Creationism in public schools?

[metherion]

Yeah, no. Sorry. Gitt literally defines information as having to have come from intelligence, with no evidence. You don't get to redefine words like that in science.

Also, there is no measure of the 'information', which lets this argument KEEP being made. See if you can find ANYWHERE on AIG or in any creationist literature a unit of information, which the respective information content of several species in Gittian information units. No luck? Exactly.

But go try and find the same thing with the numbers of base pairs in a decent number of organisms, the ACTUAL science way, and you can.

If the information content depends on the number of base pairs, then it needs to be defined, and then we can easily prove that AIG and creationist literature is wrong. If not, it STILL needs to be defined, something which hasn't been done. Neither has the word "kind" been defined. If it doesn't have definitions, how can it be used or taught? How often on even grade school science tests are there definition questions? Yet 'information', 'kind', etc are completely undefined.

Metherion

 

[laconicstudent]

from answersingenesis.com

Can Mutations Produce New Information?

Actually, scientists now know that the answer is “no!” Dr. Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, makes this abundantly clear in his scholarly and thoroughly researched book, Not by Chance:

In this chapter I’ll bring several examples of evolution, particularly mutations, and show that information is not increased. ... But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information.17

All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.18

The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little at a time [emphasis added].19

Evolutionary scientists have no way around this conclusion that many scientists, including Dr. Spetner, have now come to. Mutations do not work as a mechanism for the evolutionary process. Spetner sums it all up as follows:

The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the NDT is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up in volume ... . Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory. We have here a serious challenge to neo-Darwinian theory [emphasis added].20

This is also confirmed by Dr. Werner Gitt, a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology. In answering the question, “Can new information originate through mutations?” he said:

This idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information [emphasis added].21

So if natural selection and mutations are eliminated as mechanisms to produce the information and design of living systems, then another source must be found.

17- L. Spetner, Not By Chance, The Judaica Press, Brooklyn, New York, 1997, 131–132. Back
18- Ibid., 138. Back
19- Ibid., 143. Back
20- Ibid., 159–160. Back

I've already shown you that this is patently incorrect. There are insertion mutations and furthermore, you have not operationally defined "information".

 

[metherion]

Actually, I would like to say that I went and searched AIG’s website, and I found something that utterly blows them away.

On the following website:

Information, science and biology

accessed 3/5/2011 at 12:15 am CST

we see the following statement:

If the individual symbols of a long sequence of symbols are not equally probable (for example, text), what is of interest is the average information content for each symbol in this sequence as well as the average value over the entire language. When this theory is applied to the various code systems, the average information content for one symbol results as follows:
In the German language: I = 4.113 bits/letter
In the English language: I = 4.046 bits/letter
In the dual system: I = 1 bit/digit
In the decimal system: I = 3.32 bits/digit
In the DNA molecule: I = 2 bits/nucleotide

So, what we’re going to do is take a look at that last bit.

In the DNA molecule: I = 2 bits/nucleotide

In the DNA molecule: I = 2 bits/nucleotide

So, this means, that if a mutation increases the number of nucleotides, information has increased. PERIOD. END OF STORY ACCORDING TO AIG.

Mutations exist that increase the number of nucleotides. Therefore, ACCORDING TO WHAT AIG SPECIFICALLY STATES WHEN TALKING ABOUT WERNER GITT AND INFORMATION, information increases with the number of nucleotides. PERIOD.

So, they are self-contradicting liars.

Metherion

 

[lux et lex]

mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information any more than drawing a lottery can produce new numbers that did not exist before.

Just one article out of THOUSANDS to disprove your theory. Sequencing Staph: New Genetic Analysis Tracks MRSA Mutations: Scientific American

 

[createdtoworship]

Just one article out of THOUSANDS to disprove your theory. Sequencing Staph: New Genetic Analysis Tracks MRSA Mutations: Scientific American

not a very positive mutation. Most of the other mutations that add a genetic immunity isn't really adding information it's just changing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS6bkulymUY&feature=player_detailpage

 

[StopSignTheology]

Many people assume that Darwin’s theory must have shaken the foundation of the Christian faith because of the stark difference between evolution and the idea of six-day creation. In truth, the literalist six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective espoused by Christian thinkers prior to the publication of The Origin of Species. The works of many early Christian theologians and philosophers reveal an interpretation of Genesis compatible with Darwin’s theory.
Early Christian Thought

Origen, a third-century philosopher and theologian from Alexandria, Egypt — one of the great intellectual centers of the ancient world — provides an example of early Christian thought on creation.
Best known for On First Principles and Against Celsus, Origen presents the main doctrines of Christianity and defends them against pagan accusations. On First Principles offers the following perspective on the Genesis creation story:

"What person of intelligence, I ask, will consider as a reasonable statement that the first and the second and the third day, in which there are said to be both morning and evening, existed without sun and moon and stars, while the first day was even without a heaven? […] I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history." 1
​

(To understand how Genesis was interpreted during ancient times, see John Walton's Reconciling Science with Scripture and Denis Lamoureux's The Ancient Science in the Bible and The Message-Incident Principle from our Science and the Sacred blog.)



Origen opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. There were other voices before Origen who advocated more symbolic interpretations of the creation story. Origen’s views were also influential for other early church thinkers who came after him.2
St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, is another central figure of the period, Although he is widely known for Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1-2.3 In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.4

"Perhaps Sacred Scripture in its customary style is speaking with the limitations of human language in addressing men of limited understanding. … The narrative of the inspired writer brings the matter down to the capacity of children." 5
​

In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop a view that is harmonious with biological evolution.6

Thank you BioLogos Forum

 

[createdtoworship]

So, they are self-contradicting liars.

Metherion

I would say that they have opted for the majority of mutations as not including a change in information like 99.9% So they may not have been addressing the one tenth of one percent that you are questioning.

 

[createdtoworship]

I've already shown you that this is patently incorrect. There are insertion mutations and furthermore, you have not operationally defined "information".

As someone else stated adding information would mean that there is a addition in the nucleotides. And there are maybe one or two examples of this but it's always negative mutations and they are never beneficial to the host.

 

[laconicstudent]

not a very positive mutation. Most of the other mutations that add a genetic immunity isn't really adding information it's just changing it.

YouTube - Mutations - Loss of Information (Evolution)

Yet you refuse to define what "information" is. Therefore, you're discussing philosophy, not science.

 

[laconicstudent]

As someone else stated adding information would mean that there is a addition in the nucleotides. And there are maybe one or two examples of this but it's always negative mutations and they are never beneficial to the host.

This has been repeated 3 times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_mutation

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC3aTypes.shtml

 

[createdtoworship]

Yet you refuse to define what "information" is. Therefore, you're discussing philosophy, not science.

information is the chemical letters of DNA. (nucleotides)

Information, science and biology

 

[laconicstudent]

information is the chemical letters of DNA. (nucleotides)

Information, science and biology

Are we going to have to repeat many more times that this happens?

 

[createdtoworship]

This has been repeated 3 times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_mutation

Evolution 101: Types of Mutations

I understand that some information can be added. But it's not the norm. Secondly it isn't beneficial anyway.

 

[laconicstudent]

I understand that some information can be added. But it's not the norm.

You will have to back that up statistically.

Secondly it isn't beneficial anyway.

Moving the goalposts are we? Now that you can't state that "information" isn't "added", your trying to move to "beneficial information". Oh man.

 

[metherion]

I would say that they have opted for the majority of mutations as not including a change in information like 99.9% So they may not have been addressing the one tenth of one percent that you are questioning.

Nope. You can't use absolutes if there are exceptions. And you did just shift from absolutes to 'well, okay, sometimes, but it's not beneficial anyways.' So, bring in the definition of beneficial, redefine information to include 'beneficial information', and bring in your studies. If there are any. Which there aren't. Especially since you haven't actually brought in an ORIGINAL definition of information.

Metherion

 

[createdtoworship]

Nope. You can't use absolutes if there are exceptions. And you did just shift from absolutes to 'well, okay, sometimes, but it's not beneficial anyways.' So, bring in the definition of beneficial, redefine information to include 'beneficial information', and bring in your studies. If there are any. Which there aren't. Especially since you haven't actually brought in an ORIGINAL definition of information.

Metherion

two questions, what absolutes am I using? and secondly what is your definition of information (since I gave one already)? I hope it is original too because no one is allowed to glean off each other right?

 

[metherion]

two questions, what absolutes am I using?

Very well...

There are a lot of good points to think about in intelligent design. Like a good answer to our origins and good answers to the fact that there is no additional information given when something mutates

So no additional information shows that these things that are happening are not necessarily an improvement at all. They have less genetic information.

Can Mutations Produce New Information?

Actually, scientists now know that the answer is “no!”
...

In this chapter I’ll bring several examples of evolution, particularly mutations, and show that information is not increased.
...
All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.
...
Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome
...
This is also confirmed by Dr. Werner Gitt, a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology. In answering the question, “Can new information originate through mutations?” he said:

This idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information [emphasis added].

mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information any more than drawing a lottery can produce new numbers that did not exist before.

Secondly,

secondly what is your definition of information (since I gave one already)

I don’t have to give a definition of information, because I never made the claim that information can only decrease.

And since your definition is

information is the chemical letters of DNA. (nucleotides)

That means:
a) information can be increased through at least 2 types of mutations that increase the number of nucleotides,
b) You need to show that it isn’t the norm as per your claim in post 973,
c) You need to show that it is rarely or never beneficial as per your other claim in post 973,
d) The entire movement should wind up acknowledging that what AIG posted is wrong according to your definition (which probably isn’t theirs),
e) The goalposts were indeed moved from your previous posts to your post #973

I understand that some information can be added.

.
f) you still need actual scientific studies backing all of this up.


Metherion

 

[createdtoworship]

f) you still need actual scientific studies backing all of this up.
Metherion

I don't have any scientific facts other than what I already discussed. I believe mutations are harmful. I believe that genetic information is rarely added to. Other wise why would AIG publish so much information on it if they were simply wrong. So yes I am making assumptions but you won't even give a simple definition for information. So you are assuming someone elses work but don't want to say. So were all guilty of something.

 

[laconicstudent]

I don't have any scientific facts other than what I already discussed. I believe mutations are harmful.

That isn't always the case.

Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection

I believe that genetic information is rarely added to.

We've demonstrated that it happens. Whether it happens "rarely" or not isn't relevant.

Other wise why would AIG publish so much information on it if they were simply wrong.

Because they are at best completely ignorant, at worse deliberately lying.

So yes I am making assumptions but you won't even give a simple definition for information.

Because in actual biology (not AiG nonsense) people don't use vague terms like "information". This isn't relevant.

 

[metherion]

I don't have any scientific facts other than what I already discussed.

AIG is not science. Any organization that has a statement of faith that all their results are preknown is not science.

I believe mutations are harmful. I believe that genetic information is rarely added to.

Belief =/= fact.

Other wise why would AIG publish so much information on it if they were simply wrong.

Dishonesty. Money. Hubris/pride and the inability to realize that they are wrong. See the statement of faith. They believe that they can’t be wrong, they claim to know all the answers beforehand, and they are not scientific.

So yes I am making assumptions but you won't even give a simple definition for information.

That is because I have made no claim that needs an operation definition of information. You/AIG/ICR/people who want creationism in schools HAVE made claims that need an operation definition of information. It is not MY job to define the terms that YOU want to use. You need to do that.

So you are assuming someone elses work but don't want to say. So were all guilty of something.

1. Projection.

2. Whose work am I assuming? I’m insisting that you meet the burden of evidence that your claim needs, namely, show your studies. Show the science, if you want something in science class.

Metherion