The user The Lurch asked for the following exchange to be made public:
Man, what is it with engineers? I've had it explained to me, but it never ceases to surprise me.
In any case, i'm happy to answer this publicly, unless you have some reason for wanting it kept private.
No, go ahead. Just tell me where you will post the response.
Cheers!
Go ahead and start a thread, and i'll respond.
So, I am starting this thread for The Lurch to post his response.
Thank you!
Originally posted by TheLurch
Originally posted by Seeker
Originally posted by TheLurch
Originally posted by Seeker
Hello The Lurch,
I have a question you may as a biologist may be able to answer. Dr. Lee Spetner puts forward a notion of specificity in his books Not by Chance and the Evolution Revolution. I want to know if he is just arguing semantics, or if this is a scientifically rebuttable claim. Here is the relevant quote:
''Evolutionists accuse me of “dishonestly” changing my definition of specificity to support my statement that no known random mutation adds information to the genome. In their attempt to discredit my book, they resort to calling me dishonest. The reasoning on which they base this smear is nothing but ridiculous. They demonstrate that they do not understand what specificity is, nor do they understand the relationship between specificity and information.
The specificity of a biochemical reaction reflects the ability of an enzyme to discriminate. The more highly specific, the more highly discriminating it is and the more information it has. The ribitol dehydrogenase (RDH) enzyme has a high activity on ribitol and a low activity on both xylitol and L-arabitol. It is therefore quite specific to ribitol. The mutated RDH has a somewhat lower activity on ribitol and a somewhat higher activity on xylitol and L-arabitol. It therefore discriminates less well than the wild-type (unmutated) RDH between ribitol and the other two molecules. It is therefore less specific and hence contains less information. The mutation has thus reduced the specificity, and therefore the information, in the RDH.
The streptomycin molecule attaches to the matching site on a pathogenic bacterial ribosome and thereby interferes with its protein synthesis, leading to the death of the pathogen. The matching site discriminates between streptomycin and other molecules, and is therefore specific to streptomycin and this specificity represents information in the matching site. A mutation in the site destroys the match so that the streptomycin cannot attach, granting the pathogen resistance to streptomycin. The mutated site matches to no molecules and thus does not discriminate between streptomycin and other molecules. The mutated site has thus lost its specificity and has lost its information. So this mutation, too, has lost information. The assertion that it becomes more specific because it matches to zero molecules is ridiculous. To say that binding to no molecules has more information than binding to one or two is a joke. My definition of specificity and information is consistent throughout, as opposed to evolutionists (false) charge''.
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/gloves_off_-_r/
What would be your response?
Thank you in advance.
I have a question you may as a biologist may be able to answer. Dr. Lee Spetner puts forward a notion of specificity in his books Not by Chance and the Evolution Revolution. I want to know if he is just arguing semantics, or if this is a scientifically rebuttable claim. Here is the relevant quote:
''Evolutionists accuse me of “dishonestly” changing my definition of specificity to support my statement that no known random mutation adds information to the genome. In their attempt to discredit my book, they resort to calling me dishonest. The reasoning on which they base this smear is nothing but ridiculous. They demonstrate that they do not understand what specificity is, nor do they understand the relationship between specificity and information.
The specificity of a biochemical reaction reflects the ability of an enzyme to discriminate. The more highly specific, the more highly discriminating it is and the more information it has. The ribitol dehydrogenase (RDH) enzyme has a high activity on ribitol and a low activity on both xylitol and L-arabitol. It is therefore quite specific to ribitol. The mutated RDH has a somewhat lower activity on ribitol and a somewhat higher activity on xylitol and L-arabitol. It therefore discriminates less well than the wild-type (unmutated) RDH between ribitol and the other two molecules. It is therefore less specific and hence contains less information. The mutation has thus reduced the specificity, and therefore the information, in the RDH.
The streptomycin molecule attaches to the matching site on a pathogenic bacterial ribosome and thereby interferes with its protein synthesis, leading to the death of the pathogen. The matching site discriminates between streptomycin and other molecules, and is therefore specific to streptomycin and this specificity represents information in the matching site. A mutation in the site destroys the match so that the streptomycin cannot attach, granting the pathogen resistance to streptomycin. The mutated site matches to no molecules and thus does not discriminate between streptomycin and other molecules. The mutated site has thus lost its specificity and has lost its information. So this mutation, too, has lost information. The assertion that it becomes more specific because it matches to zero molecules is ridiculous. To say that binding to no molecules has more information than binding to one or two is a joke. My definition of specificity and information is consistent throughout, as opposed to evolutionists (false) charge''.
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/gloves_off_-_r/
What would be your response?
Thank you in advance.
In any case, i'm happy to answer this publicly, unless you have some reason for wanting it kept private.
Cheers!
Thank you!
Comment