Give your one best shot - against evolution

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
OK, so what do YOU mean by information ?

---

In this case, I was asking for evidence of naturalistically produced new algorithms in the DNA to produce new, useful functions such as going from no sonar, to sonar-capable, or from a scale to a feather.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
In this case, I was asking for evidence of naturalistically produced new algorithms in the DNA to produce new, useful functions such as going from no sonar, to sonar-capable, or from a scale to a feather.

​

---

So are you saying that a feather has more information than a scale? How do you figure the information content in these two features. Please answer in a completely quantitative manner. You can still answer even if a feather contains less information. I just want you to back up your idle chatter about information content.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
No, it is relevant, because it is not evolution. That is, the type of evolution that lies at the cored of our debate. The type of evolution as understood by the public, marge-scale change over time.

​

Do you agree or disagree that info gain or loss is relevant when debating large-scale evolution, such as scales to feathers, no sonar to sonar, etc?

---

Kimura demonstrated mathematically that naturalk selection adds adaptive information to the genome in 1961. I should have thought that so well-read a creationist as you would have already known this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

Fred Williams writes:

---

Yes, "information is nebulous" is one of the three famous reasons evolutionists give to avoid the information problem that is so devestating for large-scale evolution.

---

​

When Joe says, "'information' is such a nebulous term" he doesn't mean "information is nebulous", but that he's not sure how you're defining it. Can't have a discussion if you don't agree on terminology.

​

--Percy

---

Careful, now - if you want creationists to use proper terminology, and to use the terminology properly, and to use terminology in the manner in which those in the field do, you are just nit-picking and setting up strawmen and red herrings...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Chalk it up to a "loss of information" over this medium! I did understand him to mean information is an encompassing and sometimes difficult to quantify term, that is why I asked him the followup question on new DNA algorithms for sonar.

​

Joe's was one of the 3 common reactions I get on the information problem: since information can mean different things (Shannon information, Gitt information, complex specified information, etc) it's not worth the trouble so it's brushed aside.

​

BTW, my earlier typo "marge-scale" should have read "large-scale".

---

There is no such thing as Gitt information outside of creationism. No surprise that creationist information-mongers prefer Gitt information (information must come from a 'conscious mind'...) over all else.I wonder - what conscious mind put information in tree rings?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
The whole concept of using probabilities to verify an event
for which we don't actually know the conditions or raw
materials or time scales seems a little contrived to me.

---

Indeed. But, it impresses the lay folk, so it is a creationist propagandist staple.

"TC: I just wanted to say your last two posts were excellent. Good science! I couldn't have argued them better myself (although I probably would have added a bunch of unnecessary details and a quibble on the bit about "I don't agree that the ToE is actually what was the developmental process in the formation of the earth geologically and biologically." ). Keep reading and learning! You're doing great. "
--Amen! hehe. --I'm also in the midts of compiling an archive of articles for a web site called 'Creationists condemnation of Kent Hovind', I'm sure you'll get a kick out of it . Cheers.BTW, Fred Williams, regarding the question if new information. How exactly would you define information, and how would you define 'new' information. Examples are one thing, but that is quite different from a definition.
--I once argued for nucleotide base/codon sequences as information, thus, new information would be addition + change of this sequence. Either your argument is there can be no new information, or there is a barrier for quantity and/or change of information.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 07-05-2002]

quote:

---

TC: BTW, Fred Williams, regarding the question if new information. How exactly would you define information, and how would you define 'new' information. Examples are one thing, but that is quite different from a definition.

---

It is not possible to quantify and define information in the limited time I have here. I personally subscribe to Gitt’s formulated laws of information. I recommend Dr Truman’s article at True.Origins that outlines Gitt information.For the sake of debate on the internet, I often find that giving examples is the best way to communicate what is meant by information. In some cases my examples don’t even qualify as the type I subscribe to! (Gitt information). Why? I find that even with less rigid requirements for what information is, evolutionists are still left without a leg to stand on. Go to evolutionist Dr Tom Schnieder’s web page and notice the calisthenics he went through just to try to demonstrate new information via random mutation/selection at the lowest level of information (Shannon information)!

quote:

---

--I once argued for nucleotide base/codon sequences as information, thus, new information would be addition + change of this sequence.

---

This would be far too vague of a definition. It may be new information, it may not be. What if you had a copy of Webster’s dictionary, and were handed an identical copy except it had a typo in it somewhere (addition + change). This would obviously not be new information, in fact even at the Shannon level one could argue you lost information due to increased uncertainty. One thing I should note, even the handful of evolutionists I know who are trained in information science will tell you that addition + change does not necessarily equate to new information.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.Here are some bad examples of new information:1) Installation of WordPerfect, written by Joe Schmoe, on a computer that already has WordPerfect by Corel. Even if Joe Schoe’s version uses less disk space, unless it is faster there is no new information on your computer. If it is faster and more efficient with resources, this would qualify as increased information on your computer.
2) Having a dictionary, and being handed an identical copy of that dictionary. You received no new information
3) Gene duplication (if it has a negative affect on the organism it would actually represent a loss of information).

quote:

---

Either your argument is there can be no new information, or there is a barrier for quantity and/or change of information.

---

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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe Meert:
[B]
So are you saying that a feather has more information than a scale? [/QUOTE]No, that is not what I am saying. I am asking for evidence, any evidence, showing that a new algorithm (coding sequence) arose in the genome to produce a new feature, such as sonar where it once did not exist. Or new information that produced feathers where it once produced scales. I'm giving you a fairly straightforward definition of information (new coding sequence producing a new feature) to work from.Mud-to-man evolution demands that massive amounts of information must have been added to the genome over time via random mutation and selection. There is not a shred of evidence for this. It is no surprise that Information science says it is impossible.I haven't even asked you to tell us how any code, let alone the genetic code, could possibly arise naturalistically in the first place. Information science says that the naturalistic origin of a code is impossible, not vastly improbable, impossible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:
Kimura demonstrated mathematically that naturalk selection adds adaptive information to the genome in 1961. I should have thought that so well-read a creationist as you would have already known this.

​

---

Would you care to share with the world how selection alone, working on pre-existing genes, could possibly produce *new* information?Also, your continued claim that a tree ring contains a code is truly amazing! I will say it is at the very least quite original!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Mud-to-man evolution demands that massive amounts of information must have been added to the genome over time via random mutation and selection. There is not a shred of evidence for this. It is no surprise that Information science says it is impossible.

---

Could you tell us Fred just out of what field information theory arose and just why you think it is applicable to complex biological systems?

quote:

---

I haven't even asked you to tell us how any code, let alone the genetic code, could possibly arise naturalistically in the first place. Information science says that the naturalistic origin of a code is impossible, not vastly improbable, impossible.

---

Then tell us who is responsible for writing this code and who the receiver is. If my understanding is correct, information must have an intelligent source and an intelligent receiver that can decode the information. Who are the sender and receiver?

"It is not possible to quantify and define information in the limited time I have here. I personally subscribe to Gitt’s formulated laws of information. I recommend Dr Truman’s article at True.Origins that outlines Gitt information."
--I'm not aware of Gitt, however, I will go by what you say. Also, I think it should be an easy possibility to quantificationally compile a definition which adequately defines information, as well as adding the 'new' in front of 'information'. I don't think there is any word in the English dictionary which cannot be defined. If limited time is your problem, I should hope you would attempt to work around it."For the sake of debate on the internet, I often find that giving examples is the best way to communicate what is meant by information. In some cases my examples don’t even qualify as the type I subscribe to! (Gitt information). Why? I find that even with less rigid requirements for what information is, evolutionists are still left without a leg to stand on. Go to evolutionist Dr Tom Schnieder’s web page and notice the calisthenics he went through just to try to demonstrate new information via random mutation/selection at the lowest level of information (Shannon information)!"
--I think it is increasingly impossible and irrational to attempt to demonstrate any informational attribute when there is a lack in what information really even is, hence, a definition. A definition is very much needed before an example of what information is can be made. If not, how much ease is there now to just rationalize every example there is off by changing what you feel qualifies as information. My comments below should be considered:"This would be far too vague of a definition. It may be new information, it may not be. What if you had a copy of Webster’s dictionary, and were handed an identical copy except it had a typo in it somewhere (addition + change). This would obviously not be new information, in fact even at the Shannon level one could argue you lost information due to increased uncertainty. One thing I should note, even the handful of evolutionists I know who are trained in information science will tell you that addition + change does not necessarily equate to new information."
--No, this definition is not vague in the least, it is highly direct and able to be worked from. With an addition + change in nucleotide base and/or codon sequences qualifying as new information. Demonstration that new information has come about is very simple, that is, the differentiation between new and old(Previously existing sequentially) information. I would like to speak to your handful of evo's which have come to the conclusion that addition + change does not imply an addition of information, or is that different from 'new' information. Also, your example of a typo in the Webster dictionary, is new information in my scenario, whether it is morphologically characteristical or not."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"
--So is it the fact that it now exists 'new' information, or is the fact that it is compiled in binary coding in say, the C++ information codec system."2) A new gene (likely set of genes) that produce sonar, where sonar did not previously exist in the genome."
--Sonar is likely a very large compilation of new datasets of nucleotide sequences in the genome. So shouldn't the nucleotide base sequence mutation, being the source of this characteristic, have the merited attribution of new information? I also think this is asking far too much from those who would like to experiment on the potential falsifications to Evolution."1) Installation of WordPerfect, written by Joe Schmoe, on a computer that already has WordPerfect by Corel. Even if Joe Schoe’s version uses less disk space, unless it is faster there is no new information on your computer. If it is faster and more efficient with resources, this would qualify as increased information on your computer.
"
--What? I think this is rediculous when applied to reality and the initial question. The reason behind asking for 'new information' is that the argument is 'new information' cannot be brought about, thus the ToE is bunk. However, whether something is more efficient or less efficient, is simply not the question that should be asked of Evolutions potential falsification. What I previously would have argued for is what should not be evaded. Nucleotide base mutation and disruption sequentially is what should be looked at as it essentially is the source from where new characteristical changes will be formed from. Why is this not reasonable?"3) Gene duplication (if it has a negative affect on the organism it would actually represent a loss of information). "
--So apparently, what your definition of 'information' is, is beneficial inheritance?"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."
--So then, this barrier just hasn't been met yet, even if 3.5 or so billion years of Evolution has occurred or not?------------------

"No, that is not what I am saying. I am asking for evidence, any evidence, showing that a new algorithm (coding sequence) arose in the genome to produce a new feature, such as sonar where it once did not exist. Or new information that produced feathers where it once produced scales. I'm giving you a fairly straightforward definition of information (new coding sequence producing a new feature) to work from."
--I think that as I stated in my last post, this is much too much to be asking from potential falsification. In mainstream Evolution theory, it takes time and environmental submission to allow a new sequence of code which will code entirely for a new 'feature' or mechenism by which a task can be carried out.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

Thanks for the lesson in probability.

​

Now a lesson in reality.

​

Stanley Miller synthesized organic molecules in a jar. Since then, the experiment has been repeated with some variations and practically every basic molecular component has been produced. And this against your odds-- ridiculously against your odds. IE. your odds are WRONG. This is called experiment, and it trumps speculation and unbridled mathematics.

​

http://www.ultranet.com/~jkimball/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html

​

False analogy. English has six times more letters than there are amino acids in your chains.

​

---

Ummm... Stanley Miller didn't create proteins. Only amino acids, and only the simplest two that exist (glycine and alanine, the simplest of all amino acids).Now, even a 100-amino acid protein is VERY SMALL. An average sized protein contains 500 amino acids. BTW, in order for chance to create the simple proteins, there has to be a high enough concentration of amino acids, and for the amino acids to link up against the energy gradient, and for the probability that all of them are left-handed (which, for a 100-amino acid protein, would be 1/2^100).

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.