[_ Old Earth _] Five Pillars of Evolution Compared with Creation

[jwu]

How do we know the one individual or group of individuals were the first to express these traits?

By comparing the genes of family members it was possible to trace the allele to one particular individual.

Any kind of so called "beneficial mutations" are actually a loss of genetic information, not an increase.

And why is that so?
I already know the answer, but i'd like to hear it from you to be sure that we talk about the same thing.

Just because a trait may seem novel in the short term, doesn't mean the trait is actually novel. We may be just now observing them.

So even though we know the actual mutation which caused the trait and when it happened, it isn't really novel? How could that not be a new trait then?

Loss of genetic information would indicate a true mutation. Built in variation ensures survivability of the species. The limit would be the creation of any new information.

Ah, so the above things were "true mutations" and not results of that mysterious "built in variability" as they resulted in the loss of genetic information according to your own statements?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Ah, so the above things were "true mutations" and not results of that mysterious "built in variability" as they resulted in the loss of genetic information according to your own statements

I haven't read the background on either of the examples, so I don't know.

Did they result in a loss of information?

And why is that so?

Observations.

By comparing the genes of family members it was possible to trace the allele to one particular individual.

And it's not possible the individual inherited the trait? Not this is paramount. The real issue is do mutations add or subtract information to/ from the genetic package? (evolution/ devolution)

 

[jwu]

I haven't read the background on either of the examples, so I don't know.

Did they result in a loss of information?

Umm...you claimed so yourself:

Any kind of so called "beneficial mutations" are actually a loss of genetic information, not an increase.

Observations.

Could you be a bit more precise? How do you arrive at that conclusion?
(And besides...it has solely to do with the formal definition of information, vague "feelings" based on what one has seen is meaningless if the rigid math says something else)

And it's not possible the individual inherited the trait?

No. Even the particular nucleotides have been identified, and other descendants of the parents of the individual do not share that change.

The real issue is do mutations add or subtract information to/ from the genetic package? (evolution/ devolution)

That distinction doesn't exist anywhere except in the mind of creationists.

However...how can we distinguish loss of information from increase of information? What would an increase of information look like?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Umm...you claimed so yourself:

Quote:
Any kind of so called "beneficial mutations" are actually a loss of genetic information, not an increase.

That wasn't directed specifically at these case studies, just a general statement. I'm trying to ascertain whether these are particular traits expressing themselves, or if their just mutations that happen to possess some benefit, in a very limited context...i.e.-what is the net effect of the mutation. If in fact these examples are mutations, then information was lost. What was that information's purpose in the first place. What function has been lost?

Quote:
And it's not possible the individual inherited the trait?

No. Even the particular nucleotides have been identified, and other descendants of the parents of the individual do not share that change.

I'm not getting something here. There are many traits that are not shared among siblings. Again, maybe I'm not understanding you.

Quote:
The real issue is do mutations add or subtract information to/ from the genetic package? (evolution/ devolution)

That distinction doesn't exist anywhere except in the mind of creationists.

Really. So you claim that new information is not necessary to form new structures. Where did the information come from that enabled a single cell organism to "evolve" into other multicellular organisms with complete subsystems such as the brain, the cardio-vascular system, and hormonal feedback loops for the reproductive system. I see know way of a single cell organism, in and of itself, producing the requisite information to produce the above systems and structures. From where did the information come which enabled the production and replication of intricate systems, such as the brain? Even if these requisite increases in information took place over eons, it is still the burden of the evolutionist to explain how this information was created. Repeated observation tells us that increases in information are the product of intelligence. ToE is in conflict with observations for this particular issue.

However...how can we distinguish loss of information from increase of information? What would an increase of information look like?

Could you be a bit more precise?

In the natural world, I haven't observed an example of an information increase. Where intellect is involved, we see everyday examples such as the difference between a horse and buggy and an F-22. Much more information is obviously involved in the production and replication of F-22s. Typewriters and computers would be another good example.

What one has seen is meaningless if the rigid math says something else

Observation is critical to science. Observation should never bow to theory.
That's one of the biggest problems I run into with my archeological research.
Here's a typical response from a doctoral level archeologist:

"Modern man could not have been in the Americas 250,000 B.P., because we know ToE has proved that modern man did not evolve until ca. 40,000 BP....in Africa".

Sad...

Thankfully, many respected archeologists are now ready to rewrite the history of man, no matter the political repercussions. Leading the "rebels" are the heads of University of Texas', Texas A&M, University of South Carolina, Mercyhurst, The San Diego and Denver Museums of Natural Science, etc...

 

[jwu]

I'm trying to ascertain whether these are particular traits expressing themselves, or if their just mutations that happen to possess some benefit, in a very limited context...i.e.-what is the net effect of the mutation. If in fact these examples are mutations, then information was lost. What was that information's purpose in the first place. What function has been lost?

Umm...beneficial mutations by definition have a positive net effect. After all, e.g. in bacteria they are recognized by the mutated ones outperforming the other ones. They couldn't do that without a positive net effect.
And hence it does not matter what information was lost - it got replaced by different but more useful information (if one assumes reproductive success to be synonymous to information content).

I'm not getting something here. There are many traits that are not shared among siblings. Again, maybe I'm not understanding you.

Still, it is confined to that particular family; i've read the paper, it's a father and two of his three children who have this trait.

Really. So you claim that new information is not necessary to form new structures.

Actually that is not what i said...i said that there is no official distinction between evolution by increase of information and devolution by loss thereof.
The concept of devolution and linking the whole thing to information content was completely made up by creationists, it's not part of accepted biology. Loss of obsolete features is just as much evolution as the gain of new ones is.

Where did the information come from that enabled a single cell organism to "evolve" into other multicellular organisms with complete subsystems such as the brain, the cardio-vascular system, and hormonal feedback loops for the reproductive system.

By trial and error - lots of random mutations were generated and those that "made sense" in terms of survival - i.e. those that can be said to contain useful information - were selected.

I see know way of a single cell organism, in and of itself, producing the requisite information to produce the above systems and structures.

Actually e.g. the step from single celled to multi celled has been directly observed.

From where did the information come which enabled the production and replication of intricate systems, such as the brain?

The brain is a neuronal network, only a basic structure is coded in the genes and the rest grows all by itself due to feedback loops.

Repeated observation tells us that increases in information are the product of intelligence. ToE is in conflict with observations for this particular issue.

Repeated observance shows us that mutations can form new proteins. If that is not an increase of information, then what is?

In the natural world, I haven't observed an example of an information increase. Where intellect is involved, we see everyday examples such as the difference between a horse and buggy and an F-22. Much more information is obviously involved in the production and replication of F-22s. Typewriters and computers would be another good example.

But what would it look like in the natural world? After all, you claim that increase of infformation is part of the theory of evolution...all i ask of you is to pick such an example from the theory of evolution which constitutes an increase of information. That should be easy if you have an idea what information is.

Observation is critical to science. Observation should never bow to theory.
That's one of the biggest problems I run into with my archeological research.
Here's a typical response from a doctoral level archeologist:

"Modern man could not have been in the Americas 250,000 B.P., because we know ToE has proved that modern man did not evolve until ca. 40,000 BP....in Africa".

Sad...

Thankfully, many respected archeologists are now ready to rewrite the history of man, no matter the political repercussions. Leading the "rebels" are the heads of University of Texas', Texas A&M, University of South Carolina, Mercyhurst, The San Diego and Denver Museums of Natural Science, etc...

That's irrelevant to the point. "Information" can't be directly observed, it's an abstract concept. One can observe things and then use mathematical tools to determine the information content - and what these tools say is the definite result, regardless if one "feels" that based on what one has seen the result "should" be higher or lower. Otherwise one violates the definition of information.

It seems to me that you equate the usefulness of a mutation with its information content. That however has no foundation in information theory.

 

[Barbarian]

If you like, we could do some calculations on whether or not a mutation will increase information in a population.

Would you like to see it?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Umm...beneficial mutations by definition have a positive net effect. After all, e.g. in bacteria they are recognized by the mutated ones outperforming the other ones. They couldn't do that without a positive net effect.
And hence it does not matter what information was lost - it got replaced by different but more useful information (if one assumes reproductive success to be synonymous to information content).

Do “beneficial†mutations produce a net informational increase. That’s the issue. Without an increase in information, all that’s happening is devolution, i.e.- The Second Law. While degrading, some temporarily beneficial mutations may occur, but overall, the organism is losing it’s complexity. This is the exact opposite of what is required by ToE. ToE requires an increase in information. On what levels do mutated bacteria actually increase in information?

And hence it does not matter what information was lost - it got replaced by different but more useful information.

And this information came from...where? Is the mutation in fact beneficial in the long run, or just a short term advantage, at the cost of long term survivability?

all i ask of you is to pick such an example from the theory of evolution which constitutes an increase of information. That should be easy if you have an idea what information is.

But I’ve told you, the example doesn’t exist. I could give you a science fiction version, but I’m fairly certain that’s not what your looking for.

That's irrelevant to the point. "Information" can't be directly observed, it's an abstract concept. One can observe things and then use mathematical tools to determine the information content - and what these tools say is the definite result, regardless if one "feels" that based on what one has seen the result "should" be higher or lower. Otherwise one violates the definition of information.

I disagree. Information can easily be observed: rock/ sculpture; soil/ farm; soil and rock/ exterior of a skyscraper; sand/ silicon chips, wood/house...

Remember, math only attempts to model reality. Observations always overide theory in the long run. And, remember, Shannon’s model most accurately describes observable reality. Relating randomness to biological information is just wand waving. It has no basis in emperical science.

Still, it is confined to that particular family; i've read the paper, it's a father and two of his three children who have this trait.

And how do we know grandpa or great grandpa, or even great-great grandpa didn’t possess this trait. What’s the historical background? Or does that exist?

Actually that is not what i said...i said that there is no official distinction between evolution by increase of information and devolution by loss thereof.
The concept of devolution and linking the whole thing to information content was completely made up by creationists, it's not part of accepted biology. Loss of obsolete features is just as much evolution as the gain of new ones is.

...adaptation has been achieved by the process, already mentioned, which hinges on the gaining of information by means of genetic change and natural selection, as well as on the storing of knowledge in the code of the chain molecules in the genome.
-- Konrad Lorenz, Nobel Prize lecture, 1973

How do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information. Fortunately, fifty years ago Claude Shannon defined information as a decrease in the uncertainty of a receiver. For molecular systems, uncertainty is closely related to entropy and hence has clear connections to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These aspects of information theory have allowed the development of a straightforward and practical method of measuring information in genetic control systems.

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/schneider.html

Actually e.g. the step from single celled to multi celled has been directly observed.

Example. Your saying a the evolution of a single celled organism to a viable multi-celled organism has been observed?

By trial and error - lots of random mutations were generated and those that "made sense" in terms of survival - i.e. those that can be said to contain useful information - were selected.

Appears to be wand waving...conjecture.

The brain is a neuronal network, only a basic structure is coded in the genes and the rest grows all by itself due to feedback loops.

And the code for the info and feedback loops came from where? The reason “it grows all by itself†is because the information for guiding the growth is present.

quote:
Repeated observation tells us that increases in information are the product of intelligence. ToE is in conflict with observations for this particular issue.


Repeated observance shows us that mutations can form new proteins. If that is not an increase of information, then what is?

Repeated observations also show that errors in replicating information can create something that is different from the source. Is this desirable? Is this really an increase in information? Would you really want garbled nonsense on the disk you saved to bring on your business trip, when you expected your big presentation instead.

Obviously, as far empirical observations go, any decrease in information from replication processes is undesirable.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

If you like, we could do some calculations on whether or not a mutation will increase information in a population.

Would you like to see it?
_________________
"Beware of gifts bearing Greeks." - Laocoon

Alright Crouching Tiger, show us what you've got... :D

This will be my last response until next weekend for this particular topic.
I'll try to write up a response to the Triassic strata we're discussing in the other forum tomorrow.

Everyone have a great week!!

Cheers! :D

 

[jwu]

Do “beneficial†mutations produce a net informational increase. That’s the issue. Without an increase in information, all that’s happening is devolution, i.e.- The Second Law. While degrading, some temporarily beneficial mutations may occur, but overall, the organism is losing it’s complexity. This is the exact opposite of what is required by ToE. ToE requires an increase in information. On what levels do mutated bacteria actually increase in information?

There is no correlation between the effects of mutation on the individuum's reproductive success and its change of the information content of the genome.

By the way...entropy is a measure of complexity. The higher the level of entropy, the more possible microstates, the more complex an entity.

And this information came from...where? Is the mutation in fact beneficial in the long run, or just a short term advantage, at the cost of long term survivability?

Evolution doesn't plan ahead. However, if the niche is stable, then that equals a long term advantage too of course.

But I’ve told you, the example doesn’t exist. I could give you a science fiction version, but I’m fairly certain that’s not what your looking for.

Do i understand you correctly? There is no specific example for something that is proposed by the theory of evolution which requires an increase of information? Don't you see how this utterly crushes your own argument? You indirectly say that evolution does not require an increase of information, else it should be easy to point out a specific case where it does so.

I disagree. Information can easily be observed: rock/ sculpture; soil/ farm; soil and rock/ exterior of a skyscraper; sand/ silicon chips, wood/house...

And what has more information, a skyscraper or a car? How can we squeeze this into formal definitions?
This is exactly what i was talking about. You say that these things have information because you "feel" that they should have. But that has nothing to do with the established information theory. If you disagree with what has been used as information theory until now, then you are free to improve it, submit it to peer review and get it accepted by the scientific community. But until that happened we will use what generally is accepted as information theory, e.g. Shannon or K/C.

And, remember, Shannon’s model most accurately describes observable reality. Relating randomness to biological information is just wand waving. It has no basis in emperical science.

So an amoeba mutating into a human would have what effect on the shannon information content of the amoeba?

And how do we know grandpa or great grandpa, or even great-great grandpa didn’t possess this trait. What’s the historical background? Or does that exist?

Basically you're saying that the trait always existed, else the argument makes no sense. But if it traces back to Adam and Eve - who you believe that they existed after all - then why isn't it widely spread in the human population?

adaptation has been achieved by the process, already mentioned, which hinges on the gaining of information by means of genetic change and natural selection, as well as on the storing of knowledge in the code of the chain molecules in the genome.
-- Konrad Lorenz, Nobel Prize lecture, 1973

Konrad Lorenz was neither geneticist nor mathematician, but rather a psychologist working with animals. He is not any more qualified to make a statement on that subject than a sociologist is qualified to speak on quantum physics. While he had a doctorate in medicine, he made that in 1928 - almost thirty years before DNA even was discovered.
Either way, argument from authority...a logical fallacy. Show me the actual reasoning behind that claim.

How do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information. Fortunately, fifty years ago Claude Shannon defined information as a decrease in the uncertainty of a receiver. For molecular systems, uncertainty is closely related to entropy and hence has clear connections to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These aspects of information theory have allowed the development of a straightforward and practical method of measuring information in genetic control systems.

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/schneider.html

That still doesn't link the information content to the beneficialness of the mutation.

And by the way, the author of that site doesn't see any conflict between evolution and information theory or thermodynamics. He even goes on on his site to support that:
http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/

Evolution of Biological Information: The information of patterns in nucleic acid binding sites can be measured as Rsequence (the area under a sequence logo). The amount of information needed to find the binding sites, Rfrequency, can be predicted from the size of the genome and number of binding sites. Rfrequency is fixed by the current physiology of an organism but Rsequence can vary. A computer simulation shows that the information in the binding sites (Rsequence) does indeed evolve toward the information needed to locate the binding sites (Rfrequency). See:

* T. D. Schneider Evolution of Biological Information Nucleic Acids Res., 28 (14), 2794-2799, 2000.
* Chris Adami's work on Evolutionary Biology and Biocomplexity.

Example. Your saying a the evolution of a single celled organism to a viable multi-celled organism has been observed?

There you go:

Starting from single celled animals, each of which has the capability to reproduce there is no sex in the sense that we think of the term. Selective pressure has been observed to convert single-cellular forms into multicellular forms. A case was observed in which a single celled form changed to multicellularity.
Boxhorn, a student of Boraas,writes:

Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris
Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella. "

Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

Appears to be wand waving...conjecture.

We observe it happening on a smaller scale all the time.

And the code for the info and feedback loops came from where? The reason “it grows all by itself†is because the information for guiding the growth is present.

How much info is required, precisely?

Repeated observations also show that errors in replicating information can create something that is different from the source. Is this desirable? Is this really an increase in information?

Something different, yes - and we frequently observe that different thing to be beneficial towards the reproductive success of the organism.
And yes, such beneficial changes are desireable.

However, based on that alone no conclusions can be drawn on the actual change of the information content.

Would you really want garbled nonsense on the disk you saved to bring on your business trip, when you expected your big presentation instead.

Grossly flawed analogy. There is no differential reproductive success between powerpoint presentations or hard disk content.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

jwu:
Could you then please post the official definitions of the first and second law of information theory? I think i already have asked for this repeatedly.

charlie:
Dr. Hawking states information cannot be destroyed. He also states that heat can’t be destroyed. Additionally he states very low entropy systems are indicative of information (Hawking is looking for signs of intelligence???). The formal First and Second Laws of Information are being written before our very eyes. These are very cool times for those interested in origins. The First and Second Laws appear to govern more than we ever thought.

Quote:

“commonly assumed tenet of scienceâ€â€that information cannot be destroyed.â€Â

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole ... on_paradox




jwu:
Oh, and please define intelligence. To me it appears to be hardly more than a catalyst.

charlie:
Here’s a couple of definitions

...the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience

- wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

... Intelligence is a person's capacity to (1) acquire knowledge (i.e. learn and understand), (2) apply knowledge (solve problems), and (3) engage in abstract reasoning. It is the power of one's intellect, and as such is clearly a very important aspect of one's overall well-being. Psychologists have attempted to measure it for well over a century.


jwu:
Hawking now believes that black holes may allow information to leak out.
That's by means of hawking radiation.

charlie:
Hawking Radiation and information are two different, albeit related concepts:

Quote:

Hawking Radiation:

“However, by doing a calculation in the framework of quantum field theory in curved spacetimes, Hawking showed quantum effects allow black holes to emit radiation in a thermal spectrum.â€Â

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation



Quote:

“The simplest models of black hole evaporation lead to the black hole information paradox. The information content of a black hole appears to be lost when it evaporates, as under these models the Hawking radiation is random (containing no information). A number of solutions to this problem have been proposed, including suggestions that Hawking radiation is perturbed to contain the missing information, that the Hawking evaporation leaves some form of remnant particle containing the missing information, and that information is allowed to be lost under these conditions.â€Â

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation



Note that the information and the radiation are mutually exclusive. Though one speculation is that Hawking Radiation is “perturbed†into containing information, it’s is only one speculation out of many.

Quote:

In July 2004 Stephen Hawking announced a theory that quantum perturbations of the event horizon could allow information to escape from a black hole, which would resolve the information paradox. Basically, his argument assumes the [correspondence] which states that an AdS black hole is dual to a thermal conformal field theory, which is unitary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole ... on_paradox



jwu:
That's a mechanical process which follows simple rules and does not require intelligence any more than a transistor is intelligent.

charlie:
What sets up the mechanical process. What sets up the rules? What creates the transistor?


jwu:
However, it also takes information to convert that house back into the original pile of bricks. I'd even say more than to build the house, as it's not as efficient to describe.

In case of the plant a ton of energy is wasted to heat to catalyze a little bit of sugar

charlie:
I agree.


jwu:
And in what way is the "code" understood, specifically by the sender?
The sender just copies his own DNA, puts it into a sperm cell and sends it, he doesn't understand anything of it.


charlie:
In a macro sense, the whole organism is the receiver of the information
from the parents, at conception. The organism in turn passes it’s
information along to it’s offspring.


Where in my definition does it state that an organism or system has to understand the information contained within itself in a conscious sort of way? I only contend information is derived from intelligence. A created system can be replicated by means of information, matter and energy: blueprints, material, labor; DNA, matter, energy;....
The “understanding the message part†is at the molecular level in living organisms, where the information stored in the DNA “library†is utilized to replicate “partsâ€Â, systems and whole organisms. The original sender of the information had to “understand†the code exceptionally well...being it's source.

Quote:
Somehow, some of these atoms came to be arranged in the form of molecules of DNA. This has the famous double helix form, discovered by Crick and Watson, in a hut on the New Museum site in Cambridge. Linking the two chains in the helix, are pairs of nucleic acids. There are four types of nucleic acid, adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thiamine. I'm afraid my speech synthesiser is not very good, at pronouncing their names. Obviously, it was not designed for molecular biologists. An adenine on one chain is always matched with a thiamine on the other chain, and a guanine with a cytosine. Thus the sequence of nucleic acids on one chain defines a unique, complementary sequence, on the other chain. The two chains can then separate and each act as templates to build further chains. Thus DNA molecules can reproduce the genetic information, coded in their sequences of nucleic acids. Sections of the sequence can also be used to make proteins and other chemicals, which can carry out the instructions, coded in the sequence, and assemble the raw material for DNA to reproduce itself.We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared.

Dr. Hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html

 

[jwu]

jwu:
Could you then please post the official definitions of the first and second law of information theory? I think i already have asked for this repeatedly.

charlie:
Dr. Hawking states information cannot be destroyed. He also states that heat can’t be destroyed. Additionally he states very low entropy systems are indicative of information (Hawking is looking for signs of intelligence???). The formal First and Second Laws of Information are being written before our very eyes. These are very cool times for those interested in origins. The First and Second Laws appear to govern more than we ever thought.

That's not an answer to the question. What are the actual laws?

jwu:
Oh, and please define intelligence. To me it appears to be hardly more than a catalyst.

charlie:
Here’s a couple of definitions

...the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience

- wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

... Intelligence is a person's capacity to (1) acquire knowledge (i.e. learn and understand), (2) apply knowledge (solve problems), and (3) engage in abstract reasoning. It is the power of one's intellect, and as such is clearly a very important aspect of one's overall well-being. Psychologists have attempted to measure it for well over a century.

And how does this allow intelligence to bypass your version of the 2ndLoT? What about maxwell's demon? Technically it is nothing but an intelligent being trying to act as a catalyst, yet it has been proven that MD also increases his own entropy in the process, which cancels out any net decrease of entropy - despite of intelligence.

Note that the information and the radiation are mutually exclusive. Though one speculation is that Hawking Radiation is “perturbed†into containing information, it’s is only one speculation out of many.

I don't see how these are supposed to be mutually exclusive if hawking radiation contains perturbed information. That's a different topic though.

That's a mechanical process which follows simple rules and does not require intelligence any more than a transistor is intelligent.

charlie:
What sets up the mechanical process. What sets up the rules? What creates the transistor?

It automatically begins as a consequence of the interaction of several entities. The rules matter little, they can be random.
The transistor is analogous to DNA in this example, so that'd be abiogenesis. By the way...transistors were discovered by accident, contamination of a probe formed the first transistor by pure chance (i'm not saying that abiogenesis depends purely on chance though).

jwu:
And in what way is the "code" understood, specifically by the sender?
The sender just copies his own DNA, puts it into a sperm cell and sends it, he doesn't understand anything of it.


charlie:
In a macro sense, the whole organism is the receiver of the information
from the parents, at conception. The organism in turn passes it’s
information along to it’s offspring.

Where in my definition does it state that an organism or system has to understand the information contained within itself in a conscious sort of way? I only contend information is derived from intelligence. A created system can be replicated by means of information, matter and energy: blueprints, material, labor; DNA, matter, energy;....
The “understanding the message part†is at the molecular level in living organisms, where the information stored in the DNA “library†is utilized to replicate “partsâ€Â, systems and whole organisms. The original sender of the information had to “understand†the code exceptionally well...being it's source.

You were using Gitt's definition there, weren't you? It explicitly mentions that a code is a deliberate convention between sender and receiver and so on.

However, what you describe there as "understanding" the DNA is mere chemistry. There isn't more "understanding" involved than in any other chemical reaction. Oxygen doesn't "understand" iron when it makes it rust.
It just stupidly follows a behavioural pattern that is controlled by the DNA.

 

[ikester7579]

It wouldn't be YE creationism, if it didn't include a lie or two about evolutionary theory. I think it's mandatory for them.

So would you like to claim that evolution has become a absolute truth and is no longer a theory?

O, I forgot. Those two things don't exist in science.

A absolute lie can only be determined by an absolute truth. And because evolution does not deal in absolutes, it makes it a fantasy,

 

[jwu]

A absolute lie can only be determined by an absolute truth. And because evolution does not deal in absolutes, it makes it a fantasy,

"Only the Sith deal in absolutes."

So i guess he (since i'm on his ignore list he won't read this) is saying that all things which don't deal in absolutes are fantasies. That makes the tastiness of food a fantasy, the interestingness of certain sports or TV programmes or literature, and all other things to which no definite end-of-the-story value can be assigned.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Quote:
A absolute lie can only be determined by an absolute truth. And because evolution does not deal in absolutes, it makes it a fantasy,

"Only the Sith deal in absolutes."

So i guess he (since i'm on his ignore list he won't read this) is saying that all things which don't deal in absolutes are fantasies. That makes the tastiness of food a fantasy, the interestingness of certain sports or TV programmes or literature, and all other things to which no definite end-of-the-story value can be assigned.
_________________
Proud to be on ikester7579's ignore list.

There you go jenz.... :wink:

Chat with you later in the week.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
If you like, we could do some calculations on whether or not a mutation will increase information in a population.

Would you like to see it?

Alright, Crouching Tiger, show us what you've got...

Bumbtious, um?

Ok.

The informatin for a given gene in a population is:

-1 ∑ p(i) log(p(i))

Where P(i) is the frequency of the ith allele.

So, if there are four alleles, each 25%, then the information for that gene is about 0.6 ( - .25 X log(.25)X4)

Suppose a new allele appears and eventually five allelles comprise 20% each.

The information for that gene will then be just a bit less than 0.7, a significant increase in information.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Barbarian suggests:
If you like, we could do some calculations on whether or not a mutation will increase information in a population.

Would you like to see it?

Quote:
Alright, Crouching Tiger, show us what you've got...


Bumbtious, um?

Ok.

The informatin for a given gene in a population is:

-1 ∑ p(i) log(p(i))

Where P(i) is the frequency of the ith allele.

So, if there are four alleles, each 25%, then the information for that gene is about 0.6 ( - .25 X log(.25)X4)

Suppose a new allele appears and eventually five allelles comprise 20% each.

The information for that gene will then be just a bit less than 0.7, a significant increase in information.

Nice regurgitation of your stat 101 lecture notes.

Now translate this into a real world scenario...

 

[jwu]

Now translate this into a real world scenario...

He did that, by applying it to allele.

 

[Barbarian]

I would think that someone lecturing us on "information" would at least know how to calculate it, or at very least recognize it when he sees it.

:smt107

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Suppose a new allele appears and eventually five allelles comprise 20% each.

It's not the formula to which I'm referring, it's the "magical" appearance of new info that's unrealistic. That's why I'm asking for a real world example.

 

[jwu]

The formation of new allele gets observed all the time, there are tons of references about this on the web. One of them:

A new allele, HLA-DRB4*010304
M.E. Fasano1, E. Dametto1, S. Day2, P. Dunn2, M. Tacconella1, E.S. Curtoni1

Abstract:
We report here the identification of a novel DRB4*01 allele, DRB4*010304, found in a patient waiting for a liver transplantation. The new allele was detected during a routine DNA-based HLA typing. Sequencing confirmed that the new allele is identical to DRB4*01030101 at exon 2 except for position 216 where the new allele has a T instead of a C.

Another one:

Intragenic Transposition of Ac Generates a New Allele of the Maize P Gene

T. Peterson
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York 11724

The maize P gene is required for the production of red phlobaphene pigments in the pericarp and cob. The P-vv allele, which specifies variegated pericarp and cob, contains an insertion of the transposable element Ac in the P gene. A new P-ovov allele (orange variegated pericarp and cob) was obtained as a single event mutation from P-vv. In contrast to the progenitor P-vv allele, P-ovov provides substantial pericarp and cob pigmentation and produces significant amounts of normal-sized P transcripts. The Ac element is not detectably altered in the P-ovov allele, but it has transposed to a new position within P that is 161 bp distant and inserted in the opposite orientation. This example provides molecular confirmation for the hypothesis that changes in expression of genes bearing insertions of transposable elements can occur via movement of the element to new sites within the gene.