evolution calculations

Of course, comparison of chimp DNA and human DNA will provide tremendous mathematical fodder for analyzing rates of mutations to those who presuppose that we evolved from chimps. However, to those of us who are convinced of creation, you are putting the cart before the horse. No one disagrees that mutations occur. However, mutations do not necessarily form information. I would be very impressed if an evolutionist would cite an example that identifies the specific formation of new information from mutation. Please keep the following quote in mind. From Michael Behe in the foreword to "Intelligent Design" by Dembski."If we turned a corner and saw a couple of Scrabble letters on a table that spelled AN, we would not, jsut on that basis, be able to decide if they were purposely arranged. Even thought they spelled a word, the probability of getting a short word by chance is not prohibitive. On the other hand, the probability of seeing some particular long sequence of Scrabble letters, such as NDEIRUABFDMOJHRINKE, is quite small (around one in a billion billion billion). Noentheless, if we saw that sequence lined up on a table, we would think little of it because it is not specified - it matches no recognizable pattern. But if we saw a sequence of letters that read, say, METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASEL, we would easily conclude that the letters were intentionally arranged that way. The sequence of letters is not only highly improable, but it also matches an intelligible English sentence. It is a product of intelligent design"I would think, if evolution is true, that it would be easy to identify "new information" by the process of mutation. Please don't answer with a historical response like, "we can calculate the difference between chimps and humans" because it presupposes what it is trying to prove. Rather, please point to research that would show meaningful information developed by mutation in a creature that is "evolving."Thanks,Saddleback

Mathematician William Dembski calculated that if the probability of something occurring is less than one in 10 to the 150th power, it has no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. He further estimates that the probability of evolving the first cell is no better than one in 10 to the 4,478,146 power.Thank you for your kind redirections. I will gladly repost if there is a more appropriate forum. I am attracted to this site simply because it seems there are so many evolutionists on it. As to the topic at hand, "Is there a mathematical formulation that can prove evolution", I have several thoughts. Creationists would be very impressed if evolutionists would create a mathematical model that would prove the possibility of evolution. Such a model would not conceptually appear to be very difficult to create. But it would need to show some basic steps. I propose a few just for the sake of concept to present a creationsists mindset.
1) It would need to identify what constitutes new information by mutation. As far as I know, it is only the intelligent design folks who are proposing these questions and answering it by joining the concepts of complexity and specification. (Please see my quote on the previous post.) This is what I meant by putting the cart before the horse.
2) It would need to calculate the rate at which such "informational" and "beneficial" mutation occur. "Evolution relies heavily on mutation to produce improvements in organisms through random chance. But, the evidence doesn't support this. Instead of improvements, mutations tend to show deterioration. Indeed, 99.99 percent of mutations are harmful, even lethal. As explained by Parker in his book (14, pgs. 95-104), almost every mutation we know is identified by the disease or abnormality it causes, not its benefits. For example, in humans hemophilia is a mutation of a clotting factor. Tay-Sach's Disease is apparently a mutation in the gene for producing an enzyme crucial to brain function."
3) It would need calculate how often such mutations create advantage in the species.
4) It would need to calculate how often such mutations get passed and preserved thorugh generations.
5) It would need to show the number of generations necessary to accumulate the information necessary to produce a human (the most complex creature on the planet.)
6) Finally, it would need to be defensible within approximatley a 4.6 billion year timeframe assuming a propsed evolutionary timeframe.Unless evolutionists are honestly willing to dialog with the material from creationists/IDers like Dembski and Behe, we will remain like two trains passing in the night. Creationsists are proposing such models all the time. Hugh Ross has done one as well. What have the evolutionsists done that looks at the actual rates and doesn't simply extrapolate information from differences between pre existing creatures. I hope we can keep it from being simply an "in house" evolutionist discussion.Just a "misinformed" creationsist waiting to be informed.Sincerely,Dan

Dembski is propsing a model by which to evaluate evolution. His numbers are his best estimate of what it would take for a cell to develop by chance. Please don't reduce your response to an "argument from authority" by questioning his credentials as it will impress only evolutionsists (Most of whom think creationist are closest to the missing link - ha). Dembski is a brilliant mathematician. In fact, his model is probably lite on the immense improbabilities since it is nearly impossible for any one person to harvest all the variables into one mathematical formula.What is the evolutionary formula to explain the possibility of evolution? What do evolutionists propose? Do they just dabble in theory or are they willing to tie some of their specicfic findings into a more unified theory concerning probability?This message has been edited by Saddleback, 02-09-2005 18:41 AM

This research makes its calculations by comparing the genome between chimps and humans. That is great for an evoltuionsist who presupposes this relationship, but useless to convince a creationsist of the existence and frequency of beneficial mutations. For those of you who are more studied in this field, is there a way for such celluar and dna researchers to make such calculations without using such comparative presuppositions. Is the technology to examine the very foundations of information within living creatures in a comparative way there yet?

Thank you for your reply. Frankly, I appreciate your primer on the difference between possible and impossible. But if the best evolutionists can propose is the "yes" suggestion that everything is possible because nothing is impossible, you have reduced your argument to a philosophical treatise, but one that fails to account for the value of mathematics in the natural world. While the notion of the impossibility of a mathematical "impossible" may impress you, it will do nothing to impress reasonable people. As a creationist, it seems you are going down a common evolutionary path with no ending. If the probabilities for life in our universe are too improbable, just propose an infinite number of universes.Statistics and probabilities are an essential part of nearly all scientific studies and necessary to develop the argument's validity. Dembski is making a very clear argument with detailed calculations for all to enjoy and critique. Of course, it must be "lunacy" if he uses valid scientific models and calcualtions to question the foudations of evolution. But for those willing to work within the world where mathematics proves very useful as a determiner of probability, it is very helpful.I won't address your necessary test of "all possible ways" since evolutionists must already tread on thin ice proposing spontaneous generation from non information in the first place. And I want to keep on track.

Jar:I appreciate that you find convincing creationsts an unrewarding task. That is the very reason for my appreciation for the many gracious evolutionists who are willing to give their time and thoughts.However, I would encourage you to be careful about making too quick a categorization lest your categories become your reality, and not reality itself.Finally, your moniker, "Aslan is not a tame lion." It is clearly a reference to the Christian fiction book "Chronicles of Narnia." It seems like a very Christian moniker for a conclusion. Especially about His untameability. Indeed, Christ/Aslan was/is not tame!What do you intend it to mean? If you could post directly to me it would be more appropriate. I apologize.

Thank you for your kindness. It is very disarming, and I appreciate your civility.Creationists would like to see an evolutionary model concerning the probability of evoltuion since then there would be something critiqueable. Do you know of any? Frankly, we do not think evolutionists could create such a model to fit within an "evolutionary" or "geologic" timeframe.Many creationists hold to a 6000-10000 year earth history because it most closely coincides with the creation account and geneologies in the Bible. I could readily discuss this topic, but believe it is immaterial to a discussion refuting evoltuion. However, if I thought I could have a meaningful discussion of the Bible with an evolutionist, I would welcome it. However, the presuppositions of naturalism is wholly irreconcilable with the Scriptures. The vast number of liberal Biblical scholars who propose naturalistic explanations for Biblical accounts are off their rocker. Simply, the Bible does not fit with naturalism. Hence, to discuss it with a person predisposed to a naturalistic viewpoint usually leads to frustration on both parts. I hope, sometimes it seems against hope itself, that evolutionists could look beyond their naturalistic worldview. I remain hopeful as I am sure you remain hopeful that you can induce some sense in a creationist.Creationists are convinced that evolution has more holes than swiss chesse. This is not to say that Darwin was not a genius and that natural selection has not been extremely helpful in in explaining the diversity, change, and speication in population groups. Rather, it is that the mechanism for creation of information in evolution is broken. One of the previous posters pointed to his belief that any mutation is new information. Such thinking is false. I cannot get into the details of it now for lack of time, but look at my very fist post for a very cursory explanation.Information theory is "hard science." It is new, but it is coming like a freight train. While it is applicable to all sorts of fields, creationists are using it to take aim at evolution. And rightly so I believe. Information is of a different property than matter. A hard drive is matter. But the specific alignment of the magnetic fields and their pattern of "1" and "0"s determines the information. A random mustation of the genome does not produce information. It must have a specific ability to convey itself in some meaningful way.Finally, I am not sure why you say evolution is not directional unless you deny that there is an ability to quantify information. It seems like a nice catch phrase,and perhaps you only mean it in a specific setting. However, Darwin's "on the orgin of the species" seems to try to explain the growth in complexity from goo to you. It is certainly every lay persons understanding and reasonably so.I'm out of time, and have to take the family to dinner. I'll post later.Thanks,Dan

Thanks for your response. True. Many creationists would reject any such model for evolutionary possibility. I propose the challenge to you simply because evolutionists are attached to a system of thought which should be mathematically scrutinized, but isn't. Evolution will fall not because of creationism's triumph, but simply because the mechanism is seriously flawed and cannot produce the complexity and vast amounts of information on our planet. Creationism, and Theism is often rejected for other reasons than evolution. However, naturalism and evolution have made it "far more comfortable to be an intellectually fufilled athiest" according to Richard Dawkins. (The blind watchmaker)Information can certainly be defined genetically as well as in other forms. Hypothetical example. Suppose a DNA sequence which specified some trait were laid out as follows. IWILLCREATEAHAIRFOLLICLE. Then it mutates or replicates and mutates. ILLEICRSKDLFIELCKSHEIATEID Have you created any infromation? Can evolutionists point to one example where a DNA mutation created new information? Here's the issue put a different way. "In a classic experiment, [Sol] Spiegelman ... showed what happens to a molecular replicating system in a test tube, without any cellular organization around it. The replicating molecules (the nucleic acid templates) require an energy source, building blocks (i.e., nucleotide bases), and an enzyme to help the polymerization process that is involved in self-copying of the templates. Then away it goes, making more copies of the specific nucleotide sequences that define the initial templates. But the interesting result was that these initial templates did not stay the same; they were not accurately copied. They got shorter and shorter until they reached the minimal size compatible with the sequence retaining self-copying properties. And as they got shorter, the copying process went faster. So what happened with natural selection in a test tube: the shorter templates that copied themselves faster became more numerous, while the larger ones were gradually eliminated. This looks like Darwinian evolution in a test tube. But the interesting result was that this evolution went one way: toward greater simplicity. Actual evolution tends to go toward greater complexity, species becoming more elaborate in their structure and behavior, though the process can also go in reverse, toward simplicity. But DNA on its own can go nowhere but toward greater simplicity. In order for the evolution of complexity to occur, DNA has to be within a cellular context; the whole system evolves as a reproducing unit."IDer's are rejected by evolutionists and yes, essentially none have been pubilished in evolutionary peer reviewed articles. Stephen Meyer did get one pubished in one of these journals and it created quite a stir in evolutionary circles. The article was not retracted on it's merit, but wholly on the great outcry by evolutionists who felt threatened. Great change does not happen overnight. But will when evolutionists begin honestly critiquing the foundations of their theory.Please point me to one of those "beneficial" mutations.Evolution is directional. Look at where you start and look at what we have. Less Complex to more complex. While you may want to apply this to a smaller subset of events, or get philosophical, evolution is nothing without the ability to produce increasingly complexity. Otherrwise, you and I don't exist my friend, and that would get very philosophical.Without committing to a book, feel free to browse some of Dembski's writings at http://www.designinference.com/Do you seriously believe that life sprang from non life? Is it probable in your mind? Was it clay templates and billions of years, hot vents on the bottom of the sea floor, panspermia. I don't expect an answer, just an honest assessmentID'ers do not, as far as I know, do not propose rates for creation of information. Our point is that information does not spring from non information any more than energy can be produced from a perpetual motion machine. Creatures change as the information they pass from generation to the next is recombined, selected, deleted and then conveyed in a new offspring. DNA is a lot more complex than throwing dice. You don't just reconstitute new DNA structures by random processes and create meaningful information.Thanks for the discussion,Dan

a;lskjs;lslslkd;aslew02
L;LALSD8089F09A8SD VXCLAKSDF0W8E2LKJAF
928243;S97SOAS9D8LSD, ,COSOO8E9W867ELW
PWOIUE;SKHDLSKJDF;SAOIUSYFPOEIUWKCKSLDK
poIWLEKYOSEILSKYELKSD,C,SLIYUOWELIY;TLKSPlease enjoy the aforemtioned "information". I am sure it contains the answer to your questions. I am quite sure it is the pathway to our next evolutionary pathway and we can ditch this snail mail all together.Only to make a point. Done with a smile.Dan

I've seen birds fly. I've never seen a creature or a population evolve. I have seen them change as DNA informtion is reconstitued, deleted, selected from generation to generation. But new DNA sequences are nearly impossible for man to maniuplate and create using all his intelligence and tools into something useful. You just assume it happens by some concept called "chance."What does it mean to you to be "very Christian"?Dan