Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 9:24 PM
132 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, edge (3 members, 129 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,446 Year: 3,483/19,786 Month: 478/1,087 Week: 68/212 Day: 29/39 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Author Topic:   Can random mutations cause an increase in information in the genome?
Modulous
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 271 of 310 (287825)
02-17-2006 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by randman
02-17-2006 4:51 PM


evolution science vs randman's nefarious world of evos
Just saying, well, creatures change and so that, wholla, is proof of macroevolution is a fundamental error evos make, and compound that error demanding someone disprove their unproven claim as if the onus is on the critic.

That would be bad science, you're right.

What is actually said is quite different of course. What they say is more akin to "here is how species must orginate, where did they come from? Perhaps earlier species. Isn't it odd the way that life can be organised into nested hierarchies based on unique characteristics those creatures have? Perhaps this trend of speciation could happen over and over and be an explanation for the fossil record as a record of life on earth? Let's test this, if all species on earth are related we would expect to see...X. Let's look, oh look, we see X. If Y says the same thing as X we'll be onto something. Oh look we see Y. Perhaps this idea has merit...", and so on.

Moreover, there are organisms (bacteria) with such a high rate of multiplication, that perhaps we should see valid macroevolution taking place, but we don't.

Given that it too billions of years for multicellularity to come, I don't see why would we would expect to observe this happening in 100 years of looking.

So our observations do not show macroevolution.

That's because macroevolution is basically defined as 'evolution that is not observed but inferred from the evidene'.

The onus is thus on evos to validate their claims, not insist others disprove their bare assertions.

The evidence that validates the claims has been presented. Its just that non-evos don't consider that validation for various reasons.


You are the IDer on the board, do you have a way of measuring information, or specified complexity? Then we can see if whatever it is increases. It doesn't have to be absolute numbers, but relative numbers will be fine, that way we can see the increasing or decreasing that is claimed to happen. It would be good if the ID/creo camp could validate their claim about specified complexity. If that is not possible then it would be helpful to define it so others can validate/falsify it.

A while ago Dembski said:

Dembski writes:

Does nature exhibit actual specified complexity? The jury is still out.

If that is still the case, then claiming that evolution cannot increase or decrease specified complexity is a curious thing indeed. This is what Dembski calls the million dollar question, does nature exhibit actual specified complexity? How is it measured?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 4:51 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 6:03 PM Modulous has responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 272 of 310 (287827)
02-17-2006 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Modulous
02-17-2006 5:53 PM


Re: evolution science vs randman's nefarious world of evos
Modulous, just look at the difficulties evos have with defining randomness in reference to mutations, much less actually providing a metric to verify the concept, and yet that has not prevented evos from using the concept.

If you want to bash imprecision in defining information, fine. Just don't be a hypocrite and suggest evos have done any better.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Modulous, posted 02-17-2006 5:53 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Modulous, posted 02-17-2006 6:18 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 274 by Belfry, posted 02-17-2006 6:19 PM randman has responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 177 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 273 of 310 (287830)
02-17-2006 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by randman
02-17-2006 6:03 PM


Re: evolution science vs randman's nefarious world of evos
Modulous, just look at the difficulties evos have with defining randomness in reference to mutations, much less actually providing a metric to verify the concept, and yet that has not prevented evos from using the concept.

I don't see evos having difficulty defining random. You want me to do it again for you?

If you want to bash imprecision in defining information, fine. Just don't be a hypocrite and suggest evos have done any better.

If I said that mutations are more random than uranium decay, you'd be justified in asking how I was measuring the randomness of each. I am not bashing the IDers imprecision in defining information. I am criticizing saying something like 'Random mutations can't cause an increase in specified complexity in the genome' when they don't know if nature exhibits specified complexity, nor do they have the ability to even define it, let alone measure it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 6:03 PM randman has not yet responded

Belfry
Member (Idle past 3158 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 274 of 310 (287831)
02-17-2006 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by randman
02-17-2006 6:03 PM


Re: evolution science vs randman's nefarious world of evos
But randman, the randomness of mutation isn't an especially important concept in evolution. We're not holding it up as any sort of evidence for or against evolution. If it does not meet the criteria of a given definition of randomness, what does that mean? Not much, except that mutation isn't random. Not particularly exciting or revolutionary.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 6:03 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 6:24 PM Belfry has responded
 Message 277 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 7:04 PM Belfry has responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 275 of 310 (287835)
02-17-2006 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Belfry
02-17-2006 6:19 PM


Re: evolution science vs randman's nefarious world of evos
the randomness of mutation isn't an especially important concept in evolution

Really? I would say that it is at the very heart of evolutionist thinking. If mutations are guided, then that changes the whole significance of evolutionary theory and mechanisms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Belfry, posted 02-17-2006 6:19 PM Belfry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Belfry, posted 02-17-2006 7:01 PM randman has not yet responded

Belfry
Member (Idle past 3158 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 276 of 310 (287866)
02-17-2006 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by randman
02-17-2006 6:24 PM


Re: evolution science vs randman's nefarious world of evos
randman writes:

Really? I would say that it is at the very heart of evolutionist thinking. If mutations are guided, then that changes the whole significance of evolutionary theory and mechanisms.


So that's the definition you're using? That random means "unguided?"

Well that settles the definition issue. If we can gain any evidence that it is guided, we can work from there. So far, we don't have any.

This message has been edited by Belfry, 02-17-2006 07:01 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 6:24 PM randman has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 277 of 310 (287868)
02-17-2006 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Belfry
02-17-2006 6:19 PM


Re: evolution science vs randman's nefarious world of evos
The degree of non-randomness determines the degree potentially of ID, if you look at it one way. So if you think Intelligent Design is OK, then I guess it's not as critical. If you are hostile towards ID, then it is very critical.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Belfry, posted 02-17-2006 6:19 PM Belfry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Belfry, posted 02-17-2006 7:20 PM randman has responded

Belfry
Member (Idle past 3158 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 278 of 310 (287878)
02-17-2006 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by randman
02-17-2006 7:04 PM


Re: evolution science vs randman's nefarious world of evos
random writes:

The degree of non-randomness determines the degree potentially of ID, if you look at it one way. So if you think Intelligent Design is OK, then I guess it's not as critical. If you are hostile towards ID, then it is very critical.


"Hostile towards ID" is not a scientific position, it is a personal one. The reason that most of us are opposed to teaching ID as science is that there is no evidence for it nor any way of falsifying it, and thus it does not qualify as a scientific theory.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 7:04 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 7:22 PM Belfry has responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2972 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 279 of 310 (287882)
02-17-2006 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Belfry
02-17-2006 7:20 PM


Re: evolution science vs randman's nefarious world of evos
Well belfry, that's why we shouldn't be teaching evolution either then; since there is no way to falsify evolution.

Imo, Id is a much more reasonable and logical framework to approach science from. To a priori rule out a Designer is illogical and leads to a skewed perspective of the data.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Belfry, posted 02-17-2006 7:20 PM Belfry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Belfry, posted 02-17-2006 7:29 PM randman has not yet responded

Belfry
Member (Idle past 3158 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 280 of 310 (287884)
02-17-2006 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by randman
02-17-2006 7:22 PM


Re: evolution science vs randman's nefarious world of evos
I begin to fear the wrath of the admins - there are countless ways that many aspects of the TofE could be falsified, but haven't been. But I think it should go into its own thread, and I don't have the time to devote to it tonight. If you would like to start one, I will join in as time permits.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 7:22 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by AdminNosy, posted 02-17-2006 7:59 PM Belfry has not yet responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 281 of 310 (287908)
02-17-2006 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Belfry
02-17-2006 7:29 PM


Topic and thank you -- CLOSING
Thank you Belfry. The topic is, of course, random mutations increaseing something or another.

To emphasize that and since Garrett is off for some more hours and Randmand can't stay on topic for more than 3 posts I'm going to close this for awhile.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Belfry, posted 02-17-2006 7:29 PM Belfry has not yet responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 282 of 310 (288026)
02-18-2006 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Percy
02-17-2006 3:46 PM


Re: Question outstanding!
Percy,

If Mark24's point was already clear then just ignore this, but in case not, he's highlighting the pointlessness of replying in this fashion.

Spot on.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Percy, posted 02-17-2006 3:46 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3593 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 283 of 310 (288045)
02-18-2006 10:11 AM


Definition of terms does matter
It appears to me that a lot of the comunication probems in this thread is due to differeces in the way people understand the word information.

Some of us may have seen this word defined in the study of information theory and will have no trouble accepting that an increase of the number of alleles in a population represents an increase in the information content and, therefore, answer the topic question with a resounding YES.

But the ID crowd doesn't accept that, since they are thinking about a more intuitive notion of what is meant by information, and figure that an increase in the number of alleles in the population may mean no new information at all, since these new alleles may be non-meaningfull.

To te credit of the IDers, this concept of what information is seems to be a perfectly valid one, even if not easily defined.

The meaning of information here made me remember something a famous sculptor (can't remember which one) said about his work. He said he doesn't create any sculptures, and that all that he's done was to remove the stone excess, and bring about the sculpture that was already in the rock to begin with.

the example above makes clear that information (in the IDers intuitive sense) may be created during the evolutionary process when natural seletion removes the excesses, just like a sculpture is created b removing the excesses.

This removes the paradox of how can new information be created by a random process, since the information here (in the IDers sense) is actually being created during the natural selection phase of the evolutionary process, and that phase of the process is not random at all.


Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by AdminJar, posted 02-18-2006 10:17 AM fallacycop has not yet responded
 Message 287 by randman, posted 02-18-2006 7:27 PM fallacycop has not yet responded
 Message 295 by Garrett, posted 02-20-2006 10:12 AM fallacycop has not yet responded

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 310 (288048)
02-18-2006 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by fallacycop
02-18-2006 10:11 AM


Welcome
Glad you decided to join us and look forward to learning from you.

At the end of this post are some links to threads that may make your stay here more enjoyable.

Again, welcome to EvC.


Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum

    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 283 by fallacycop, posted 02-18-2006 10:11 AM fallacycop has not yet responded

    crashfrog
    Inactive Member


    Message 285 of 310 (288099)
    02-18-2006 1:20 PM
    Reply to: Message 269 by randman
    02-17-2006 4:45 PM


    Re: banning the effective creationist?
    The writer in the quote above points out that we do not see bacteria mutate from a single-cell form to a multi-cell form, but considering their rate of duplication, it would seem that we should. Now, for all I know, we do see this, but the claim is there, and it deals with an actual observed process.

    We do see this. I know that I myself have linked to a specific instance of evolved multi-cellularity on many occasions.

    You should know better than to post a claim you know to be false.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 269 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 4:45 PM randman has not yet responded

    RewPrev1
    ...
    161718
    19
    2021Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019