Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
What about the DNA evidence?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lucaspa" data-source="post: 64733516" data-attributes="member: 4882"><p>Gradyll, that "since I can't or havent proven otherwise, it is correct by default" is a logical fallacy. Nothing is "correct by default". Not in science and not in religion. <strong>Everything</strong> has to have evidence. What you stated is the Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy.</p><p></p><p>Natural selection is a 2 step process:</p><p>1. Variation</p><p>2. Selection.</p><p></p><p>When we think of "variation", we tend to think "mutation". However, in sexually reproducing organisms, recombination is a bigger source of variation than mutation.</p><p></p><p>How people use "information" in this discussion gets weird. Wiliam Dembski -- one of the major authors for ID -- says that information is -log2(M/N), where log2 is logarithm to the base 2, M is the number selected, N is the number possible. The example he uses is a telegrapher using Morse code. There are 2 possibilities, a dot or a dash. The telegrapher selects only 1, so each time he taps the key, the information is -log2(1/2) = -(-1) = 1 bit. </p><p></p><p>Dembski emphasizes this equation is universal: "Let me stress that this formula is not an case of misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds universally and is non-mysterious. "</p><p></p><p>Now, in any generation more individuals are born than survive and reproduce. Thus, M is always less than N, the logarithm of the quotient is always negative, and thus information is <strong>always</strong> created by natural selection. Let me do just one example:</p><p>An antibiotic kills 95% of the population. So we have 5 bacteria that can reproduce out of 100. N = 100, M =5. -log(2) (5/100) = -log(2) (.05) = -(-4.3) = 4.3. Information has increased 4.3 "bits". The more severe the selection, the greater the increase in information. </p><p></p><p>In the scientific literature, biologists don't usually track "information", but they do document the rise of new, previously unseen, traits and abilities by mutation. I can give you a (very) incomplete set of references if you want.</p><p></p><p>DNA also increases by several mechanisms: insertions, gene duplication, chromosome duplication, rearrangement, even genome duplication. There is a new species of rat -- the visatch rat -- where every chromosome but the sex chromosome has been duplicated. Since all the genes on the original chromosomes are still performing their task, that leaves a huge amount of DNA that can evolve new abilities without interfering with the basic biochemistry of the rat.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lucaspa, post: 64733516, member: 4882"] Gradyll, that "since I can't or havent proven otherwise, it is correct by default" is a logical fallacy. Nothing is "correct by default". Not in science and not in religion. [B]Everything[/B] has to have evidence. What you stated is the Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy. Natural selection is a 2 step process: 1. Variation 2. Selection. When we think of "variation", we tend to think "mutation". However, in sexually reproducing organisms, recombination is a bigger source of variation than mutation. How people use "information" in this discussion gets weird. Wiliam Dembski -- one of the major authors for ID -- says that information is -log2(M/N), where log2 is logarithm to the base 2, M is the number selected, N is the number possible. The example he uses is a telegrapher using Morse code. There are 2 possibilities, a dot or a dash. The telegrapher selects only 1, so each time he taps the key, the information is -log2(1/2) = -(-1) = 1 bit. Dembski emphasizes this equation is universal: "Let me stress that this formula is not an case of misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds universally and is non-mysterious. " Now, in any generation more individuals are born than survive and reproduce. Thus, M is always less than N, the logarithm of the quotient is always negative, and thus information is [B]always[/B] created by natural selection. Let me do just one example: An antibiotic kills 95% of the population. So we have 5 bacteria that can reproduce out of 100. N = 100, M =5. -log(2) (5/100) = -log(2) (.05) = -(-4.3) = 4.3. Information has increased 4.3 "bits". The more severe the selection, the greater the increase in information. In the scientific literature, biologists don't usually track "information", but they do document the rise of new, previously unseen, traits and abilities by mutation. I can give you a (very) incomplete set of references if you want. DNA also increases by several mechanisms: insertions, gene duplication, chromosome duplication, rearrangement, even genome duplication. There is a new species of rat -- the visatch rat -- where every chromosome but the sex chromosome has been duplicated. Since all the genes on the original chromosomes are still performing their task, that leaves a huge amount of DNA that can evolve new abilities without interfering with the basic biochemistry of the rat. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
What about the DNA evidence?
Top
Bottom