to brush aside the fossil record..." Can you reply to the statement?

quote:
Are you really telling me that a single, all encompassing definition of “new information” doesn’t exist?

Fred: Not one that everyone agrees on, because of the obvious implications to the origins question.


Some of us are looking to you for guidance here, Fred. Or do you just not want to be pinned down?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Fred Williams, posted 07-07-2002 2:44 PM Fred Williams has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by derwood, posted 07-07-2002 4:25 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 167 by Fred Williams, posted 07-08-2002 5:32 PM edge has responded

  
derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 154 of 224 (12968)
07-07-2002 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by edge
07-07-2002 3:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by edge:
Some of us are looking to you for guidance here, Fred. Or do you just not want to be pinned down?

Most likely, he doe snot want to get pinned down. As you might recall, whenever he committed to anything specific on the old OCW board, he was shown to be in error.

Easier to maintain the "I'm always right" facade when you refuse to commit to anything for which there are rational standards of evidence for.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by edge, posted 07-07-2002 3:46 PM edge has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3303 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 155 of 224 (12975)
07-07-2002 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Fred Williams
07-07-2002 2:44 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Fred Williams, posted 07-07-2002 2:44 PM Fred Williams has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Fred Williams, posted 07-08-2002 5:19 PM mark24 has responded

    
Peter
Member (Idle past 2031 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 156 of 224 (13034)
07-08-2002 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Fred Williams
07-05-2002 8:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Gitt information demands that a programmer is required for any new information (considering some of the advances in gene therapy, I suppose you can get new information in the genome this way). There certainly is a barrier, as you can fit only so much sequence data on the chromosomes.

Oh dear ... doesn't that mean you now have to proove that there
is a programmer of the genetic code to make any claims that
it is information at all ?

I thought people were arguing that the information contect
prooved it was created/designed, but now you are using a
definition of information that requires knowledge of the programmer.

[b] [QUOTE]
Here would be acceptable examples of new information:

1) A new program installed on your computer (such as WordPerfect), where it did not previously exist

2) A new gene (likely set of genes) that produce sonar, where sonar did not previously exist in the genome.

[/b][/QUOTE]

1) does not refer to information ar all, it's just data.

2) has new data (the gene) introducing new information (the sonar).

Change to the gene is not a change in information, but data.

So the EXPRESSION of the gene is the INFORMATION.

So shrimp leg supression consititutes new information.

Whether a change is negative or positive it is new information
if it changes an expressed trait.

No amount of dictionaries handed to you give you information,
only data. If you read and interpret that dictionary you
have gained information from it.

Change the data in an interpretable way, and you have new
information. In your dictionary example, instead of a typo
change a crucial word within a definition (or introduce a typo
that is still a valid word). The information conveyed is
different, and since it wasn't there before, is new.

In genetic terms if you were to accept that the expression of
the gene is the information/interpreted data then any change that
changes the expression is new information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Fred Williams, posted 07-05-2002 8:28 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5773 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 157 of 224 (13038)
07-08-2002 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mister Pamboli
03-10-2002 2:51 PM


State of the art: molecular biology shattered the evolution theory.

Why don't you have a look at the 4 shattering arguments against evolution I posted today. (topic: the scientific end of evolution). The past 20 years have demonstrated the evolution theory to be wrong. Since science behaves like slow matter it will take a couple of decades before everyone is aware of it. (At least, if evolutionists are willing to admit it).

The final devastating blow, that actually shattered the remaining pillar of theory of evolution (natural selection) was the recent discovery that the major part of genetic information seems to be redundant. Most genes can be knocked out without killing the organism, and a lot of genes have been demonstrated not to affect the fitness of the organism at all. These data demonstrate the irrelevance of natural selection in the maintenance of these genes (There has to be only one such gene and the concept of Natural selection has been falsified).

The first pillar of the theory (i.e. random mutations as driving force of evolution) is in conflict with another discipline of established science: information theory.

You are free to believe whatever you like but don't tell me that evolution is supported by science, because it is just the opposite.
The only reason to stick to the old --falsified-- theory is because there is nothing (scientific) to replace it.

So, in contrast to what most evolutionists still believe (recall: slow matter), there is currently no evolution theory that is backed up by hard science. If you have any question about the demise of the NDT, do not hesitate to ask. I will provide you with scientific evidence that falsifies the hypothesis of evolution (on whatever level you like).

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-10-2002 2:51 PM Mister Pamboli has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by gene90, posted 07-08-2002 8:44 AM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 159 by Peter, posted 07-08-2002 8:56 AM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 160 by John, posted 07-08-2002 10:41 AM peter borger has responded
 Message 163 by TrueCreation, posted 07-08-2002 2:22 PM peter borger has not yet responded
 Message 224 by derwood, posted 10-22-2002 10:33 AM peter borger has not yet responded

    
gene90
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 158 of 224 (13041)
07-08-2002 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by peter borger
07-08-2002 8:15 AM


[QUOTE][b]Most genes can be knocked out without killing the organism, and a lot of genes have been demonstrated not to affect the fitness of the organism at all.[/QUOTE]

[/b]

Sounds like evolution, or at least a jury-rigged design in nature.

As for information theory, I see no need to rebute an argument that was already being fought over before you posted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by peter borger, posted 07-08-2002 8:15 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2031 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 159 of 224 (13044)
07-08-2002 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by peter borger
07-08-2002 8:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

The final devastating blow, that actually shattered the remaining pillar of theory of evolution (natural selection) was the recent discovery that the major part of genetic information seems to be redundant. Most genes can be knocked out without killing the organism, and a lot of genes have been demonstrated not to affect the fitness of the organism at all. These data demonstrate the irrelevance of natural selection in the maintenance of these genes (There has to be only one such gene and the concept of Natural selection has been falsified).

Surely that is what is required for natural selection ?

Genes which, in the current circumstances do not effect the
fitness of an organism, but which might if there was a change
in the current situation.

... already asked if by knocked out you mean in isolation (i.e.
just one) what if you knock out three at the same time ? maybe
they interact in an unexpected/unobserved way ... is that tested
too ?

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

The first pillar of the theory (i.e. random mutations as driving force of evolution) is in conflict with another discipline of established science: information theory.

No its not.

Unless you can show why information theory is relevent.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

You are free to believe whatever you like but don't tell me that evolution is supported by science, because it is just the opposite.
The only reason to stick to the old --falsified-- theory is because there is nothing (scientific) to replace it.

OK. You are free to believe whatever you like, and you can run any
claim you like by me.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

So, in contrast to what most evolutionists still believe (recall: slow matter), there is currently no evolution theory that is backed up by hard science. If you have any question about the demise of the NDT, do not hesitate to ask. I will provide you with scientific evidence that falsifies the hypothesis of evolution (on whatever level you like).

Please do, it's much easier to debate evidence than opinion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by peter borger, posted 07-08-2002 8:15 AM peter borger has not yet responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 224 (13058)
07-08-2002 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by peter borger
07-08-2002 8:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Most genes can be knocked out without killing the organism, and a lot of genes have been demonstrated not to affect the fitness of the organism at all.

A staggering number of brain cells are redundant as well but you don't want to go picking out the extras. Maybe they are back-up systems, spare parts, or maybe we just don't what they do. This fact does not negate neurology.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by peter borger, posted 07-08-2002 8:15 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by nator, posted 07-08-2002 12:46 PM John has not yet responded
 Message 182 by peter borger, posted 07-09-2002 11:44 PM John has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 278 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 161 of 224 (13066)
07-08-2002 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by John
07-08-2002 10:41 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
A staggering number of brain cells are redundant as well but you don't want to go picking out the extras. Maybe they are back-up systems, spare parts, or maybe we just don't what they do. This fact does not negate neurology.


You are correct about back up systems in the brain. This is why people often recover lost cognitive abilities after brain trauma such as strokes. The brain creates new ways to get things done.

To address PB's claim...

Evolution predicts redundancy in genetic variation; it is no surprise to any Biologist or evolutionist that genetic redundancy exists.

I am not sure why you think this is a point against the ToE when it is actually predicted by the theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by John, posted 07-08-2002 10:41 AM John has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by peter borger, posted 07-09-2002 11:36 PM nator has responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 224 (13067)
07-08-2002 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by TrueCreation
07-06-2002 4:54 PM


Have the implications of your argumental assertions been settled, or should I give this another bump?

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by TrueCreation, posted 07-06-2002 4:54 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 224 (13068)
07-08-2002 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by peter borger
07-08-2002 8:15 AM


"The final devastating blow, that actually shattered the remaining pillar of theory of evolution (natural selection) was the recent discovery that the major part of genetic information seems to be redundant. Most genes can be knocked out without killing the organism, and a lot of genes have been demonstrated not to affect the fitness of the organism at all. These data demonstrate the irrelevance of natural selection in the maintenance of these genes (There has to be only one such gene and the concept of Natural selection has been falsified)."
--I don't think that natural selection is the 'last remaining pillar' to evolution. Though, the theory of evolutionary guidance through natural selection works amazingly well and can be and has been established as a factual observation through generations of heredity. That the major part of genetic information seems to be redundant is a bit interesting. However, this may then show that this redundant information can be rendered irrelevant to Evolutionary development. Evolutionary decent with modification deals with morphological diversification. And Natural selection is obviously at work (experimentally verifiable) in that it will morphologically modify by putting in use or leaving a section of anatomy with no function or as functional with little beneficial use. And morphology is capitulated by genetic phylogeny through heredity. Thus, the sequential nucleotide sequence in the genome of a population will only be controlled and evolutionary modified if morphology capitulates genetic sequencing in the genome. These are just my thoughts but going by just what you said, you may have discovered the largest vestigial structure in molecular biology. That is, if my post even made sense

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by peter borger, posted 07-08-2002 8:15 AM peter borger has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by mark24, posted 07-08-2002 3:27 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3303 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 164 of 224 (13073)
07-08-2002 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by TrueCreation
07-08-2002 2:22 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by TrueCreation, posted 07-08-2002 2:22 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

    
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 2964 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 165 of 224 (13075)
07-08-2002 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by mark24
07-07-2002 6:18 PM


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.

I would agree with you that this was a strawman had I said that evolutionists made that claim. But I was answering your question of why I personally believe it is a loss of information. If you review my posts, you will see that I am trying to point out that even when using less stringent definitions of information, evolution is untenable.

quote:
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".

As I mentioned in the prior post, some info theorists (both evolutionists & creationists) would argue that a new gene function is new information provided 1) the old gene still exists, and 2) the new function is useful (beneficial). I am more than willing to debate this watered down version of information that does not require the top two layers of Gitt information (pragmatics & apobetics). The door is already shut on evolution via Gitt information, I’m here to show the door is firmly shut on the less stringent definitions (corollaries) I have provided as well (the codon example to you, the algorithm example to Meert), plus the definition just given in this paragraph.

quote:
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?

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.

quote:
All evolution requires is new/altered function, it isn’t bothered with squabbles over whose definition is better.

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).

To summarize, I personally believe that Gitt information is currently the best representation of what information is. His impossibility laws of information are hard to dispute. All you have to do is produce one counter-example to any law and it falls on its face.

HOWEVER, I am willing to accept a less stringent requirement for information for the sake of debate and to illustrate a point. That is what I have been trying to do in this thread. I have offered in this thread two corollaries of information that have less stringent requirements than Gitt information: The codon example I gave you, and the algorithm example I gave Meert. Why can you not produce a single bonadfide example that meets my requirement? I submit it is because information science is devastating to evolution, and thus way evolutionists try to bury the problem with various excuses (such as blaming it on how information is defined).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by mark24, posted 07-07-2002 6:18 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Percy, posted 07-08-2002 5:29 PM Fred Williams has responded
 Message 170 by mark24, posted 07-08-2002 7:14 PM Fred Williams has responded
 Message 174 by derwood, posted 07-09-2002 10:10 AM Fred Williams has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019