Devolution (from The Fall) and "No New Information"

Ok, so Mars orbits the sun. How do you know? Maybe Mars is the center of the universe and we orbit the sun which orbits Mars. How would you differentiate between these two options? Do you think it would be hard to find any article which says the Earth orbits the sun? We could go all the way back to Copernicus and find references to that phenomenon. However, curiously, whenever people post those things, you refuse the acknowledge their relevance or strength. So, again, what would you like to see in those articles that would make you consider the possibility of your being wrong. What would those articles have to say?

I would like to keep the topic to how someone could accept the geocentric belief in spite of the immense scientific evidence to the contrary.The details of geocentrism--pro and con--should be dealt with on other threads, of which there are several.What I want to explore is what makes someone choose a belief system akin to flat earth and time cube in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.You don't come up with this belief by reading the scientific literature, or even the general pseudo-scientific popular literature. If you are not coming from a religious perspective, to arrive at a belief in geocentrism you have to go way out to the fringe, and then some.I still want to know why and how this occurs.What makes someone choose such a fringe position, and argue it all over the web? I can see where religious belief would foster this, but Smooth Operator denies this. So, where does this belief originate?SO claims it is a search for the truth, but what makes him reject 99.999% of science and cling to such a fringe position as "the truth?"Religious belief is well known for having "The TRVTH" (they all do, even when they contradict one another).But if it is not from religion, where does SO really come by this belief?And why?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You subtitled your message "Back to the topic", and then posted a message that was totally away from the topic.Going to close this one down. Start a new appropriately themed and titled topic.Adminnemooseus

---

Please see Message 43 for explanation.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I think there's something, for them, to having everyone be wrong and mis-lead and for them to have stumbled upon the actual truth.Like all that stuff in that "reality reviewed" website I linked you to. Did you get a chance to look at it?I think its that same mindframe that feed the conspiracy theorists.I know people who like to believe in that whole Illuminati thing. They way they argue is a lot like the way SO does.It requires that "everything you know is wrong" and that they have the one true truth. And they try to sound all scientific n'stuff.Its just like in religion, where they tell you that your fucked unless you but the one thing they are selling.I don't know why people like it so much. I can see why they fall for it as some of the arguments can be convincing at face value, and I guess it must be exciting to "realize" that everybody else has been fooled and you are now the enlightened one with the real TRVTH.I guess thats the draw.

Thank you for reopening the thread. I appreciate it very much.In the opening post I specified The Fall and a belief in biological devolution as being religiously motivated. Since SO denied any religious connection, I wanted to explore the origin of this extreme fringe belief--how and why would someone come up with such a belief other than religion?The topic drifted into geocentrism, as that is the subject of other threads. However, the two beliefs are analogous: if the belief in geocentrism is not religiously motivated, from whence did it come?In both cases we have extreme fringe beliefs for which there really is no scientific evidence, yet a small number of folks are pushing these beliefs and claiming they have a scientific--but not religious--basis.I find that unbelievable, and that is what I wanted to discuss--how and why such beliefs came about.Again, thank you for reopening the thread.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

Ok, so Mars orbits the sun. How do you know? Maybe Mars is the center of the universe and we orbit the sun which orbits Mars. How would you differentiate between these two options?

---

If there is such a thing as absolute space, I would use the Michelson-Morley type experiment to test if we are moving. And when it was done, the experiment said that we are not moving. So now what?

quote:

---

Do you think it would be hard to find any article which says the Earth orbits the sun? We could go all the way back to Copernicus and find references to that phenomenon. However, curiously, whenever people post those things, you refuse the acknowledge their relevance or strength. So, again, what would you like to see in those articles that would make you consider the possibility of your being wrong. What would those articles have to say?

---

I refuse to accept their asertations. The starting assumption they all make is that the Earth is moving, and all the evidence is derived from the assumption itself. What I actually want to see is evidence that the Earth is moving.

quote:

---

Nope, not my problem. They're your sources not mine.

​

You have to show me where they say that genes cannot product new information.

---

I never said, that those papers say that. I said that those papers say that the genomes are deteriorating.

quote:

---

Since all you can do is gainsaying and handwaving, I'm not going to waste my time finding a bunch of papers for you so and since you're such a fan of bear links, I'll just provide you with that:

​

CB102: Mutations adding information

​

If you're truely following the evidence and not just trying to support you preconceived notion, then you can find the information you need there.

---

Your sources are wrong because they use Shnnon model of information. Shannon information can not be used to represent biological functions. Gene duplication also does not increase biological functions, it only increases the number fo already existing genes with same functions.

quote:

---

Or you can watch this youtube video:

​

How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part I

---

Painfully wrong. Resistance is gained by loss of information.

quote:

---

Oh, so you're already convinces of the contrary and nothing can convince you otherwise. Your whole argument relies on an unaccepted definition of the word "information". Total apologetics to maintain a preconceived belief in the face of contadictory evidence.

---

What evidence?

quote:

---

That's the thing, though... they aren't scientific. They are scientific-looking and you've been tricked into believing they are legitimate. they do that to hide the religious aspects.

---

How do you know your sources aren't doing just that?

quote:

---

Here we go with the "everything you know is wrong" approach. I'm not paranoid enough to believe in conspiracies.

---

Yes you are. You told me that I have been lied to, and everything I know is just a big con game. How do you know you are the one that's not been lied to?

quote:

---

But they do not scientifically and logically support the position that genes cannot produce new information. That belief comes from the idea that mankind must be degenerating, which comes from The Fall, which comes from the Bible.

---

Neither did I say they do. I specifically said that they only show the degeneration of the genome. The inability of matter alone to create information comes from observations that it can't.

quote:

---

I'm not taking a stance here. I'm waiting for you to show that your belief that genes cannot product new infomration is based on science and not religion... and I'm still waiting.

---

It's simple. We have see intelligence produce inforamtion, but not matter by itself. So what's so hard to understand here?

I was answering Coyote opriginal question as I understood it: How could the concept that nature is on a downhill path have arisen in a hypothetical world that did not have christianism. In other words, could you have this impression by looking at nature ? I hope my next reply will clarify this a bit.

You don't have any response to my post. And I have no idea what you are trying to say or ask.Again my question to you.
Are you saying that a 3 year old has gone downhill form a newborn? How do you define downhill?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Of course, I do not want to 'believe' or 'disbelieve' anything, but I do want to test such an important scientific theory as Neo-Darwinism, and I'm pretty sure you don't have anything against that.Now, on the neutrality of a mutation. This is the definition from wikipedia:

quote:

---

In genetics, a neutral mutation is a mutation that occurs in an amino acid codon (presumably within an mRNA molecule) which results in the use of a different (but often chemically similar) amino acid that has a negligible effect on fitness

---

The important word is 'negligible'; it means that the mutation does have an effect, but it is so small that it cannot be detected by natural selection. An analogy could be if an atom on my car 'rusts', it will not have any impact on the performance of my car, but that will not mean that it is 'neutral'. An atom rusting will be deletirious even if it as no effect on the overall performance.In genetics, a neutral mutation does not exist, but the majority of mutations are nearly-neutral.Now this difference between a totally-neutral mutation and a nearly-neutral mutation has always been assumed as not important in population genetics, and so they have been redefined as effectively neutral. In other words they are considered as neutral when doing the calculations and the simulations. (This is in fact what Kimura proposed in his neutral theory of molecular evolution)But as the car-rusting analogy shows more clearly, the accumulation of rusted-atoms on the car will eventually lead it to break down. Nearly-neutral mutation accumulation will eventually lead the genome to genetic meltdown.

quote:

---

And there are things in nature that prove that not everything is going downhill.

​

For the first 18 or so years of our lives we are going uphill. When a snowflake forms or when salt crystals grow. When populations evolve.

---

Of course, I agree (accept for, of course, that last example ). See my previous post for clarification of what I was trying to say. Well the DNA code without natural selection filtering deletirious mutations will eventually become meaningless because of mutation.Introducing random variations in a Code will always make it lose its meaning. Sure you might get a new 'word' here and there, but overall and on the long term, the message will be lost. Same with DNA without natural selection. This is only true if you presuppose that these species have evolved. Only then can you see it as proof that Neo-Darwinian evolution can create the diversity you see.Also, you're answer was very superficial in its nature. An answer to the question I asked woiuld recquire an in-depth look at the selection capcity of a population, the selection cost of mutations, etc. I do think that you meant 'mutations' here instead of 'genes'. Anyhow, saying that beneficial mutations can happen will not answer the question I asked (Which was about the capacity of natural selection to reverse the natural tedency of the DNA code which is to go downhill)--Yheodoric asked me to define what I meant by downhill. To make it simple, a downhill trend in a biological population would be to gradually lose fitness.

I don't know how I can be clearer on what was my intentions in my first post ...But I will answer your question: As soon as the very first cell starts to replicate, mutations start to accumulate. And since it is an asexual reproduction, Muller's ratchet applies and so these mutations acumulate. So genetically speaking, a 3 year old DNA has gone downhill since it was born.The definition of dowhill is in my previous post.

This is a belief? Not evidenced by any proof?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

No this is genetics. Cellular reproduction is asexual, and so Muller's ratchet applies.The accumulation of mutations in our cells as they replicate and we grow up is what ultimately causes us to die, the software of our cells becoems so corrupted by mutations that systems and organs start to fail, etc. etc. This process starts from the very first replication of the very first cell, not just from after 3 or 18 years of age.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Well our chromosomes have two copies, which means mutations can be eliminated during mitosis as the chromosomes cross over, negating the effects of Muller's ratchet. Unlike bacteria for example, where only one copy of the genome exists. Of course if individual cells in our body do develop significant mutations, they usually experience a controlled death or are removed my the immune system.
And of course ageing is not simply a result of a build up of mutations. Other factors have a role, and probably more significant than mutations, such as the effects of immune cell responses or general wear and tear on the tissues, especially those that can actively regenerate, such as the nervous system. Even the oxygen we breath is damaging.