Evolution as hypothesis not theory

[Yog^sothoth]

So i've been learning a lot about Evolution in the past couple weeks and i've come to a strange realization. Through testing, observation, collection of data and all the normal scientific methodologies; evolution has surpassed the initial scientific hypotheses and has in fact become a Theory.

I had always thought it was still a hypothesis.

So, my hypothesis on the teaching of untested evolutionary theories in school is indeed false.

What are your thoughts?

:argue:

those guys rock!

[Ishmael]

Yes. It's been a theory for quite sometime and certain aspects of the process are scientific fact.

[Revolg]

There are tangible evidences that help support the theory of evolution if applied rightly. Actually I'll take that one back! Most could be used to support a supernatural Creation if applied correctly. I just don't see that the theory of evolution has become fact yet in all matters. We all see it as a unifying principle in Biology but not everyone knows it has problems. These problems are serious enough to blast the conclusions of the theory back to the 461 B.C.'s grand Athenian Golden Age. Not a over exaggeration either!

*I am also an expert on anything 'Greek.'

;)

[uber_loser]

Micro evolution ( Natural Selection ) is indeed theory. Animals will evolve to better suite their invironment. However there is no proof that this can lead to Macro evolution ( New species emerging from natural selection) Every natual case which has the possibility of leading to Macro evolution has ended with destructive inbreeding not a new species. Macro in my opinion is still a hypotosis........and not a very good one.:hrm:

[Revolg]

It's been debunked by many molecular biologists (the idea that mutations can develop new information) but they have to hold on to this.

[flipper]

Revolg:


It's been debunked by many molecular biologists (the idea that mutations can develop new information) but they have to hold on to this.


Many? Like whom? Where can we see their peer-reviewed submissions?

[Revolg]

Most of them Flipper. Let me ask you a question, has a scientist any proof of new information via mutation? I might be surprised if you even found one example. I'm not interested in an "advantage" over a disease. What you didn't read correctly is that in all journals of science say that they haven't a scrap of proof but they hold onto it as "fact." This was what I was getting into. There are some scientists that note this fact out in books like Professor of Biochemistry Michael Behe, email him here at mjb1@lehigh.edu

Now to a peer-reviewed journal of science of which you are so much giddy about.

Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.107B:167–177

http://www.theapologiaproject.org/page159.html

[Garret]

Revolg,

What you are claiming here depends entirely on your definition of information. If we are using Shannon Information then your claim is utterly false. (Check out http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/primer/latex/index.html)

However, let us assume your using Dembski's "complex specified information," as fleshed out in No Free Lunch. I think in this case there are definite terms of debatability.

I am somewhat confused as to why Michael Behe is being brought into this. Irreducible complexity is rather detached from biological information theory.

Garret

[Revolg]

Garret:
Revolg,

What you are claiming here depends entirely on your definition of information. If we are using Shannon Information then your claim is utterly false. (Check out http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/primer/latex/index.html)

However, let us assume your using Dembski's "complex specified information," as fleshed out in No Free Lunch. I think in this case there are definite terms of debatability.

I am somewhat confused as to why Michael Behe is being brought into this. Irreducible complexity is rather detached from biological information theory.

Garret

No sir I am just posting from what I do know! I don't think I brought up this "Shannon Information" idea.. I am talking about the rise of new "features" like for example a hairless animal getting hair where it never had hair before. There were no information gained in any mutation. This URL you cited is for those who are unfamilar with the information theory. It even gives the probabilities of that happening. Besides was this about probability? No it was about "the evidence" of new information arising withing a species that never existed before.

Michael Behe was brought into this discussion because he has the information why there can't be the evolution of the cell atleast not with a higher power's help. No one even knows how the cell came into being but it's postulated all the time. But I am also sure you have read his books before.

[Yog^sothoth]

:read:

OK. This is evolution how I understand it. Mind you, i'm trying to figure out what a fossil hunter would know about evolution, but thats just a random thought cause who knows what I am...and i ain't telling.

First off, yes, i am christian and no, i don't care about the bible. Figure that contradiction out.

Anyway, Evolution isn't exactly the mutation of DNA into a new species (although it kind of is) evolution is kind of a strange process involving many different factors.

Let's take the all too classic mendel and his crazy pea plants. Mendel went nuts, breeding plants over the space of years and years, testing patters and variation and one of the most important factors in my opinion is that although for the most part reproduction could be predicted with relative ease, there was almost always a plant or two that went against all norms he knew, a mutant.

Now apply this to nature, we see, after countless reproduction within a species, a mutated strain of DNA (maybe this new strand takes the form of hairlessness). Natural Selection tells us that if this mutant has a positive or beneficial characteristic and can reproduce; over time, we will begin to see a slow change in the species. Over the space of millions of years, these small mutant like changes will begin to pile up and only those individuals with the positive characteristics which allow them to do whatever it is they do better than the rest (hunt, hide, run, whatnot) will reproduce and the mutant strand will become dominant and normal. That is until the next mutant strain is introduced.

The evolutionists are't really trying to prove that god doesn't exsist. Those with a voice louder than the rest drown out the fact that they really only care about is studying evolutionary processes.

But of course, you disagree! Maybe i'm wrong, bring it all on!

:bonk:

[Revolg]

It's a good summation of what it would be.

[Yog^sothoth]

what it "would" be? explain please. mendels research alone was meticulous enough to warrant a "large degree of truth"

(sorry about the stab, negativity in me this week and it released there. sorry.)

[Yog^sothoth]

:o

[Revolg]

Mendels? You've got to be kidding....

He didn't create much "life" anyway. It's probably about the same amount of life you make when making chicken noodle soup.

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

Wrong Mendels... ooopsy.. This is the Mendels which goes to Ball State that tried to make a cell but failed. Stanley Miller was the last one.

Yes Mendels was the father of Genetics (this Mendel).

[Yog^sothoth]

ok, i take back my :o

and it is replaced with :argh:

[Revolg]

Yeah sorry about that :rofl:

I know two Mendels which are obviously scientifically related. One Mendel was the father of Genetics and the other one was a scientist at a university that attempted to make a cell. Obviously Mendel #2 stuck out in my mind for it was local news here two years ago.

[Garret]

Revolg:
No sir I am just posting from what I do know! I don't think I brought up this "Shannon Information" idea.. I am talking about the rise of new "features" like for example a hairless animal getting hair where it never had hair before. There were no information gained in any mutation. This URL you cited is for those who are unfamilar with the information theory. It even gives the probabilities of that happening. Besides was this about probability?

Revolg I am somewhat surprised that you are arguing "there is no information gained in any mutation" and yet do not know what information is. Shannon Information is a basic mathematical defintion of what information is: it describes information as a decrease in uncertainty based on the probability of some outcome, which makes alot of sense when you think about it.

For example, before you toss a coin you don't know if its going to be heads or tails. Once you toss it, the information imparted is measurable by Shannon's general formula for uncertainty (I don't know how to put equations in, sorry).

The problem with Shannon information is it cannot do justice to semantics. In steps complex specified information. You have claimed that "there is no information gained in any mutation." And yet, before a mutation there is a degree of uncertainty as to what mutation out of the set of possibilities will arise. Hence, once the mutation has occurred we quite easily have new information. But what about having new meaningful information? This is an entirely different idea. I am not personally convinced that natural selection and mutation can give rise to specified complex information (qua Dembski), but that is besides the point.


Michael Behe was brought into this discussion because he has the information why there can't be the evolution of the cell atleast not with a higher power's help. No one even knows how the cell came into being but it's postulated all the time. But I am also sure you have read his books before.

But admittedly he has nothing to do with mutations creating information. His concept of irreducible complexity creates a logical roadblock to incrementive Darwinian pathways and an enhanced difficulty for any sort of evolution by indirect pathways. I agree with you mostly, you're just misrepresenting the evidence.

Garret

[Revolg]

I didn't know about Shannon Information until you showed me about it. But I had to wonder why it had to do with this anyway? The evidence is whether or not a mutation can offer an "increase" in information.

[TheFiveSolas]

Since information theory was being spoken about (with Shannon's theory being mentioned specifically) I thought you might be interested in an article by Dr. Royal Truman (Ph.D. Organic Chemistry). Dr. Truman details the three prevailing theories, Bayesian (spelling?), Shannon's, and Gitt's (Dr. Werner Gitt, retired director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, and the head of the Department of Information Technology). Gitt's Information Theory is the one that refutes evolutionary information increase.

In this article Dr. Truman shows why "Shannon’s theory of information, while useful in the context of telecommunications, does not seem to help anyone much in the evolution/creation debate. The purpose in spending the effort at all here is to clarify why a richer concept, discussed in Part 4, becomes necessary."

http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp

You might also be interested in an online debate between Dr. Lee Spetner (Ph.D. Biophysics, MIT) and Dr. Edward Max (MD, Ph.D. Pennsylvania University) over this very issue. Spetner, as far as I could tell, wipes the floor with Max.

Part 1

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp

Part 2


http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

Hope that proves useful!

[Yog^sothoth]

:bonk:

see, this is me hammering in this information. those two links will prove interesting i'm sure. I glanced at them and am astounded at how a demeanor i thought to include only gamers talking about how they hate other RPGs than the ones they play, can encompass all walks of life.

Another thing I have learned is that people do not doubt that evolution happens, they doubt whether new information is introduced into the DNA info or not. So I suppose that Revolg is in a sense correct....but let us not forget that there are people who totally subscribe to evolution and all walks of it, and there are people who are disgusted by the simple fact of it. Revolg, i'd say make your own decision based on the facts. Do not simply reverberate what you have read.

LEARN from it.

[Revolg]

I am learning from it LOL. Remember what I said in the other pages about me not being a geneticist but rather a Ornithologist who studies mainly fossils? hehe

I will make mistakes in other areas of science.

[Stratnerd]

Revlog,


Ornithologist who studies mainly fossils?

You do this as an amatuer or are you a student or professor? If the latter, where?

[Revolg]

I'm not a professor, it's something I do as an amateur thing. I have gotten a degree in it already but fossils are my thing. My brother however is more into theology than I am. He is still in highschool and wants to follow in big brother's footsteps :D.

If I was a Professor it would probably be at North Carolina where the majority of bird experts seem to be coming from.

[Socrates]

Yog^sothoth wrote:



First off, yes, i am christian and no, i don't care about the bible. Figure that contradiction out.


You figure out why anyone should give you any credence if you claim to be a Christian but disagree with Christ who said "Scripture cannot be broken" and "It is written ..." to settle a debate.

[Socrates]

Garret relies on a rabid misotheist with antisemitic tendencies called Schneider:



What you are claiming here depends entirely on your definition of information. If we are using Shannon Information then your claim is utterly false. (Check out http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/p...atex/index.html)


5Solas pointed to some good articles by Dr Royal Truman. I would also suggest his direct refutation of that Schneider pillock:
The Problem of Information for the Theory of Evolution: Has Tom Schneider Really Solved It? (http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp)

[Yog^sothoth]

The inane brain game that is socrates thumps his bible and says:


You figure out why anyone should give you any credence if you claim to be a Christian but disagree with Christ who said "Scripture cannot be broken" and "It is written ..." to settle a debate.


I never said I didn't agree with it. I said I do not accept it. I agree with the general message contained in the bible and probably lead a much more harmonious life than your anger filled posts would lead me to believe you do. I question the authority of the bible when filtered through a church setting and I question it further with my inability to read, write,or comprehend a large portion of Hebrew. I may not sit around in a happy happy daze with my bible as a blanket but I find that through questioning my own faith (note MY OWN, not yours) I become stronger.

:yipee:

[Bartholomew]

Yog^sothoth:
But of course, you disagree! Maybe i'm wrong, bring it all on!

:bonk:

I bet there are creationists who would love to debate you. You should post a challenge. =)

~Matt

[Rubens]

Yog^sothoth:
:read:

The evolutionists are't really trying to prove that god doesn't exsist. Those with a voice louder than the rest drown out the fact that they really only care about is studying evolutionary processes.

:bonk:

I have to disagree on this one, Yog! Although I admit I only have heresay and a certain Christian perspective on why, but hear me out;

Rather than split (missing link) hairs on the details, we can agree that evolution is a scientifically flawed idea. An "evolutionist" is one who believes in the idea and sets out to find a scientific observation that fits the idea. The scientific observations will or could lead to many hypotheses, but the evolutionist will pick the one that most suits them. Remember, non-evolutionists are not just theistic scholars, there are many non-theistic scientists who struggle with the whole evolution concept. So why would the evolutionists try to make the square peg fit in the round hole? There must be an agenda!

Rewind to Darwin; firstly, he was reluctant to release his ideas, but his agressively atheist friend Huxley convinced him to, then paraded his promotion of Darwin's work as "Freedom from the shackles of religion" (or words to that effect). A clear agenda there. Don't think this attitude didn't catch on in an increasingly secular society!

Here's some other examples: The PBS organisation in the USA (a scientific org) have been pushing the evolution message and have strong ties to the Civil Liberties Unions who were instrumental in making compulsory the teaching of evolution in schools. ANyhow, they produced a popular 5 part series on evolution, complete with melodrama on Darwin's life, inspiring narrative with quotes like "...This discovery proved it... we ARE evolved from a common ancestor!", also an episode patronisingly telling us that religion and evolution CAN live together hand in hand, and anyone who disagrees is a bible-thumping maniac, or "fundamentalist" being the polite word. The stereotype they used was Prof. Ken Ham, who holds PhD's in many sciences, and has rationally and scientifically debunked evolution, but they didn't show any of that, preferring to introduce him as a "Fundamentalist Christian preacher".

BTW, this docco was funded by an American multi-millionare who happens to be an atheist. This example, of course, is a tip of the iceberg... there are many, many examples of evolution being pushed as fact or "logical science" which are beyond the scope of this posting.

The message is clear. You are either a (sensible, level headed and intelligent) evolutionist or a (incompetent, misguided, dogmatic, oppressive) religious fundy.

Also, without going into detail because I'm not much more into the Bible than you are, but I do believe there is no room in the message for God to have allowed us to endure a violent, long-running life and death duel of survival of the fittest, to establish ourselves as his chosen species.

Anyhow, keep asking questions... you're doing the right thing!

[Yog^sothoth]

I agree and disagree with you ruebens. I agree that these lines exsist, atheists over there, creationists over there. BUT, what I want to see is more combination. I want to see more science with god, science about god, godly science science...oh wait, i should go to bed too....:tongue:

[Socrates]

Rubens:
Here's some other examples: The PBS organisation in the USA (a scientific org) have been pushing the evolution message and have strong ties to the Civil Liberties Unions who were instrumental in making compulsory the teaching of evolution in schools. ANyhow, they produced a popular 5 part series on evolution, complete with melodrama on Darwin's life, inspiring narrative with quotes like "...This discovery proved it... we ARE evolved from a common ancestor!", also an episode patronisingly telling us that religion and evolution CAN live together hand in hand, and anyone who disagrees is a bible-thumping maniac, or "fundamentalist" being the polite word. The stereotype they used was Prof. Ken Ham, who holds PhD's in many sciences, and has rationally and scientifically debunked evolution, but they didn't show any of that, preferring to introduce him as a "Fundamentalist Christian preacher".I agree with your thrust completely. A few minor points though. The PBS series was seven episodes, and Ken Ham doesn't have a Ph.D. and has never claimed to have one. But he has a B.Appl.Sci. and he did indeed present many scientific arguments against evolution, which even undermined a lot of the nonsense on the PBS Evolution series. But naturally PBS didb't show any of that, or most of the 2 hours of interview with him. Mr Ham also heads an organisation that DOES have a number of staff with earned Ph.D.s in science from accredited secular universities.

Please see AiG's devastating critique of the series (http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/default.asp). Don't expect Yog to read it though, because he's already made up his mind.

[Rubens]

Socrates:
I agree with your thrust completely. A few minor points though...

:argh:

Thanks Socks. Man, I gotta keep on my toes here! My perspective was littered with failure to check my sources...but you got the general idea.

Another example is the play/ movie Inherit The Wind about the Scopes trial. I hope Yog and like-minded folks don't take that one as Gospel. What a pioneering piece of skeptic propaganda.


Yog^Sothoth:
BUT, what I want to see is more combination. I want to see more science with god, science about god, godly science science...oh wait, i should go to bed too....

Hope you had a restful sleep Yog- you sounded like you had a bit on your mind!! Say, if you want Godly Science, check out a fella called Chuck Missler at http://www.khouse.org/misslerreport/technical/

It will probably look like just another Bible-apologetic site with the usual stuff, but this guy used to program guidance systems for NASA and has degrees in various sciences (I stand to be corrected by Socrates there!!)... if you get to listen to some of his technical stuff on audio it is fascinating ! You like Thermodynamics? Dimensional science? Law of entropy? You'll get hooked on this stuff, I promise.

[TenDimensions]

Revolg:
Most of them Flipper. Let me ask you a question, has a scientist any proof of new information via mutation? I might be surprised if you even found one example.

You probably won't - "information" doesn't have to be mutated fully formed as "information" - a mutation can be sufficient to just create additional genetic material (very documented) - and then through reshuffling, reordering, and selection (again very documented) you get the final product you're looking for, information.

It's the quest of Creationists to look for "fully formed" structures from mutations which leads to their idea that evolution is impossible. The idea of "irreducible complexity" completely and utterly leaves out the possibility that the "structure" that seems to be too complex to form in steps may have formed in steps with other components that are no longer present.

Like interlacing four knives over five cups in an X formation and taking away the middle cup when you're done. Studying the four cups with the four interlaced knives - wow - how could that have evolved?

There are steps that had to be taken to get where we are today - some of those steps are known and some aren't. But in science you can't just fill in those steps with God - you need to say "I don't know" and go figure it out!

[Berserker]

:thumb: :cheers:

[djdavo]

02-01-2003 @ 03:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=5426#post5426)
Yog^sothoth:



First off, yes, i am christian and no, i don't care about the bible. Figure that contradiction out.



i've been trying to,but it doesn't make sense. how do you even know Jesus was a real person? why do you need to know hebrew? you can pick up a concordance an see how amazingly true to the original texts our versions are. Jesus quoted every OT book except 2.
if you're a believer in Christ and believed what he said, then this doesn't make sense to me.

[AdvocatDiaboli]

Would this be an increase in information?

First: CTC GAA ACG TTG TTG TAC

Then: CTC GGA ACG TTG TGG TAC

?

Or maybe this:
First: CTC GAA ACG TTG TTG TAC

Then: CTC GAA ACG TTG TTG TAC TAC

?

All examples are hypothetical.

[TheFiveSolas]

AiG has a program that can be adjusted to reflect the observed mutation rates (or adjusted to any that you choose) and run to try to match a given sentence (or even a chosen peptide). Running the program using real-world data shows how impossible it is for random mutations to come up with new information.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv16n2_weasel.asp
Note: Read the Help file as to how to adjust the program to utilize more realistic real-world figures for mutation rates, target, etc.

[Socrates]

Yog^sothoth:


First off, yes, i am christian and no, i don't care about the bible. Figure that contradiction out.

djdavo i've been trying to,but it doesn't make sense. how do you even know Jesus was a real person? why do you need to know hebrew? you can pick up a concordance an see how amazingly true to the original texts our versions are. Jesus quoted every OT book except 2.

if you're a believer in Christ and believed what he said, then this doesn't make sense to me.djdavo I totally agree, and could get no more sense from Yog^sothoth on how one could claim to be a follower of Christ yet disagree with his view that "Scripture cannot be broken" and who said "It is written" to settle an argument. See The Authority of Scripture (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4306apol_v3n21994.asp). But this was several months ago, and maybe Yog has changed somewhat since then.

[Berserker]

AiG has a program that can be adjusted to reflect the observed mutation rates (or adjusted to any that you choose) and run to try to match a given sentence (or even a chosen peptide). Running the program using real-world data shows how impossible it is for random mutations to come up with new information.

How wonderfully bias!

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 04:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86600#post86600)
AdvocatDiaboli:

Would this be an increase in information?

First: CTC GAA ACG TTG TTG TAC

Then: CTC GGA ACG TTG TGG TAC

?

Or maybe this:
First: CTC GAA ACG TTG TTG TAC

Then: CTC GAA ACG TTG TTG TAC TAC

?

All examples are hypothetical.

Information is a lot trickier than your examples imply.

People who engage in breaking codes know that there is no way to crack a very short coded message except by trying all possible combinations and using all known languages to see if something that "makes sense" pops out.

But when you add "makes sense" you notice that there is both a sender and a receiver involved. In other words a raw string of letters conveys no information unless it "makes sense" to a potential receiver.

In the case at hand the receiver is an organism which is affected by the protein coded by the DNA.

If the existing protein "makes sense" to the organism, then the question is whether the altered protein, if any, will make more or less sense to that specific organism. Will it cause a gain or a loss in capability?

I am sure this doesn't really help at all in answering your question, but it may aid in a small way in illustrating the problem of what we mean by a loss or a gain in information.

Some of the theorems in "information theory" do not necessarily aid in this case at hand because many of them were developed to deal with the problem of message fidelity, where it was assumed that the problem was to transmit a given set of characters so as to avoid losing the least number of "bits of information" from the original message, and in this case no consideration was given to whether there was any "information" of the kind we are discussing here in the original message at all.

[Woman]

Rev


Micro evolution ( Natural Selection ) is indeed theory. Animals will evolve to better suite their invironment. However there is no proof that this can lead to Macro evolution ( New species emerging from natural selection) Every natual case which has the possibility of leading to Macro evolution has ended with destructive inbreeding not a new species. Macro in my opinion is still a hypotosis........and not a very good one.

That is incorrect. New species abound. If pinned down, even Socrates will tell you that "macro"-evolution is a fact. Actually, Socrates believes in "evolution" if you define it as "change over time." It's just semantics.

Also, be advised that AiG (Answers in Genesis) which is probably the the least biased (in terms of reporting real science) of the Creation sites, has removed this argument from their apologetic argument list. They advise Christians not to use it.

I would like to ask the creationists posting here if they know anything about baraminology. I haven't seen it addressed on this forum. It's an example of the kind of work being done by "creation scientists." They are trying to figure out what "kinds" are.

I have read excerpts from several of the seminal 'baraminology' papers as published in CRSQ. (The Creation
Research Society Quarterly) Their methods are the same as the methods employed by evolutionary systematists. The difference is that they place arbitrary lines of demarcation between 'baramina'.

They use genetic data when the results conform to or can be accommodated by their over-riding Scriptural considerations (there is actually a section in the papers called "Scriptural considerations", in which they justify their actions via the uber-authority of the bible). When the results conflict with it, they discard the results in favor of results that they can use.
One example of this is in a paper on the baraminology of Primates. Genetic analyses supported a grouping of humans with the other apes - a bible no-no.

A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates. D.A. Robinson and D.P. Cavanaugh. CRSQ 34:4, pp.196-208

From the introduction:

“…valid baraminic methodology must be capable of distinguishing between biologically similar yet phylogenetically distinct species such as humans and nonhuman primates.”

So, from the beginning it is presumed that humans and nonhuman primates are not phylogenetically related (see below). Yet, from the abstract of the same paper, we see:

“We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates.”

Here is a paper from CRSQ that pretty much explains this new science of baraminology.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htm

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 05:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86618#post86618)
TheFiveSolas:

AiG has a program that can be adjusted to reflect the observed mutation rates (or adjusted to any that you choose) and run to try to match a given sentence (or even a chosen peptide). Running the program using real-world data shows how impossible it is for random mutations to come up with new information.

You do realise that your second sentance does not follow from the first?

BTW: There is an entire thread devoted to information (I'll bump it), in which I explain how mutations do increase biological information. I would enjoy any polite feedback you have about it.

[TheFiveSolas]

RufusAtticus:
You do realise that your second sentance does not follow from the first?


How so? The second sentence was written in haste while I was at the office, however I don't think you understand the point I was making. Please clarify how the second sentence is a non-sequitor.

[DivineOb]

T5S,

I downloaded that program but I don't really see what the point of it is. In one sense, I can understand how no 'new information' has been generated since the conclusion is already fixed ahead of time. But, I have heard of genetic algorithms which evaluate such things based on much more indirect measures 'fitness', and in which the programs have yielded novel solutions not anticipated by the researchers.

Can you tell me a specific example of something a genetic algorithm could *not* give rise to without generating "new information"?

[Berserker]

Someone posted this one up before but it is so anti-AIG must post it again!

Mutation increasing information!
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

[TheFiveSolas]

DivineOb:
I downloaded that program but I don't really see what the point of it is. In one sense, I can understand how no 'new information' has been generated since the conclusion is already fixed ahead of time.


The point of the program is that when you use realistic (i.e., observed/measured) figures for mutation rates, error catastrophe, etc., and then try to form a peptide you are unable to do so in anything near the evolutionary time frame (if at all).

When you stated that the "conclusion is fixed ahead of time," I'm not exactly sure what you meant. However, in living creatures the nucleotide sequence is the carrier of the information for forming amino acids, which are joined together in very specific three dimensional shapes. The number of amino acids is fixed (@20). Therefore, algorithmic programs such as the one you downloaded are appropriate (when using realistic figures for mutation rates, etc.) for checking the probability of forming amino acids/proteins.

If you can't produce even a single peptide by random mutations then you don't have anything by which "fitness" can be "naturally selected."

[Socrates]

Woman:That is incorrect. New species abound. If pinned down, even Socrates will tell you that "macro"-evolution is a fact. You would have to define your terms. Do I believe in big changes? Sure, e.g. the information-LOSING changes that cause a beetle population on a windy island to lose their wings, or a fish population in caves to lose their eyes.

And I believe that speciation occurs in the sense of a population becoming reproductively isolated from its parent population. In fact, it can happen much quicker than most evolutionists realize, but this is an implicit prediction of the Creation/Fall/Flood/Migration model -- see Speedy Species Surprise (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n2_speedy.asp)

So yes, Woman is correct that it is definitely a mistake to claim that no new species arise, but I leave that error to long-age compromisers like Hugh Ross.

Actually, Socrates believes in "evolution" if you define it as "change over time." It's just semantics. [list]Since when has any creationist ever DENIED that things change over time. The Bible teaches this implicitly, e.g. from the fact that all the different "races", or better, people groups, came from Adam and Eve via Noah's three sons and their wives.[list]Also, be advised that AiG (Answers in Genesis) which is probably the the least biased (in terms of reporting real science) of the Creation sites, has removed this argument from their apologetic argument list. They advise Christians not to use it.Yes, but I can't recall any time when they ever used the argument. They have long stressed that the real issue is the direction of change, not the amount of it. But you wouldn't think so if you read only the deceitful equivocation from evolutionary propagandists, who tell the public that creation must be wrong because a new variety of salmon has arisen.I would like to ask the creationists posting here if they know anything about baraminology. I haven't seen it addressed on this forum. It's an example of the kind of work being done by "creation scientists." They are trying to figure out what "kinds" are. I've posted on another thread, although it's not really my area -- www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=87645#post87645

[Socrates]

DivineOb:I downloaded that program but I don't really see what the point of it is. In one sense, I can understand how no 'new information' has been generated since the conclusion is already fixed ahead of time.You raise an excellent point, which is a serious flaw of Dawkin's original weaselly program. This is shown by the leading information scientist Dr Werner Gitt at www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3746.asp

TheFiveSolas correctly pointed out that, even granting the pre-set goal, random mutation plus cumulative selection works to achieve that goal only under conditions unrealistic to evolution. But it also shows how random mutation plus cumulative selection CAN work to tune antibodies to antigens, because it's a totally different situation, despite the efforts of some atheists to equate this with evolution -- see my post www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=80700#post80700

[Berserker]

But sciences has observed increases of information, in fact repeatedly. You people are all arguing about yesterday’s lunch.

[Socratism]

Today @ 10:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88013#post88013)
Berserker:

But sciences has observed increases of information, in fact repeatedly. You people are all arguing about yesterday’s lunch.

You are merely handwaving and/or making an error equivalent to "the fallacy of the average"

You claim that cases are known where information content has been observed to increase.

That is true, but what you fail to mention, or else are unaware of, is that these same cases have been shown to be due to non-random not random mutation, implying that they are not due to random copying errors. This conclusion follows primarily because they occur too frequently and in a pattern that is not random (the experiments are repeatable).

An alternate theory that explains why the mutations are non-random is that there is a degree of design present in the situation.

This is all explained and documented very carefully in Dr. Lee Spetner's book, "Not By Chance".

[Berserker]

So the link I post above about the nylon bug is not due to a random mutation?

[Socratism]

Today @ 12:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88118#post88118)
Berserker:

So the link I post above about the nylon bug is not due to a random mutation?

As I am sure that you already know, scientists are finding cases where frame shifts can code for valid proteins, and this may be one of the reasons why humans have so few genes yet still are composed of more proteins than there are genes.

This has upset the previous one-gene one-protein dogma which has lain at the foundation of the molecular field of biology over the past decades.

Now you have discovered another case.

It appears to me that the sheer improbability of such a thing argues very strongly for not only intelligent design, but for a type of intelligent design that lies "light years" beyond the capabilities of human designers now and in the foreseeable future.

How can such improbable things be?

The marvel is not that a single frame shift mutation might occur, but instead that this event would reveal that the coding for the original DNA sequence would be such that it would contain not one but two protein sequences separated by only a single frame shift !!!!.

It would appear to me that compared to this case, the odds of finding a needle hidden in any random nook of the unbelievably wide universe would look easy.

Rather than being support for evolution, this case shouts design.