PROOF against evolution

Hi, Buzz!There's no need to wait for a response from me since PaulK covered the issue very succinctly in Message 89, but as long as I'm posting a message I may as well try to clarify the point a bit more.While I'm sure some staff reporters can do a fine job reporting science, and while maybe even Justin Gillis usually does a fine job and was perhaps just having a bad day, the evidence of his gross exaggeration is right before your eyes.First Mr. Gillis says this (and a lot of other stuff along the same lines, but I'll just quote this short portion): In Mr. Gillis's lingo, which may be of his own invention, genes are the machinery and the junk DNA that's actually functional is the instruction manual. How big is this instruction manual? Well, later in the article Mr. Gillis says this, which is in very close agreement with the other two articles from Science News and SciAm: So this instruction book is as much as 3% of the junk DNA. Does that sound like a "large proportion" to you? If we take a typical 90% junk DNA genome and reduce the junk DNA by 3%, that leaves 87.3% junk DNA. That's not the impression Mr. Gillis left you with, is it? In the opening paragraphs of the article he made it sound like most of the junk DNA actually had been discovered to have a purpose, didn't he? But using Mr. Gillis's own numbers it turns out that 87.3% of the junk DNA is still junk.About Shannon and information, I'm sorry you didn't find Shannon's paper helpful. Shannon is the father of information theory. I will be referring you to his paper again.As I already explained, the Creationist position confuses information and meaning. In information theory, information is a formal term for the capacity of a communications channel or storage medium. The first couple pages of Shannon's paper define, among other things, what a legal message is. For instance, if we have a four-bit channel then these might be the legal messages: What is the meaning of these messages? That's for people to decide. We can assign whatever meanings we like, and those meanings have nothing to do with information theory.A common information theory nostrum is that the most dense information is a genuinely random bit stream. This is usually where the Creationists reply that a stream of random bits could not possibly communicate any information, but this is because they're confusing meaning with information. True, a random stream of bits is meaningless, but we're not trying to communicate meaning, we're trying to communicate a message, which means we're trying to communicate one of the 16 4-bit messages listed above. A random stream of 4 bits will always be one of the above messages.The problem Shannon is trying to solve is how to communicate information when there is noise in the channel. In other words, what if the communication channel introduces errors into the bitstream. We might send the message "0000" and have "0001" come out the other end. The change of the last bit from "0" to "1" is due to the introduction of error. The way to combat error is through the introduction of redundancy. For example, we might decide to send each bit twice, which would make our messages look like this: This has an interesting side effect, which is that once you read the first bit, you already know the second, unless there's an error. And the same for the third bit. Once you know the third bit, you already know the fourth, again, unless there's an error, and so forth. This approach is called redundancy, and there are many different coding techniques that apply it.It is also the source of another oft heard information theory nostrum that you can't tell someone something he already knows. That's why the 2nd, 4th, 6th and 8th bits communicate no information unless there's an error, because the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th bits have already told us what those bits must be. Redundancy reduces the efficiency of a communications channel because in the absence of error we already know what every other bit is going to be.It also makes clear why a random bit stream communicates more information, because if the bit stream is truly random then the even numbered bits are no longer a function of the odd numbered bits, and so they can take on any value. Hence, our ability to predict these bits based upon our coding scheme is lost, we no longer know what they'll be, and the next bit will always be telling us something we didn't already know. Of course, half the time it will be telling us that there's an error, but that's something we didn't know.This might seem arcane and difficult, but think on it a while and see if it starts to make sense.--Percy

As a addendum to Percy's excellent post:1) Hamming codes are fascinating. Lots of links can be found by typing "hamming code" into Google or Yahoo. (I can't remember for sure, but I think the little "bar code" under the address on commercially-posted U.S. envelopes is a Hamming or related code.)2) Ditto Huffman codes.3) Look also the work of Agner Krarup Erlang.4) Read about the development of facsimile systems (i.e. FAX machines).-Neil (Who's done embedded SW engineering on Telco and FAX R&D projects -- and lived to tell about it!)[This message has been edited by NeilUnreal, 07-15-2003]

quote:

---

1. The point I wanted to make with Nancy Pearcey's (her name spelling, i.e. "cey" is what messed me up on your's) link was that RM must proceed NS in the process of NS and to do so, RM would have to provide the information for NS to progress/and advance the alleged evolution of life. But as Nancy's link states, RM does not produce lots of information.

---

I was thinking about this, buz. Technically, natural selection does not require random mutation. Any mutation or alteration will do-- directed mutations, genetic manipulation, whatever. It is irrelevant to NS.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Hi Percy. Thanks for your explanation of the Shannon link. I'll have to mull it over. I've been away from the computer and from home quite a bit lately. Thanks for being patient.I think you're distorting and spinning what Mr. Gillis said.Percy:

quote:

---

In Mr. Gillis's lingo, which may be of his own invention, genes are the machinery and the junk DNA that's actually functional is the instruction manual. How big is this instruction manual? Well, later in the article Mr. Gillis says this, which is in very close agreement with the other two articles from Science News and SciAm:

​

Gillis:
"That means as much as 3 percent of the genetic material is playing a critical but mysterious role..."

​

Percy:
So this instruction book is as much as 3% of the junk DNA. Does that sound like a "large proportion" to you? If we take a typical 90% junk DNA genome and reduce the junk DNA by 3%, that leaves 87.3% junk DNA. That's not the impression Mr. Gillis left you with, is it? In the opening paragraphs of the article he made it sound like most of the junk DNA actually had been discovered to have a purpose, didn't he? But using Mr. Gillis's own numbers it turns out that 87.3% of the junk DNA is still junk.

---

It appears to me that you have either intentionally or inadvertently spun Gillis's 3% genetic material into 3% DNASince genetic material consists of DNA, RNA and protein, Gillis was not referring to just DNA in this statement.Here's the complete statement some of which was crucial to understand the context from which your quote was taken:

quote:

---

The big surprise in the research, however, was that about 5 percent of the genetic material of mice and people is highly conserved, and matching genes alone can account for only about 2 percent of it. That means as much as 3 percent of the genetic material is playing a critical but mysterious role--one so important nature has kept that genetic information largely intact for 75 million years.

---

So what Gillis is saying as I see it is that 5% of the totality of genetic material, i.e. DNA, RNS and protein is highly conserved, meaning in alleged evolution, this is the important part that passes on through the ages with the information necessary to evolve the organism. So his 3 percent of the genetic material he was speaking of here would be translated to a much higher percentage of DNA, as I would asume, DNA must be a comparitively small percentage of the total genetic material in a cell and that the bulk of it would be protein.From my research, I understand that RNA and protein do contain information, but in the process, the information passes from the DNA to the neucleotide or RNA and finally to the protein.I'm not sure whether this is suppose to be in this thread or the other, but I'm posting it here since I'm responding to your post here and it should, I would assume remain a response to your post wherever that ends up.

To further rebut that Gillis had an off day journalistically and scientifically speaking, he did get his information from scientists and quoted from some as follows:

quote:

---

"We will have to develop a much more dynamic view of what a gene is, how it's controlled, how it's encoded," said Aravinda Chakravarti, head of the Institute for Genetic Medicine at Johns Hopkins University. "It's fun to find a whole new set of questions you could spend the rest of your life answering."

​

Key scientists said the new discoveries were likely to force them to abandon the term "junk DNA" and send them back to the drawing board to come up with sweeping new models for how nature builds and maintains organisms.

---

Note one, specifically, "head of the Institute for Genetic Medicine at Johns Hopkins University" and the other, "Key scientists said........."

Np, Buz you're the one misreading Gillis.It makes no sense to assume that the "genetic material" refers to anything other than DNA (which is after all the usual use - genes are made of DNA and nothing else). That after all is what is being analysed - the whole article is about a comparison of the mouse genome with the human. e.g.

quote:

---

Humans and mice are both mammals that last shared a common ancestor about 75 million years ago, a very short stretch in the history of life on the Earth. That means the most important parts of their genomes should share striking similarities, whereas the less important parts will have changed considerably.

---

And there are plenty more quotes where that came from. Have you got anything from the article which even suggests that your interpretation is correct ?If not then I suggest you retract your claim that Percy is "distorting and spinning" the article.

quote:

---

Technically, natural selection does not require random mutation. Any mutation or alteration will do-- directed mutations, genetic manipulation, whatever. It is irrelevant to NS.

---

John, are you at risk of being in agreement with Syamsu?Maybe the above comment needs to be taken to Syamsu's topic.Moose

quote:

---

John, are you at risk of being in agreement with Syamsu?

---

Not really, and I am not sure how you derive that. The comment Buz made earlier was that NS falls if random mutations fall. It doesn't. Natural selection doesn't require random mutation, just some source of heritable variation. Scientists in a lab could cut and splice genes, thereby producing the variation. This is not random mutation. Then put the resulting critters in a pen and see which die. This is NS. The two-- RM and NS-- don't HAVE to go together, though evidence suggests they do.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

No, Buzz, he's talking about DNA. Protein is *not* genetic material, and while RNA can be considered genetic material depending upon context, Gillis's article is not that context. Here's a quote from yet another article (Not Found | Jacobs School of Engineering) indicating your misunderstanding: And this from an article in Forbes (404) explains in greater detail the process Lander alludes to in the Washington Post article, and clearly indicating that they're talking about DNA: Here's another from Bio-ITWorld (http://www.bio-itworld.com/archive/021003/paperview.html) explaining Lander's views and clearly indicating he's talking about DNA: But the best reason we know that Mr. Gillis means DNA when he uses the term "genetic material" comes from Mr. Gillis himself right in the first sentence of the article: Do you ever stop to wonder why you're so often accused of misunderstanding what you read? Could so many other people who have never met really all reach the same conclusion if there were no objective basis for it? The only common element in all this is *you*.You are so incredibly persistent in your misunderstandings that this must be a common theme running throughout your life. I'll bet you don't know 1% of what's going on with the people around you because no one tells you anything for fear you'll get stuck in one of your misunderstandings and make life miserable for everyone for weeks on end, just like here. I think you're just a more polite Syamsu, and if this continues much longer would suggest that your earlier decision to inhabit only the Free For All forum was appropriate.Moving on to Shannon and information, let us use an example that illustrates just how random mutation creates information. Take a gene in a population of organisms that codes for eye color. The population has only three eye colors, each coded by a specific 4-bit sequence or message (we'll use 1's and 0's to keep things simple, but they could as easily be the CAGT nucleotides of DNA). Please keep in mind that the 4-bit sequences are the messages, while the colors are the expressions of those messages, in other words, the meaning.No other sequence ever appears for this gene until a random mutation occurs due to copying error during reproduction, and our message list increases by one: New information has been added to the gene pool for our population. Where before there were only three eye colors, now there are four. If the yellow message (the proper term is allele) is dominant then the organism has yellow eyes, otherwise its eyes will be the color of the dominant message. If it is recessive then it will have to await spreading a bit through the population until an organism receives two copies of the gene, and only then will the population gain a member with yellow eyes.Of course, as we've already discussed here, favorable mutations are rare. It is much more likely that a copying error in a coding DNA sequence would result in a negative outcome, eg: [Added by edit: I accidentally left out the concluding point to this message, but I've posted it in Message 104. --Percy]--Percy[This message has been edited by Percipient, 07-17-2003]

Syamsu said (in http://EvC Forum: Destroying Darwinism -->EvC Forum: Destroying Darwinism)

quote:

---

The standard definition of Natural Selection, differential reproductive success of variants, is wrong, for requiring variation to apply. There is no justification for including variation in the definition, so variation should be cut from the definition of Natural Selection.

---

I am thinking that the "variation" is a result of random mutation (of course, followed up by natural selection). I, perhaps wrongly, interpreted that Syamsu was denying the existence of random mutation.Anyhow, Buz seemed to be saying that random mutation was needed, for natural selection to act on. As such, Buz and Syamsu seemed to be on opposite sides of the same argument. Yet both were having their points contested by the biologists of this board.John, you did say:

quote:

---

Technically, natural selection does not require random mutation.

---

You are downplaying the need for random mutation, by invoking the input of some non-natural guidance into the mutation process. Which is certainly possible, but is going outside of natural processes - You are including the possibilities of natural random mutation, or non-natural directed mutation.In general, I think that the study of evolution is a study of natural processes, which includes the natural mutation processes.I'm not really trying to defend Buz's position. I'm not saying his line of argument has any validity in the big picture. But you sure seem to be nit-picking him, by invoking a "technicality".The bottom line is probably that I should stay out of the biology discussions.Moose

Percy, please understand that I'm not being bullheaded and irrational in my comments. If you would cut and paste any specific statements I made in my response to you that fit your stated assessment here of them, I think that would be more fair than to malign them all as unfit and unacceptable for the discussion at hand.In my search, I went to google and entered "types of genetic material." The first link that came up was this:

quote:

---

Types of Genetic Material

​

DNA Desoxyribonucleic acid
nucleic acid that constitutes the genetic material for all cellular organism.
double stranded

​

RNA Ribonucleic acid
a polynucleotide composed of ribonucleotide joined by a phosphodiester bridge.
single stranded

​

Proteins
translated nucleic acid from protein synthesis

---

We are sorry, but your page cannot be found. | STN International olim01/aip_bioseq/tsld007.htm.........So in good faith I concluded that this is what Gillis meant
by his term "genetic material." However after you said it is only DNA, I did some more searching and I see that most do not consider protein to be genetic material, but again, several that I searched did refer to RNA as genetic material as well as DNA. So I'll conceed that Gillis was not likely including protein as one of the types of genetic material and that he may have been referring to the DNA only, though I don't know why he didn't stick to the DNA termanology he used earlier.Your assessment of my character is a missjudgement, even though you may see it that way. I get along very well with others and have the respect of those who know me. Abraham Lincoln was in the White House ballroom one evening talking to a friend. He sain something like, "See that man over there? I don't like him. I guess I'll have to get to know him better."I guess the bottom line on my argument for "Proof against evolution" so far as genetics go is that regardless of percentages, the staggering amount of information in the genetic material is far more than nature alone could possibly accomplish, no matter how long you give it, in my humble opinion. I observe all this enthropic activity going on on planet earth everywhere you look and wonder how there can be so much of it happening here while everything appears to be still dead everywhere else in the observable universe.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-16-2003]

quote:

---

I am thinking that the "variation" is a result of random mutation (of course, followed up by natural selection). I, perhaps wrongly, interpreted that Syamsu was denying the existence of random mutation.

---

From the the bottom of your post...

quote:

---

The bottom line is probably that I should stay out of the biology discussions.

---

Nah. That's not it. The bottomline is that you should stay out of Syamsu's head. Syamsu wants to define NS sans variation, which is an odd thing-- selection without options is hardly selection-- as he has been told several times. He doesn't seem to DENY variation or random mutation ( as far as I can tell ), he just wants such things to be ignored.

quote:

---

You are downplaying the need for random mutation, by invoking the input of some non-natural guidance into the mutation process. Which is certainly possible, but is going outside of natural processes - You are including the possibilities of natural random mutation, or non-natural directed mutation.

---

There is a difference between what the process requires and what actually drives it in reality.

quote:

---

But you sure seem to be nit-picking him, by invoking a "technicality".

---

The inference is just wrong. Call it nit-picking if you want, but it is silly to formulate an argument that is wrong when with an extra sentence you can formulate one that is right.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

If this is true then how about you stop putting us through the ringer by arguing the most indefensible positions at length. You obviously are seeing much of this material for the first time, so how in the world can you justify placing such a high value on your interpretations when everyone else is telling you you've made yet another misinterpretation? If it's not in your nature to dig in your heels whether you know what you're talking about or not, then why are you doing this?Just because we disagree with you about evolution does not mean we're liars and cheaters trying to fool and trick you at every turn, nor are we dumpkoffs encountering material like genetics for the first time, some of us being informed laypeople and others of us being actual experts in genetics. We can't lie or be significantly mistaken about this stuff without being quickly corrected by the others here. Mammuthus and Crashfrog didn't even let me get away with the relatively minor transgression of using the term "junk DNA" (I'm still using it, I know - sorry, guys, it's just too convenient a term). Do you really think we're willing to distort our science by lying just so we can score a point in a discussion? That would be suicide, because we'd constantly find ourselves backing positions that conflict with genuine knowledge, and the web of deceit would soon be smothered.The obvious effort in researching "genetic material" is most welcome, but let me ask you something. Have you ever tried to translate a passage in a foreign language with which you're unfamiliar using only an English/Other-language dictionary? If so, then you know how poorly this works, particularly if you're translating a passage on a topic you're not familiar with. It turns out that understanding context is key to proper translation, and if you don't understand the context because you're unfamiliar with the topic then you can't render a proper translation.So if you don't understand the context, then reading definitions often doesn't help much. And any writer of talent is going to vary his vocabulary and variously stress and strain the dictionary definitions to keep his writing interesting. In other words, your efforts at understanding what Gillis meant by "genetic material" by looking up definitions is an admirable and necessary first effort, but it doesn't come close to equaling the advantage gained by reading widely on the topic to gain some contextual landmarks to guide your growing understanding. There's that argument from personal incredulity again! You know, you're not the only one who can engage in personal incredulity. For example, I just can't believe how someone so obviously nice and intelligent as yourself can think that just because something "feels" wrong that therefore it must be wrong.If evolution is wrong then the scientific evidence opposing it must be out there. Just don't go believing that Wyatt's wheel, Carl's hammer or Hovind's dinosaur have anything to do with science.By the way, "enthropic" is not a word, I think you meant "entropic activity". Since the law of entropy is never violated (I'm speaking on a non-quantum scale), all activity is entropic. You ask why is all this biological activity happening here and not elsewhere? Could it be because earth is at a beneficial location, neither too far nor too close to the sun? At heart, life is just very complicated chemistry, and so conditions must be warm enough to permit chemical activity, but not so warm that chemical bonds can't form.Would it change your "feeling" about this if they eventually discover life on other planets, say, Europa, a moon of Jupiter, where they suspect life may exist beneath the icy outer layer?--Percy

Hi Buzz,This is an addendum to my Message 99. I somehow forget to include the important point.Shannon measures information by taking the log₂ of the number of messages: In the case of our original population we had three messages: The amount of information for the three messages (alleles) of this gene is: A random mutation produced a new message (allele) in our population: The amount of information for the four messages (alleles) of this gene is: So the amount of information in the population for this gene has gone from 1.58 to 2.00. In other words, information in actual information theory (which isn't what you learn if you read Pearcey and Gitt) is measurable and quantifiable, and this clearly demonstrates that RM *can* create new information.Whether it creates new meaning or not is another matter. For instance, our new allele could have still caused brown eyes: --Percy

quote:

---

There is a difference between what the process requires and what actually drives it in reality.

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you sure seem to be nit-picking him, by invoking a "technicality".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

The inference is just wrong. Call it nit-picking if you want, but it is silly to formulate an argument that is wrong when with an extra sentence you can formulate one that is right.

---

There's a number of links out there which formulate similar statements as mine which you are nitpicking. Are they all silly?