Evolution of information

OdwinOddball · Mar 16, 2006

shinbits said:
That's only if evolution is true. As it stands, we have no real reason to believe it is true.

You yourself just admited that micro evolution is demonstrably true.

If Macro evolution equals micro evolution over time, and if micro evolution is true, then Q.E.D Macro evolution is true.

The only way to dodge this is to join a fantasy world such as Dads. Have fun over in the split/merge world, it sounds like super fun if you've been lobotomized.

Hydra009 · Mar 16, 2006

shinbits said:
I seriously hope you are not thinking about micro-evolution. We can observe that, but macro-evolution has never been observed.

Define "macro-evolution".

Donkeytron · Mar 16, 2006

shinbits said:
I seriously hope you are not thinking about micro-evolution. We can observe that, but macro-evolution has never been observed.

I serously am. Macroevolution has been observed, as has been pointed out to you before on this board. So the point stands.

shinbits · Mar 16, 2006

Donkeytron said:
I serously am. Macroevolution has been observed, as has been pointed out to you before on this board. So the point stands.

Seems like we'll have to start a new thread.

Anything pointing to "macro" evolution is either highly debatable, or refuted.

But I wont comment anymore about that here. Start a new thread if you want a response from concerning this.

CanadianBacon · Mar 16, 2006

i think its pretty obvious to everyone posting here aswell as everyone lurking around here that this shinbits guy has no idea what hes talking about. On top of that all he does is post 1 thing and then as soon as someone refutes his point he just runs away and says that this should be in a new thread, hey shinbits, heres a tip just make 1 thread and actually stand up for yourself and for christianity if you think yourself to be so right.

long time lurker first time poster

-CanadianBacon

Donkeytron · Mar 16, 2006

shinbits said:
Seems like we'll have to start a new thread.

Anything pointing to "macro" evolution is either highly debatable, or refuted.

But I wont comment anymore about that here. Start a new thread if you want a response from concerning this.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Lets start here shall we? None of this is "highly debatable" to biologists working in the field. So assuming this is true, and it is, my point stands about information. Its either unimportant to the evolution of species, or creationists just made it up.

Loudmouth · Mar 16, 2006

shinbits said:
New information can't evolve. Some confuse variation with "new".

What is the difference between variation and new? Humans, bears, and otters are all variations of mammals. Does this mean that since the first mammal no new information was needed?

Kripost · Mar 16, 2006

shinbits said:
Well, there you have already defined new information. If someone writes a book about something not known before, there is new info. But if someone else comes, and writes a book commenting on that info, it is not new information; just a different look at current information.

One example would be the Bible. Each different version of the Bible is a variation of the original version; but it is still the same book.

This is the difference between something new, and variation.

New information is a new

Arguably, since books are dependent on some earlier texts, no new information is added when someon writes a book.

As for the bible, bear in mind it is not a single book, but a collection of books.

From a biological point of view, the above analogy is rather useless, since information as used above is hardly quantifiable, and also does not even relate to gene expression.

Tomk80 · Mar 16, 2006

shinbits said:
This is variation, not evolution of new information. A new species can't exist if there's no new information.

Modification of old information is new information.

Tomk80 · Mar 16, 2006

Kripost said:
Arguably, since books are dependent on some earlier texts, no new information is added when someon writes a book.

That's where shinbits' argument already falls apart dramatically and completely. If someone writes a book about something already known before, this will almost always add new insights. Hence, new information is always present.

As for the bible, bear in mind it is not a single book, but a collection of books.

From a biological point of view, the above analogy is rather useless, since information as used above is hardly quantifiable, and also does not even relate to gene expression.

I think in this case, with information so inadequately defined, it's quite an apt description. It clearly shows that modification of old information is new information, QED.

Dannager · Mar 16, 2006

This is starting to sound like the "new and improved" paradox.

Ryal Kane · Mar 16, 2006

shinbits said:
Well, there you have already defined new information. If someone writes a book about something not known before, there is new info. But if someone else comes, and writes a book commenting on that info, it is not new information; just a different look at current information.

One example would be the Bible. Each different version of the Bible is a variation of the original version; but it is still the same book.

This is the difference between something new, and variation.

New information is a new

Please excuse the following frustrated rant.

Why is it so hard for Creationists to grasp Metaphors!

End rant.

The point of my book example was that someone can write a new book without coming up with new words.
Likewise someone can come up with a new word without inventing new letters. Right?

DNA is a chemical code. A change in the DNA means that the code is different. Everyone on earth has a different genetic code. We have different information.
Are you following so far?

Imagine a very small part of DNA code.
GATTAGT
when a species reproduces, they replicate this piece of code. Their offspring will also have
GATTAGT
But reproduction isn't always perfect. When splitting and dividing, DNA can mutate. sometimes it's a deletion.
GATTAGT -> GATAGT
or perhaps a duplication.
GATTAGT -> GATTAGTT

Both these new codes are different from the original. They will have a different outcome when translated into body type. It's new information, just as adding or deleting letters can make new words.

Do you follow this? Please don't derail or change topic. That can be covered later and elsewhere.
Just answer the questions "Do you understand the above example?" and if so "How is it not new information?"

I'll do my best to explain it to you.

Schroeder · Mar 16, 2006

Ryal Kane said:
Define new information.

Meanwhile I'm going to sit around and wait for someone to write a new book. I go to the library but all I find are books with the words I already know but in different orders.

how about scale turning into fur or if you wish flesh of a amphipian/reptile if that is what it is, into fur. i havent heard how that evolved. or the organ of Corti, which seems to have come from nothing. mammary glands, milk. or the knee cap of humans. one moment it is not around the next there it is. Or how the species which gets a mutation how ever it happens slow or not and then it decides when it is best to make it work differently. like the kidney of a reptile and a mammal. at what point did it decide to do one over the other.

Schroeder · Mar 16, 2006

Ryal Kane said:
Please excuse the following frustrated rant.
Why is it so hard for Creationists to grasp Metaphors!

End rant.

The point of my book example was that someone can write a new book without coming up with new words.
Likewise someone can come up with a new word without inventing new letters. Right?

DNA is a chemical code. A change in the DNA means that the code is different. Everyone on earth has a different genetic code. We have different information.
Are you following so far?

Imagine a very small part of DNA code.
GATTAGT
when a species reproduces, they replicate this piece of code. Their offspring will also have
GATTAGT
But reproduction isn't always perfect. When splitting and dividing, DNA can mutate. sometimes it's a deletion.
GATTAGT -> GATAGT
or perhaps a duplication.
GATTAGT -> GATTAGTT

Both these new codes are different from the original. They will have a different outcome when translated into body type. It's new information, just as adding or deleting letters can make new words.

Do you follow this? Please don't derail or change topic. That can be covered later and elsewhere.
Just answer the questions "Do you understand the above example?" and if so "How is it not new information?"

I'll do my best to explain it to you.

so if you have gattagt it becomes gataggtt, it has new info. right no it is just a new way to do what it usually did. like mixing to colors. does this make something new. its a different color but nothing new or no new thing was created. i think if gattgat became eheehho that would be something new. I used the knee cap as a example. it is a bone but the structure and were it goes is something not even close to anything in apes. it did not evolve from anything. same as the organ of corti. it just appears. this is new info. though i guess it is not info in a since but a new structure. but where did this Info come from to get it where it is supossed to be. that would be new info.

Ryal Kane · Mar 16, 2006

Schroeder said:
so if you have gattagt it becomes gataggtt, it has new info. right no it is just a new way to do what it usually did. like mixing to colors. does this make something new. its a different color but nothing new or no new thing was created. i think if gattgat became eheehho that would be something new. I used the knee cap as a example. it is a bone but the structure and were it goes is something not even close to anything in apes. it did not evolve from anything. same as the organ of corti. it just appears. this is new info. though i guess it is not info in a since but a new structure. but where did this Info come from to get it where it is supossed to be. that would be new info.

Evolution doesn't work by sudden, large physiological changes. It works by small steps. All life on earth is formed by DNA or RNA. It's made up of combinations af four chemicals, adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine; 'A' 'C' 'G' and 'T'
All life is composed of combinations of these four chemicals. The 'eheehho' combination would require the sudden emergence of complex life using chemicals completely different to those in any life on earth. Your definition of new information is something that noone believes occurs, not creationists or evolutionists. It's a strawman.
It's like saying books aren't new if they just use words that already exist.

Creatures don't suddenly develop kneecaps, they develop them over millions of generations of small accumulated change.
GAT becomes GATT becomes GGATT and so on for a million or so mutations.

Loudmouth · Mar 17, 2006

Schroeder said:
how about scale turning into fur or if you wish flesh of a amphipian/reptile if that is what it is, into fur. i havent heard how that evolved.

No new information is needed, though. Scales and fur are both made of keratin, so scales and fur are variations on the use of keratin.

or the organ of Corti, which seems to have come from nothing.

The organ of Corti comes from embryological development, last I heard.

Anyway, the cochlea (where the organ of Corti is found) is a variation of the hearing tube found in reptiles. Again, no new information is needed, just variations on what is already found in our ancestors.

mammary glands, milk. or the knee cap of humans.

Mammary glands: variations of sweat glands.

Knee cap: Variation on tendon connections.

No new informaiton needed.

one moment it is not around the next there it is. Or how the species which gets a mutation how ever it happens slow or not and then it decides when it is best to make it work differently. like the kidney of a reptile and a mammal. at what point did it decide to do one over the other.

No organism decides which features it will have, that is pre-ordained at the moment of conception.

Schroeder · Mar 19, 2006

Loudmouth said:
No new information is needed, though. Scales and fur are both made of keratin, so scales and fur are variations on the use of keratin.

The organ of Corti comes from embryological development, last I heard.

Anyway, the cochlea (where the organ of Corti is found) is a variation of the hearing tube found in reptiles. Again, no new information is needed, just variations on what is already found in our ancestors.

Mammary glands: variations of sweat glands.

Knee cap: Variation on tendon connections.

No new informaiton needed.

No organism decides which features it will have, that is pre-ordained at the moment of conception.

sounds like guessing to me. th eknee cap is not a tendon none of the other parts work right with out it yet it all survived natural selection. SO why dont male nipples let sweat out since it isnt used for giving milk. and where did the INFO to make them switch come from. or is this the mutation that did this. and how did it now when it was the right time to do it. SO yes there is new info. if it was a scale and the genes tell it is when it reproduces keeps it a scale. if a mutation happened and it haqppened in this gene why would it be benificail to it. whe the rest of its system is designed for a scaley species. can this keratin be something inbetween. or just scale feather or hair.

Tomk80 · Mar 19, 2006

Schroeder said:
sounds like guessing to me. th eknee cap is not a tendon none of the other parts work right with out it yet it all survived natural selection.

Schroeder, I've asked this many times before, but punctuation and proof reading! This sentence makes no sense, even after reading it three times. I have no idea what you mean.

SO why dont male nipples let sweat out since it isnt used for giving milk.

Because nipples are not used to produce sweat. They are an adaptation from sweat glands, they are not sweat glands. Male nipples can sometimes lactate, though.

and where did the INFO to make them switch come from. or is this the mutation that did this.

Yup.

and how did it now when it was the right time to do it.

It didn't know anything, what a silly statement.

SO yes there is new info.

So variation of old info is new info? Just checking before the goal posts are shifted again.

]if it was a scale and the genes tell it is when it reproduces keeps it a scale. if a mutation happened and it haqppened in this gene why would it be benificail to it. whe the rest of its system is designed for a scaley species. can this keratin be something inbetween. or just scale feather or hair.

Basal feather structures have been found in fossil species, and kiwi's have something like those structures. It doesn't need to be perfect right on, just better than the previous structure. A single mutations in chicks can give rise to scales in them also. And what are hairs other then very small scales?

mikeynov · Mar 19, 2006

This thread is seriously awesome. The excuses coming out of creationists mouths as they tap dance around direct evidence are just mind-blowing.

mikeynov · Mar 19, 2006

A wise man once wrote:

5) Observed speciation/macroevolution

In Darwin's Origin of the Species, Darwin was attempting to explain how the diversity of life past and present appeared. The "origin" in question is where any given species comes from - not the beginning of life, which is covered in the field of abiogenesis.

Within this context, Darwin speculated that natural forces, i.e. nature itself, could possibly explain the past and present diversity of life on this planet. He hypothesized that new daughter branches arise from existing parent branches, such that the daughter branches represent modified subets of the parent branch.

Over time, then, life becomes a branching bush, NOT a straight line (as, previous to Darwin, had often been suggested - true Lamarckian evolution is precisely this, a linear ascent towards perfection, with mankind the pinnacle of creation). Darwin himself catalogued this pattern, which represents the very logic cladists would use many years later. Note: this is the "groups within groups" or nested hierarchies referred to prior.

So, Darwin's work was attempting to establish this pattern of divergence - given large amounts of geologic time, once you've established that this divergence DOES occur, you have established the very pattern that Darwin himself proposed.

And guess what? We have WITNESSED this pattern of divergence occur in the field and laboratory - we have seen the very formation of new species in exactly the manner Darwin predicted SHOULD occur given the premise of evolution.

So yes, we've seen one population split from a parent population such that the respective gene pools between the two populations are isolated (via behavior, sexual selection or geographic isolation) to the point where the parent and daughter populations no longer interbreed. At this point, we are FORCED to grant a new species name to the daughter lineage, which represents a new, biologically distinct taxon. That is the very definition of macroevolution, and exactly what Darwin predicted we'd find.

The following is a list of over 100 peer reviewed examples of what is described above:

http://www.christianforums.com/t155...speciation.html (Dr. Lucaspa's list of observed instances of speciation)

[SIZE=-1]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html[/SIZE] (Talk.origins list #1)

[SIZE=-1]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html[/SIZE] (Talk.origins list #2)

Evolution of information

Atheist Water Fowl

bel esprit

Veteran

Well-Known Member

New Member

Veteran

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Titleless

Titleless

Back in Town

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Veteran

Titleless

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads