PROOF against evolution

I think that information theory can be applied to biology, but it's even easier to misapply than probability theory. Intuitive ideas of "information" can be misleading even without the tricks some creationists play.Generally creationist arguments play on that aspect.An example is Werner Gitt's "information theory" - which is used to sneak in the assumption that DNA is the product of intelligence.

If you read on the Washington Post article says this:

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.

---

Well that is clear enough. Only 3% of the supposed "junk" is included and 95% of the genome is neither genes nor the sorts of sequences discussed in the article.Now tell my why Percy should have to prove that a staff writer must make mistakes when the mistakes are clearly there ? And why you are ignoring parts of the article you are trying to use as evidence ?

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.

Gitt certainly DOES deny that random mutations can create information: Information, Science and Biology | Answers in Genesis

quote:

---

Theorem 10: Each item of information needs, if it is traced back to the beginning of the transmission chain, a mental source (transmitter)." Gitt also explains that a "transmitter" is am "intelligent information source"

---

Or if that is not enough:

quote:

---

(6) No information chain can exist without a mental origin.

​

(7) No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.

​

(8) No information can exist without a will.

---

However, Gitt also states:

quote:

---

Theorem 9: Only that which contains semantics is information.

---

And

quote:

---

Semantic information, therefore, defies a mechanistic approach.

---

How then does DNA contain information as Gitt defines it ? Surely the biological processes using DNA are mechanistic ?

I strongly suggest that anybody who tries to read it be prepared for hideous inaccuracies. I only dipped into it but what I saw was very, very bad.Anybody who relies on that for scientific knowledge has a lot to learn - and a lot of falsehoods to unlearn.

The Miller-Urey experiment wasn't even an attempt to produce life. According to Miller, in an interview made a few years ago IIRC they expected less than they actually produced and Urey thought that it probably wouldn't produce anything.