quote:That's simply not true. Many atheists question evolution because it just doesn't add up.
I'm one....
No, you're not. You never said you thought that evolution doesn't add up. You said that you doubted evolution because if it were true you would end up smoking lots of pot and banging a different chick every night.
And this is true from the most primitive in time earliest known form of life to all of life as we know it.
Thank you for demonstrating that this concept of "information" is absolutely useless, because it has absolutely no effect on whether evolution occurs or not.
Of course genetic information is relevant to the theory of evolution. How else can you explain the difference in genetic information between bacteria and people?
Please try to stick to the topics you introduce. In Message 56 you said:
True, but the amount of NET information of DNA is still the same.
And I just agreed that the "net information" of DNA in the most primitive in time earliest known form of life is still the same as it is in all of life as we know it. And I pointed out that because this "net information" is the same for all life that it does not affect evolution, and because it does not affect evolution it is a useless concept to use in an argument about evolution. It's like saying all life we know is carbon based.
A trait is a characteristic of a population.
Would you say that what that population can consume is a characteristic of that population? Such as antelope consuming grass and lions consuming antelope? Just trying to be precise and making sure that you WILL stick to your definition.
Mutations cannot produce new traits if the genetic information needed for those traits did not already exist.
Would you care to provide evidence for that assertion? Where in the genetic code does this barrier exist?
We've already seen that the "net information" in the genetic code from the most primitive in time earliest known form of life is the same as it is for all of life as we know it, so when we look at that level, then all we need to do is reshuffle the code to change the DNA from any one life form to that of any other. It's like origami - the same square of paper can be folded into the shape of an elephant and the shape of a flying crane, but the "net information" of the square of paper is the same. What makes the difference is the arrangement. This is all that mutation does, and all it needs to do to change the DNA from one species into the DNA of another.
We also have evidence where traits are produced by evolution. Once you settle on a workable definition of trait we can proceed in that direction. A good start would be the way it is defined in science, as in this definition from the American Heritage Science Dictionary:
Thus what a species consumes would be a trait of that species.
And you still have not shown that evolution lacks the elements of science -- your title thesis -- so either you are equivocating on that claim or are content to let the evidence show that it is science.
Evolution cannot be observed, tested or repeated. Claims that we can observe evidence for the theory of evolution are completely unfounded.
You know, making another bare assertion like this, just after you have been given evidence that in fact evolution has been observed, has been tested and has been repeated, is really not debate nor any refutation of the information presented. All it shows is that you are in denial of the evidence that contradicts your position. Denial is not faith, nor is it an "alternate" explanation, it is delusion.
The only question is whether it is a temporary state of being deluded or more of a psychological one.
True, but the amount of NET information of DNA is still the same.
What the heck is "net information"?
Are you saying that if you take a person and they have X amount of DNA and you make a chance inside the DNA, they still have X amount of DNA?
In other words, this number is 5 digits long: 12345 This other number is also 5 digits long: 82395
Both numbers have the same "net" information, in that they are both 5 digits long?
If those numbers represented dollar amounts, you would be happy with either because they contain the same net information? Or do you think, maybe, that one of the numbers has a different value than the other?
...the "net information" of DNA in the most primitive in time earliest known form of life is still the same as it is in all of life as we know it.
As Nuggin asked, what the heck is 'net information'? And I may ask, what reason or evidence do you have to think that the 3-5 billion base pair human genome has the same 'net information' as E. Coli's 4.6 million base pair genome?
Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!
Genetic sequences have to be precise. Each of the three billion "letters" has to be right. You can't take one part of the genetic sequences and put it somewhere else.
Actually, you pretty much always can. Not only are there such things as silent mutations (for example, changing a codon from CCT to CCA doesn't affect the protein encoded), but also conservative ones (CCA to CGT produces a similar protein). Plus, most of the genome doesn't actually code for proteins anyway.
If an animal had such a fragile genetic code, it would die very soon. Thus, only the animals with resistant genetic codes survive today.
To put this in your sort of argument, God made the genetic code very resistant to lethal mutations, so that his creation didn't die after one day in the sun.
Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!
Re: Copy Errors and Creationist PRATTS on useless information
As Nuggin asked, what the heck is 'net information'?
I deduced it logically from the original usage in Message 56:
One common copy error is making multiple copies of the same substance. It is like the early Xerox machines that every once in awhile seemed to take on a mind of their own and just kept spitting out copies as though it had forgotten how to count.
True, but the amount of NET information of DNA is still the same.
The subject was copy errors. Net information (NI) is not affected by copy errors, so this makes it simple:
DNA is composed of 4 basic molecules - adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T).
This is not changed by copy errors, so this is part of NI.
The numbers of molecules would be changed by any copy error, so the actual numbers of each molecule is NOT part of NI.
These molecules are arranged in base pairs across the DNA double helix - with A bonding only to T, and C bonding only to G - and as this is not changed by any copy error, this is part of NI.
In sequence along either helix strand of DNA one molecule can bond to any one of the other four possible molecules, and there are only 16 such sequences possible (given direction along the strand so that we are considering any one molecule and then the possible next one):
This limited number of bonding sequences is also not affected by copy errors, so this would be part of NI.
The numbers of such sequences in any strand of DNA would be changed by any copy error, so this is NOT part of NI.
Likewise evaluating the total structure of bonding formations in a DNA molecule would also be affected by any copy error, so that is NOT part of NI.
Thus NI is the information in the DNA of any organism that it is composed of (?#)A, (?#)C, (?#)G, (?#)T, arranged in pair bonds of AT (or TA) and CG (or GC) across the helix, with sequence patterns along each helix strand of (?#)AA, (?#)AT, (?#)AG, (?#)AC, (?#)TA, (?#)TT, (?#)TC, (?#)TG, (?#)CA, (?#)CT, (?#)CC, (?#)CG, (?#)GA, (?#)GT, (?#)GC, (?#)GG bonds. This information remains unchanged by copy errors, while anything else is subject to change by copy errors.
... I just agreed that the "net information" of DNA in the most primitive in time earliest known form of life is still the same as it is in all of life as we know it. And I pointed out that because this "net information" is the same for all life that it does not affect evolution, and because it does not affect evolution it is a useless concept to use in an argument about evolution. It's like saying all life we know is carbon based.
It's mundane information. It's also useless to use in an argument against evolution because the NI for an octopus a giraffe and an archaea bacterium is the same.
This also means that it is the same for organism {A} that has feature {X} but not feature {Y} and for organism {B} that has feature {Y} but not feature {X}, and thus it cannot prevent any mutation that loses feature {X} and gains feature {Y} or that loses feature {Y} and gains feature {X} ... so no matter how you define "information" the concept of NI does not of it's own prevent an increase, a decrease or an exchange in the "level" of information content from occurring. Thus the assertion by City_on_a_Hill in Message 69 that:
Mutations cannot produce new traits if the genetic information needed for those traits did not already exist.
Is just another totally unsupported creationist assertion with no logical foundation that flies in the face of the evidence that this can, has, and will happen.
Re: Copy Errors and Creationist PRATTS on useless information
Ah, I see. So the reason it doesn't make any sense to me is because it is based upon a senseless premise. Garbage in, garbage out.
Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!
Re: Copy Errors and Creationist PRATTS on useless information
Every good scam or con consists of partial truths and plausible lies that rely on the ignorance and gullibility of the audience for acceptance .... and the "information" argument is no different.
Drosophila Melanogaster(the Fruit fly) has been the subject of study for many decades.Its life span is very short. Millions of mutations have been carried out on this. Yet, there has not been one useful mutant identified.It is unfortunate that anyone who is questioning any data, observation or absence of data is labelled as Religious.
It is ashame that some neurotics have sent threats to faculty in the Evolutionary Sciences lab at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
this simple statement is ignored by many scientists who accept evolution. Science limits its focus on the present. "Facts" declared about what allegedly happened billions of years ago are not really facts, but strongly-advocated faith points.
There may be evidence to back up these "facts" but that evidence can easily be re-interpreted.
So you really should be discussing whether or not evolution counts as a science.
And please read the responses to the OP, too, just so you don't repeat the same mistakes that were already answered.
I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
Millions of mutations have been carried out on this. Yet, there has not been one useful mutant identified.
Can you tell me which specific experiments were undertaken with the stated goal of making and identifying "useful" mutations and how "useful" was specifically defined within the experiment for later identification (ie for the predicted results) in the labs?
Or are you trying to imply a result that was not a part of any such experiment somehow should have occurred on it's own? The questions in this case are (1) how do you define "useful" in a way that can be measured against all the experimental results and then (2) where are the results of these measurements?
Without this information there is no way to evaluate the validity of your claim. That is, after all, how science is done.
Note that the "millions" of lab studies of "Drosophila Melanogaster (the Fruit fly)" DO show evolution occurred, that it was scientifically measured and documented and that many theoretical predictions were validated (and that some were invalidated). This means that science was done in those lab experiments, on the subject of evolution, and thus that evolution IS science (just to refer specifically to the topic eh?).
It is unfortunate that anyone who is questioning any data, observation or absence of data is labelled as Religious.
You don't need to be labeled "religious" to be identified as logically challenged.
But on the other hand if what you use for your argument is a typical creatortionista misrepresentation of science, then you are open to criticism as being a member of this group.
I think most of us will agree that we can know some things very definitely without directly observing them. Otherwise, the only thing we can really know about is what we see in front of us, with our own eyes, and that anything else in the world, whether the earth is flat, or whether there is no such country as Australia, or that the earth's core is made of ice cream, are all equally plausible, depending only on how we want to "interpret" the evidence.
Ha! Did I call it, or what? In a PNT, a creationist is doing this very thing:
Yes, there is a lot of heat below the surface, but how far that really extends is theory. Theory based on assuming that the same laws have to apply down there.
This is the logical result of the argument that since we didn't witness the past, we can't be sure that the same physical laws have transpired in the past. This is no different than simple arguing that since we can't witness what the core of the earth is like, then we can't be sure what the core of the earth is actually like.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Added link.
In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
Is it not true that for a theory to be scientific you must be able to test it in extreme conditions?
For example, the theory of evolution is not scientifically valid because it cannot be tested in a laboratory. You might be able to observe it in nature (Fossil record etc.) but for it to be scientifically valid you must be able to take the theory to extremes (Usually done in a lab) and see if the theory complies with those extremes. This is a necessary in order to thoroughly falsify a theory.
Thus, as it is not possible to test the theory of (macro)evolution in a laboratory, it is not a scientific theory but only faith.
™ Version 4.2
