THE END OF EVOLUTION?

Hmmm... this thread is titled THE END OF EVOLUTION? Are you folks off topic?Or perhaps a connection with information theory has been drawn? That'd certainly be interesting. If so, I may even be bothered to read on...

Is LucyTheApe not a female? My reading is that:
(a) the structure of a DNA strand is holding up against the effect of the 2nd LOT, (until a cell is dead, I suppose)
(b) the information within DNA is also holding up against the effect of the 2nd LOT -- the information that provides guidance to a living cell on replication is always the same.I don't have a problem with (a) and (b).
But Percy, I do have problem with your statement:Simple analysis of DNA before and after cell division conclusively reveals that random mutations occur in nearly every reproductive event.
Does mutations have a different meaning? My understanding is that a benefitual mutation is very rare. If one mutation does not lead to abnormality then a few consecutive mutations will most likely lead to death. All lifeforms must have a way of reducing the negative impacts of mutations or they'd all be dead eventually.Besides, evolution has never created a structured information system, the like of a DNA strand. Doing so would likely be in violation of the 2nd LOT.I still do not know how evolutionists can claim evolution is observed to be taking place. Where/How exactly?
Mutations would not achieve evolution even in conjunction with natural selection. Then there are fuzzy terms, (such as 'genetic drift') that are invented none other than to explain the unexplanable.

Errr.... that was not what I said.
What I said was: "...the structure of a DNA strand is holding up against the effect of the 2nd LOT". And that's because there is this mysterious phenomenon called -- Life. Sounds like the bar is lowered yet again to allow evolution theory to get over the line.
I am quite stringent with definition. Evolution is definitely not just change over time. Mutations must lead to changes that lead to new species to qualify as evolutionary. This is a tough life, I know. Err.... a subtle twist there, but again that was not what I said.
What I said was:

quote:

---

Besides, evolution has never created a structured information system, the like of a DNA strand. Doing so would likely be in violation of the 2nd LOT.

---

Let's say someone who is ignorant about computer micro-chip is coming to a belief that it may just be possible for a micro-chip to be accidentally formed in beach sand by random chance, through unknown processes of the sea, waves and salt chemicals.
If a micro-chip expert is to advise that such a possibility does not exist as that would be in violation of the 2nd LOT, would anyone disagree with the expert?
We know this is true because we have apriori knowledge that micro-chips (i) are man-made, (ii) extremely complex, and so cannot possibly be formed by random chances.How about a living cell with all its DNA strands? Does anyone in his/her right mind believe a living cell is less complex than a micro-chip?
If I were to have personally witnessed God's creation, I would be empowered with the knowledge that for random chance to create a living cell would violate 2nd LOT, therefore impossible.Unfortunately no one had personally witnessed God's creation. We can only examine the end-product to decide between creation or random chance. It is a belief either way -- A belief in evolution versus a belief in creation.The complexity of a cell suggests to me I can quietly but very confidently claim that for evolution to create a structured information system such as a cell would be a gross violation of 2nd LOT. The bad news is, the burden of proof is such that the onus is on you to provide an evidence that evolution has already created a structured information system. Am I right to say if mutation is completely absent, I'd still be different from both my parents and all my offspring would be somewhat different from me? Supposing I say that represents 30 random mutations over 50 years.
Over 4 billion years, we'd expect 2.4 billions random mutations.
I think it'd be extremely generous to assume 1 out of 30 random mutations positively contributed to evolution of new species. So, according to... theory of mutations... ... merely 80 million uninterrupted positive mutations would account for evolution from the first cells to modern human today. How believable is that?
BTW, since human DNA has about 3x10⁹ base pairs, is it unreasonable to expect at least 3x10⁹ positive mutations, assuming one mutation accounts for creation of one base pair? I am sure one example would be natural selection of black moths versus white moths. But I'd to make it clear when I refer to beneficial mutation, I really mean beneficial in evolution sense, not 'beneficial in a context sensitive sense'
For example, I think one unconditionally beneficial mutation would be formation of a structured information system.Hi Anglagard,
I have briefly read those stuff. They are not as convincing as you may think. But I would really prefer you to point out something that would bowl me over.
BTW, here's a response to "Macro-evolution observed in the laboratory":
Bacteria 'evolving in the lab'? (Lenski, citrate-digesting E. coli) - creation.comIt seems the mutations in E.Coli amounts to a "data change", but not a "function change". I have suggested elsewhere mutations will not lead to evolutionary change if only "data change" is involved.
EvC Forum: ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory
I gladly accept variants of E.coli exist due to mutations but still they'd all be just variants of one E.coli species.I'm still curious whether Lucy is female...

Granny Magda, Greetings to you too. No, you put that incorrectly.
Formation of DNA in nature does not violate 2nd LOT.
But formation of DNA by random chance does violate 2nd LOT. It is impossible.The 2nd LOT is not an active force or agent that prevents something from happening. It merely provides a reason why something is impossible. I notice the qualification "...at its most basic..."
Am I to assume there are multiple levels of definition for evolution? I regard that as cheating.
If evolution is merely "change over time", then the word evolution is quite redundant.Or shall we say, "evolution" more correctly means "random change over time" ?? Please.... "Creation of new information" and "Creation of structured information system" are completely two different things. Yes, it's all HER fault. Seriously now... actually the onus is on anyone that makes a positive claim to provide an evidence. If you believe evolution positively leads to DNA structure formation then my friend, may you have the pleasure of presenting your evidence, and spare Lucy the agony. The 2nd LOT is not a problem for the ToE per se. The actual problem is that evolution requires a viable mechanism that drives it, but such a mechanism does not exist. There is only randomness. Randomness cannot possibly drive a process in any specific direction, as that would be contrary to 2nd LOT, as well as a contradiction in terms. I thought that was quite enlightening and I don't know why you got so excited.
How about you provide a guess-estimate how many mutations will be needed for evolution to form a human from scratch? Think about your statement "the ability to metabolise citrate".
Now think harder... then tell me what constitute data and function in that statement?Nevermind... here's my answers: The 'function' is "to metabolise". The 'data' bit is "citrate".
So it seems E.Coli have finally learned to eat something new that they probably would rather not eat -- yucky citrate.Guess what, if E.Coli can learn a new skill (a new function) that enables them to choose what to eat and to spit out what taste yucky, then I would be really impressed. May they also evolve taste bud and a smart brain to support that new skill/function. May be I ought to tell you to mind your own business. You've said the smartest thing all day.
Guess what, I do agree if a micro-chip were found to have formed by random chance, then that would evidently be a non-violation of 2nd LOT. Like I implied above, the 2nd LOT is not a force or agent that takes action to prevent something from happening. The 2nd LOT only provides a reason why something is not possible. I very much wish I can mathematically illustrate why 2nd LOT explains evolution by random chance is impossible.
But as you might have figured out by now that I'm actually quite ignorant. 2nd LOT can also provides a reason why I'm entirely incapable of providing such a mathematical illustration. I assume the word 'creation' implies a non-random process. In which case creation of a system may not violate 2LOT.I recall learning about a mathematical series deduction when in school, something that I can only vaguely describe this way:
In a mathematical series, Element_{N) is true. Element_(N+1) is also true. Now if it is proven that Element_(N+1) is true DUE TO THE FACT THAT Element_(N) is true, then the series is infinitely true, meaning Element_(N+2)...Element_(N+x) are all true.Does anyone know about this?For quite some times I have day-dreamed that a proof or a disproof of evolution will require mathematical deduction of this nature... But it's been just a dream so far.(p/s. I talked too much and I've promised myself to take a break )

Creation is just that, making of something when all knowledge about the creation is already known and available in a 'blue-print'. Creation is not design, not analysis and it is not about making improvement either. So creation may not require any more new information. As I see it, this is how cells replicate themselves -- they already possess all the 'information' required to create another structured information system, (replica's of themselves). If there are new information required, perhaps that is more to do with availability of essential resources and the timing, (like when to start the process of creation).'Information' is analogous to 'data' whereas 'structured information system' is analogous to function/process in a computer model. It is theoretically possible for a computer to accurately models a biological life-form, (excluding human) because every life-form is a static structured information system. Ignoring mutations for a moment, the 'functions' within such a biological system never change. Every life-form is 'pre-programmed' to behave exactly the same way, from one generation to the next. They cannot do more than what the "embedded codes" allow them to do. The probability of a micro-chip being formed on the beach by random chance may not be zero either. Thinking in terms of probability will only give us silly answers.I believe it is impossible for the first DNA to have developed gradually because doing so would be in conflict with the very word 'creation'. A cell only knows how to 'create' another cell. It does not know how to re-design its DNA structure; it does not perform analysis and it does not contain intelligence to improve its DNA. DNA already contain all the information needed for cells to simply create another copy of itself. It does not required new information on how to replicate. To say DNA develops gradually is to suggest that a cell can somehow performs analysis, designs then improves itself. Well, this is certainly not happening in the real world.It is also impossible for the first DNA to have developed gradually because 'functions' within an information system cannot change. Computers tell me 'functions' are complex entities that do not undergo gradual changes over time and a function change must be a spontaneous change, caused by an external entity. (Note. Although a function may contain data within itself, I choose to ignore this for simplicity and clarity. In any case results of the argument would be the same). I think this aspect is universal -- Not only it is true for computers, it must be true for lifeforms and any information system.As I have mentioned elsewhere, my contention is DNA's contain "embedded codes", information that guide the cells. A living organism is 'pre-programmed' and cannot do more than what it's pre-programmed to do. The "embedded codes" within DNA's are none other than 'data' and 'functions'. We know computers are non-analog. In fact the structure of DNA's suggests to me DNA may also be 'non-analog' -- Bits and pieces are located in fixed positions.An analog environment is what most people can relate to. For example, if getting from point A to B is difficult, then all we have to do is wriggle slowly and eventually we'll get there, right? It may be more tricky to think in non-analog terms, such as breaking up my route from point A to B into many 'steps', if it is found that any intermediate step is impossible to complete, then the entire trip is automatically a complete failure. In digital term, it may be pointless to claim the journey from A to B is 80% successful. What matters in a logical sense in a digital world is -- I never made it to point B.If someone chooses to regard anything greater that 50% as being TRUE then that's another thing. That is not what I'm about here.What I'm alluding to is that thinking in terms of probability in an analog sense is misleading when a scenario cannot possibly be an analog one. If the structure of DNA's does not permit gradual change, then thinking in terms of percentage probability of its formation becomes misleading and is invalid. The equation is a logical True/False, not a function of change over time.Asserting that a micro-chip or DNA can be formed by random chance, (no matter how long it takes) just because a non-zero probability is mathematically derived 'from an analog viewpoint', is simply ridiculus and false. It leads to a false thinking that if something is extremely unlikely to happen, then all that is needed is another ten millions years.I think it is far more correct to think in terms of a 'quantum gap'. I borrow the word from 'Quantum Theory' that tells us electrons orbit around atomic nuclei in shells and sub-shells. To move to the next outer shell, an electron must absorb a certain amount of energy. If it does not absorb suffcient energy, it simply does not move to the next shell. There is no such thing as moving incrementally and gradually -- It either jumps the gap or stay where it is. This is in fact a non-analog behaviour.In theory, whether a function/process change can occur in nature can be assessed by existence of a 'quantum gap' also. If such a 'quantum gap' exist, then it is totally impossible for a spontaneous change to occur in nature. It is not a question of whether the population size is large enough, or whether we allow another 10 million years. Then I shall simply say existence of a 'quantum gap' would prove that random mutations cannot possibly drive evolutionary process that leads to creation of new DNA's. Not correct. I referred to eating citrate as a 'data' change, not a 'function' change.
I actually believe many E.coli had experienced mutations that had caused them to try eating things that they were not supposed to eat, or eating 'food' that did not exist, and as a result those E.coli had died.
All changes of these nature can be eventually traced to be data-related change, not function-related, I'm sure. I'm fairly close to software engineering.
I'm sure those E.coli mutations are of data-related change, not function-related. I'm sure natural selection is only a filtering process that is useless for evolution of new species. It needs not be speculation at all. You can start with E.coli, a highly mutational bacteria that took approximately 20 years to achieve a two-gene mutations, (that allow some to eat citrate).
I'm sure the verdict will be that an astronomical number of mutations will be needed to explain life on earth today. It is impossible. You're just saying that. That'd never happen in any case.
I don't believe you at all -- If the unthinkable happens, then evolutionists will be more than eager to adjust the theory to latch onto the new finding and claim a win for evolution. Formation of water from its elements releases energy, but formation of DNA structure requires energy.
You don't seem to know what you're talking about, Coragyps.

quote:

---

Enthalpy is not entropy, pcver.

---

You're still missing the point.
Let's forget about the amount of energy involved for a moment...Random formation of DNA structure is more analogous to water molecules splitting into hydrogen and oxygen by random chance, (not the other way around like you said).
And of course that would violate the 2LoT.Edited by pcver, : No reason given.

I've never contradicted that, have I?My point was that you used the wrong analogy (water formation) to compare with DNA formation in the first place.
You seem to have a habit of twisting and expanding the context of an argument, a bit at a time. So now you introduce yet another foreign entity -- A hottish star.
This is not very helpful. What are you on about? Formation of water molecules or splitting of water molecules? They are complete opposites.
I don't know what's the point of drifting away from the crux of an argument the way you do. No credential really, other than being a logical thinker. You don't have to take my words for it either.
I'm not interested to win a debate. I'm interested in the truth. (So by inference you know I regard evolution theory as untruth)
If you proposition an idea that I agree with logically, then I'd simply do the logical thing -- Accept your idea.

WOW...Wow... I realise that I must have stumbled upon a site of worship for the faithful followers of a supernaturalism known as Evolutionism.You people just keep talking among yourselves.Excuse me, I have come to the wrong place. Bye-bye !