What about the DNA evidence?

[Split Rock]

Copying by itself does add genetic information, by any definition of "information" that I've used. Repeated copying combined with substitutions can take any given sequence and produce absolutely any other sequence. With words, it can take a limerick and turn it into a Shakespearean sonnet. If that isn't adding information to you, then you're going to have to explain what you mean by information, and why we should care about it.

You hit it right on the head. If one can take a sequence of say 50 nucleotides and duplicate and alter it into a sequence of 50 million nucleotides and that does not constitute an "increase in information," then the definition of "information" in this context is worthless. Really, for gradyll this whole "adding information" stuff is just a talking point he is repeating.

 

[createdtoworship]

That really doesn't help you. The point there is that universal negative claims are unsupportable. Since you can't prove them, there's no burden of proof -- but there's also no point for you to have made the claim in the first place. A more sensible view, I think, is here.

But this is a tangent. Since I do claim that mutation adds information, in any meaningful sense of information, I'm happy to bear the burden of proof.


Any insertion or duplication mutation that adds genetic material adds information by my definition. Those mutations happen constantly. For example, some short repetitive stretches of DNA (short tandem repeats) are unstable, and often grow in length. Genes are frequently duplicated. In malaria, duplication of the gene pfMDR1 increase resistance to several drugs, while mutations in humans that increased the number of amylase genes increased the ability of some of us to digest starchy foods.


That is trivially false, as every geneticist knows. Since you're making a positive statement here, wouldn't it be good to provide some sort of evidence for your claims?


Copying by itself does add genetic information, by any definition of "information" that I've used. Repeated copying combined with substitutions can take any given sequence and produce absolutely any other sequence. With words, it can take a limerick and turn it into a Shakespearean sonnet. If that isn't adding information to you, then you're going to have to explain what you mean by information, and why we should care about it.

I do not believe that copying a sequence of nucleotides constitutes adding genetic information any more than copying a book constitutes adding words to a text. You are commiting a fallacy of equivocation on "information", I am believing the information talked about is the code adition that constitutes adding actual genetic information to the original. You speak of adding information as if copying it is adding to the original code. That is not the case here. Unless you add the copy to the original then it would be an addition technically speaking, so It's an equivocation. I agree that my view of information is meaningless as split rock said, but to me and my view it is not.

 

[createdtoworship]

But I thought that:

You wouldn't demand something of us that you won't do yourself, would you?

And speaking of such things, you still have not defined "information". YOu see, my actual point is that for any definition of information for which mutations can't add information, information is unnecessary for evolution.

well this is the definition of negative claims that are unworthy of burden of proof:

"The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made."

in my case there was only a negative statment made as a claim,

we should look into this more,

 

[sfs]

I do not believe that copying a sequence of nucleotides constitutes adding genetic information any more than copying a book constitutes adding words to a text.

First, by my definition of "information", copying a paragraph and adding it to a book does increase the information content. If you have a different definition, offer it.

Second, the processes involved in adding information are not limited to copying. Copying followed by changing one of the copies can add any text to the book. Why isn't that an increase of information? Please be specific: just saying "I don't believe it" accomplishes nothing.

You are commiting a fallacy of equivocation on "information",

I have committed no fallacy. I gave my definition of "information" and I've used it throughout. I can't be equivocating between my definition and yours, because you haven't offered one. At this point, "information" in your sentences is a meaningless word. If you want to talk about what you mean by "information", define it already.

I am believing the information talked about is the code adition that constitutes adding actual genetic information to the original. You speak of adding information as if copying it is adding to the original code. That is not the case here. Unless you add the copy to the original then it would be an addition technically speaking, so It's an equivocation. I agree that my view of information is meaningless as split rock said, but to me and my view it is not.

So you agree that your view of information is meaningless, but you continue to insist it represents "actual genetic information"? Huh?

So far, this entire exchange seems to have been about nothing at all. You might as well claim that mutations cannot increase a genome's gribble. What's the point if the word has no meaning?

 

[Loudmouth]

I said maybe, I don't know.

provide some mutations that are beneficial then.

easy fix

They are among the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps. They are responsible for the species specific adaptations seen in both species. The reason our brain is bigger and better than a chimps is because of those mutations.

 

[Loudmouth]

well this is the definition of negative claims that are unworthy of burden of proof:

"The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made."

in my case there was only a negative statment made as a claim,

we should look into this more,

You are making the assertion. So where is your evidence? You are making the assertion that mutations can not produce new information, so it is incumbent on you to support this claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

I do not believe that copying a sequence of nucleotides constitutes adding genetic information . . .

Then evolution does not need to add genetic information, as you define it, in order to produce the biodiversity we see today.

Information, as you define it, is irrelevant to the process of evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

thats changing the bars,

first you said you needed it,

and now you don't.

you are changing the bars based on what I have said.

that is errorsome

You have defined information so that it is irrelevant to any biological process. Here is an analogy I have used before. It is as if you have defined a baseball homerun as hitting the ball 5,000 feet. Any hit short of 5,000 feet and you will not accept it as a homerun. The problem is that all a hit has to do is get over a fence that is 300-400 feet away from the plate in order for it to be a homerun. This is what you are doing with respect to genetic information and evolution. Evolution doesn't need to hit the 5,000 foot hit for it to be a homerun.

What you have done is construct your definition of new information so that it is impossible for any process of mutagenesis to produce new information. In so doing, you have defined new information in such a way that mutations no longer have to produce new information in order for evolution to occur.

 

[[serious]]

You have defined information so that it is irrelevant to any biological process. Here is an analogy I have used before. It is as if you have defined a baseball homerun as hitting the ball 5,000 feet. Any hit short of 5,000 feet and you will not accept it as a homerun. The problem is that all a hit has to do is get over a fence that is 300-400 feet away from the plate in order for it to be a homerun. This is what you are doing with respect to genetic information and evolution. Evolution doesn't need to hit the 5,000 foot hit for it to be a homerun.

What you have done is construct your definition of new information so that it is impossible for any process of mutagenesis to produce new information. In so doing, you have defined new information in such a way that mutations no longer have to produce new information in order for evolution to occur.

Did he define information at all? I thought his definition of information was still a secret.

 

[Loudmouth]

Did he define information at all? I thought his definition of information was still a secret.

His definition is "whatever mutations can't do".

 

[[serious]]

His definition is "whatever mutations can't do".

He's obviously looking for it to be functionally that, but I think he's having trouble even finding a definition that would make that true.

 

[createdtoworship]

They are among the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps. They are responsible for the species specific adaptations seen in both species. The reason our brain is bigger and better than a chimps is because of those mutations.

I believe selection makes our brains bigger, not mutation. Natural selection is pretty much accepted amongst IDers. I believe a designer made our brains bigger from day one, then they grew in capacity as we micro evolved.

 

[createdtoworship]

You are making the assertion. So where is your evidence? You are making the assertion that mutations can not produce new information, so it is incumbent on you to support this claim.

which assertion are you speaking of? There are a few different ones.

 

[createdtoworship]

You have defined information so that it is irrelevant to any biological process. Here is an analogy I have used before. It is as if you have defined a baseball homerun as hitting the ball 5,000 feet. Any hit short of 5,000 feet and you will not accept it as a homerun. The problem is that all a hit has to do is get over a fence that is 300-400 feet away from the plate in order for it to be a homerun. This is what you are doing with respect to genetic information and evolution. Evolution doesn't need to hit the 5,000 foot hit for it to be a homerun.

What you have done is construct your definition of new information so that it is impossible for any process of mutagenesis to produce new information. In so doing, you have defined new information in such a way that mutations no longer have to produce new information in order for evolution to occur.

you struck out with your illustration lol

do you have any evidence of this claim?

and solid evidence that my view of information is irrelevant to uniformitarian thought and yours happens to be relevant because it's yours?

 

[Michael]

you struck out with your illustration lol

do you have any evidence of this claim?

and solid evidence that my view of information is irrelevant to uniformitarian thought and yours happens to be relevant because it's yours?

FYI, I have noticed that he does that quite often actually, and sometimes his own references don't even jive with his own claims. When they do jive they are *the* authority on (topic of choice). If they don't line up with his claims, they're somehow "gibberish", 'crackpot', yada, yada, yada. You really got check up on him now and then.

 

[[serious]]

which assertion are you speaking of? There are a few different ones.

let's start with your definition of information

 

[Michael]

let's start with your definition of information

[cough]Instincts[/cough]

 

[[serious]]

[cough]Instincts[/cough]

My instincts say that he doesn't actually have a definition and is instead repeating a word from a creationist/ID internet video.

 

[Michael]

My instincts say that he doesn't actually have a definition and is instead repeating a word from a creationist/ID internet video.

You could be right. Sorry, I think it was some residual frustration leftover from my conversation on genomes with LM yesterday. My apologies for the irrelevant injections from the peanut gallery.

 

[createdtoworship]

let's start with your definition of information

genetic information, it's pretty simple. No mutation adds info to the genetic code, it takes away, alters, and copies but doesn't add. Thats my definition. Now whats yours.