A challenge to Creationists.

[Micaiah]

A little bit of computer programming.

10 I=I+1
30 GOTO 10
40 END

Can anyone see the problem with this code ?

 

[shernren]

It still uses line numbers?

It's an infinite loop. This is the kind of programming i was avoiding as a 12-year old novice. Point?

In any case: I don't see the point of saying that mutations are not random. Remember, we are talking about whether or not evolution is feasible, not whether evolution is significant. Classic obfuscation. If evolution by natural selection requires information input, and mutation supplies the required information input, then evolution by natural selection via mutational information input can happen. Fullstop, QED.

 

[Micaiah]

A little bit of computer programming.

10 I=I+1
30 GOTO 10
40 END

Can anyone see the problem with this code ?

Yes, an infinite loop. If you ran the program it would go on add infinitum unless it was manually interupted. Agreed this is not good programming technique but it is used to make a point.

Same code with line 20 added:

10 I=I+1
20 If I =20 GOTO 40
30 GOTO 10
40 END

The new line stops the program when the value of I reaches a certain value.

In general terms the new line specifies what to do when a certain condition exists.There is nothing random about the information the new line carries, and it was coded by someone with intelligence (well maybe).

Think back to some of the different types of mutations previously discussed. When Spetner made his comments it was not clear if transposons were random or an intricate part of the DNA. It is possible that some mutations are a bit like the conditional if statement made above. That is, when a certain environmental condition exists, the information contained within the line is coded or activated. If this is the case, then there is nothing random about what occurs in the DNA in such circumstances. I don't believe that kind of genetic change is evolution. That the IF statement is only sometimes used does mean that it is a net increase in information.

Here is another example of computer code containing a number of IF statements.

For I = 1 To NmNds

For J = 1 To NmDv

If NmDvNd(J) = I Then

TeRnn(J) = TeRn * PcLdMt(J)
TeRnSc(I) = TeRnn(J)
TeBrSc(I) = TeBrr(J)
PCvRnn(J) = TeRnn(J) * SpBl
PCvMtt(J) = PCvRnn(J) * FcMt(J)

Exit For

Else:
TeRnSc(I) = 0
TeBrSc(I) = 0
End If

Next J

If I = 1 Then TeBr = 0
TeBr = TeBrSc(I) + TeBr

Next I

Again when you run the program the IF statements will only be executed when the conditions are right but the code is there from the start. Executing the IF statedments does not imply a net gain in information contained in the code and again the conditional IF statements required intelligence to be created like the rest of the code required.

 

[Micaiah]

Note that a resolution of this problem does not reside in a rigorous mathematical definition of what constitutes a gain in information. It will result from a better understanding of the nature of mutations due to the action of transposons.

 

[shernren]

But in your programs (learn C++! XD) only the output is modified! Suppose there was a way for a program to modify itself according to the environment. That would be a more rigorously defined analogy to evolution. And in such a model, the program would indeed gain complexity over time. Whether that complexity could have come about with the initial programming or not (remember, some TEs have no problem with theobiogenesis) there would be no denying that the program has indeed changed and grown in complexity.

Note that a resolution of this problem does not reside in a rigorous mathematical definition of what constitutes a gain in information.

Because there is no rigorous mathematical definition of information that supports creationists' arguments?

There is a lot of burden of proof on creationists when they make claims like the above.

1. They have to elucidate a complete chain of signal transduction from the plasma membrane all the way to the genome, finding a set of signals entering the nucleus to which transposons can respond. Remember that bacteria are supposedly doing this every time they gain antibiotic immunity. Given the current state of biotechnological research it shouldn't be that hard to catch them in the act.

2. Even then, they have to prove that the programming pathway which resulted in this environmental-feedback model could not itself have arisen from scratch. In effect, they have to once again search the complete tree of all possible mutations and prove that the environmental-feedback model does not arise on any of them.

3. And finally, they have to prove that because this programming pathway takes information from pre-programmed conditions, it cannot add complexity (note the difference) required for the gradual evolution of today's organisms.

 

[Micaiah]

Scientists involved in the SETI project cannot claim they have found intelligent life until they have evidence it occurs. Basic common sense dictates that for evolution to occur there must be a net gain in information. The burden of proof is on evolutionists to prove this can and has occurred. Until then YEC's cannot claim it never does occur (YEC's on this forum, Spetner, and AIG make this clear) and evolutionists cannot make the claim that it does occur. A mathematical analysis demonstrating a gain in information and modelled on what constitutes a genuine increase in information would be a good start for the evolutionist. At the moment we have a small number of dubious examples. Ironically evolutionists have turned this around and tried to claim the burden of proof lies with the sceptics who can see through their "smoke screen and mirrors' approach. Those who claim intelligent life exists outside our solar system must accept the burden of proof the evidence it does exist. Likewise those who claim that a gain in genetic information due to mutations can occur must accept the burden of proof the evidence it does exist.

I have not seen any serious attempt by TE's on this forum to quantify gain in information. I have to assume they do not know how, and could not recognise or understand a proper mathematical analysis if it was presented. Their is no shame in admitting it is beyond your realm of expertise. However, it is wrong to claim something as scientific fact when there is so much doubt about the claims.

A point to ponder. How will we know that the signals received from outer space originated from intelligent life.

 

[Micaiah]

But in your programs (learn C++! XD) only the output is modified! Suppose there was a way for a program to modify itself according to the environment. That would be a more rigorously defined analogy to evolution. And in such a model, the program would indeed gain complexity over time. Whether that complexity could have come about with the initial programming or not (remember, some TEs have no problem with theobiogenesis) there would be no denying that the program has indeed changed and grown in complexity.

Saying that these types of mutations could arise from a random process is a different thing to saying they are an example of a random process. It would be intriging to hear TE's explain how this kind of mutation could occur through the process of evolution. Have a look again at some of the comments made by Spetner about the processes. One thing is for sure, as we learn more about these process it will become more obvious whether they are random, or whether they are programmed.

Because there is no rigorous mathematical definition of information that supports creationists' arguments?

How do you know? Where is the evidence to back up your assertion. You cannot make the absolute claim that nothing exists until you have searched every possible location where it may exist. Have you done this? Would you recognise a proper analysis if it did exist?

There is a lot of burden of proof on creationists when they make claims like the above.

1. They have to elucidate a complete chain of signal transduction from the plasma membrane all the way to the genome, finding a set of signals entering the nucleus to which transposons can respond. Remember that bacteria are supposedly doing this every time they gain antibiotic immunity. Given the current state of biotechnological research it shouldn't be that hard to catch them in the act.

2. Even then, they have to prove that the programming pathway which resulted in this environmental-feedback model could not itself have arisen from scratch. In effect, they have to once again search the complete tree of all possible mutations and prove that the environmental-feedback model does not arise on any of them.

3. And finally, they have to prove that because this programming pathway takes information from pre-programmed conditions, it cannot add complexity (note the difference) required for the gradual evolution of today's organisms.

It reads better this way:

There is a lot of burden of proof on TE's when they make claims like the above.

1. They have to elucidate a complete chain of signal transduction from the plasma membrane all the way to the genome, finding a set of signals entering the nucleus to which transposons can respond. Remember that bacteria are supposedly doing this every time they gain antibiotic immunity. Given the current state of biotechnological research it shouldn't be that hard to catch them in the act.

2. Even then, they have to prove that the programming pathway which resulted in this environmental-feedback model could itself have arisen from scratch.

3. And finally, they have to prove that this programming pathway can take information from pre-programmed conditions and add information required for the gradual evolution of today's organisms.

 

[notto]

I have not seen any serious attempt by TE's on this forum to quantify gain in information.

an entirely duplicated gene or chromosome would count as an increase in information. The evolution of entirely new genes would also seem to match most definitions of new information. It is the ID ideology that relies on these mathematical models so it would seem that the burden of proof would be on them to show that these are not increases in whatever information they are talking about. To evolution and biology in general, the argument really doesn't mean much. It is an ID claim against evolution that really has no real impact and doesn't explain anything or provide any new information anyways.

A point to ponder. How will we know that the signals received from outer space originated from intelligent life.

We wouldn't without clear investigation and analysis. For now, all SETI does is look for signals that are out of place and for which we cannot find a natural cause or identify a natural cause. We would not know if it originated from intelligent life or if it originated from a yet unknown natural source unless something like language was apparent. SETI studies communications and language of earthbound species to make comparisions of patterns and such so that if a signal is found, it could be compared to see if it is language like. Unlike ID, SETI would not rely on a gaps argument to make claims but would use positive evidence to support the claim of intelligent life as the source of the signal.

 

[shernren]

I have not seen any serious attempt by TE's on this forum to quantify gain in information. I have to assume they do not know how, and could not recognise or understand a proper mathematical analysis if it was presented. Their is no shame in admitting it is beyond your realm of expertise. However, it is wrong to claim something as scientific fact when there is so much doubt about the claims.

I have fully quantified gain in information by the length-of-genome model, in which mutations can cause gain in information, and partially quantified gain in information by the protein-encoding model, in which mutations can still cause gain in information. You have not made any quantifications whatsoever. There is no shame in admitting that it is beyond your proper realm of expertise. However, it is wrong to claim that "mutations cannot add information" is a scientific fact when there is so much doubt about this.

Saying that these types of mutations could arise from a random process is a different thing to saying they are an example of a random process.

Whoa. Explain. When is an outcome of a random process not an example of the occurrence of a random process?

It would be intriging to hear TE's explain how this kind of mutation could occur through the process of evolution. Have a look again at some of the comments made by Spetner about the processes. One thing is for sure, as we learn more about these process it will become more obvious whether they are random, or whether they are programmed.

Until then, it is wrong to claim that "mutations are directed by the environment" as a scientific fact when there is so much doubt about the claims.

How do you know? Where is the evidence to back up your assertion. You cannot make the absolute claim that nothing exists until you have searched every possible location where it may exist. Have you done this? Would you recognise a proper analysis if it did exist?

Show me one.

It reads better this way:

There is a lot of burden of proof on TE's when they make claims like the above.

1. They have to elucidate a complete chain of signal transduction from the plasma membrane all the way to the genome, finding a set of signals entering the nucleus to which transposons can respond. Remember that bacteria are supposedly doing this every time they gain antibiotic immunity. Given the current state of biotechnological research it shouldn't be that hard to catch them in the act.

TEs don't need a signal transduction pathway to the genome, since we believe that mutations are quite random.

2. Even then, they have to prove that the programming pathway which resulted in this environmental-feedback model could itself have arisen from scratch.

Again, the TEs don't need the signal transduction pathway. Whatever we do need, since it already exists and is observed to function well, the onus is not on the TE to show that it could have arisen from scratch but on the YEC to show that it could not have within the framework of naturalistic investigation.

3. And finally, they have to prove that this programming pathway can take information from pre-programmed conditions and add information required for the gradual evolution of today's organisms.

Who said anything about pre-programmed conditions? Wasn't that the YEC argument? I hate to say this but you sound confused about what I said in the post you were responding to.

 

[Micaiah]

I have fully quantified gain in information by the length-of-genome model, in which mutations can cause gain in information, and partially quantified gain in information by the protein-encoding model, in which mutations can still cause gain in information. You have not made any quantifications whatsoever.

You made an attempt. I'm waiting for KerrMetric to give his response or has he gone.

There is no shame in admitting that it is beyond your proper realm of expertise. However, it is wrong to claim that "mutations cannot add information" is a scientific fact when there is so much doubt about this.

Show me where I made that claim or retract the implied accusation.

Whoa. Explain. When is an outcome of a random process not an example of the occurrence of a random process?

You seem to be missing the point I made in Post 43. There is evidence that mutations resulting from the action of transposons is not random. Like the conditional IF statement it may be triggered by a certain condition.

Until then, it is wrong to claim that "mutations are directed by the environment" as a scientific fact when there is so much doubt about the claims.

Again, show me where I made that claim or retract the implied accusation.

Show me one.

See comment at start.

TEs don't need a signal transduction pathway to the genome, since we believe that mutations are quite random.

</I>Again, the TEs don't need the signal transduction pathway. Whatever we do need, since it already exists and is observed to function well, the onus is not on the TE to show that it could have arisen from scratch but on the YEC to show that it could not have within the framework of naturalistic investigation.

Who said anything about pre-programmed conditions? Wasn't that the YEC argument? I hate to say this but you sound confused about what I said in the post you were responding to.

I misunderstood what was said. Apologies. Think of it another way. Until TE's have investigated all possibilities for the existence of such pathways and demonstrate conclusively that this signal transduction pathways doesn't exist, then they cannot make this claim? At present, experimentation indicates several examples of what TE's claim to be random genetic mutation appear to be a pre-programmed response to environmental factors. That is all that has been stated thus far. YEC's accept that this has not been conclusively proven, and have never made this claim. Neither do we accept that such examples conclusively demonstrate a gain in genetic information.

 

[Micaiah]

We wouldn't without clear investigation and analysis. For now, all SETI does is look for signals that are out of place and for which we cannot find a natural cause or identify a natural cause. We would not know if it originated from intelligent life or if it originated from a yet unknown natural source unless something like language was apparent. SETI studies communications and language of earthbound species to make comparisions of patterns and such so that if a signal is found, it could be compared to see if it is language like.

So to find out if there is intelligent life on another planet we assume that there will be similarities betwen the way they communicate and the way we communicate. We then check to see if such similarities exist.

Unlike ID, SETI would not rely on a gaps argument to make claims but would use positive evidence to support the claim of intelligent life as the source of the signal.

The obvious implication is that based on what we know about information systems, we should be able to identify intelligent design in the DNA.

 

[random_guy]

The problem is information gain really doesn't apply to biology. The YECists and IDists need to show that it's relevant. Evolutionary science has continued to work without the need to include this.

For example, do humans or rice have more information? Rice contains almost double the number of genes than us. So who contains more information?

 

[notto]

The obvious implication is that based on what we know about information systems, we should be able to identify intelligent design in the DNA.

Only if we have another chemical based intelligent code that has a medium of organic molecules that we know can change over time due to the influence of random mutations and natural selection.

Can you point us to one?

We know of no other 'information system' by which we can compare DNA to. Any analogies (unlike the language or signal comparisons of SETI) are lacking one or more of the elements or characterisics of DNA. They are not organic, they are not self replicating, and they are not influenced by random mutation or natural selection.

 

[Micaiah]

The problem is information gain really doesn't apply to biology. The YECists and IDists need to show that it's relevant. Evolutionary science has continued to work without the need to include this.

For example, do humans or rice have more information? Rice contains almost double the number of genes than us. So who contains more information?

So you are suggesting that from the time of the supposed first sign of life to the present day humans there was no net gain in information?

Are there any other TE's who agree with this statement?

 

[random_guy]

So you are suggesting that from the time of the supposed first sign of life to the present day humans there was no net gain in information?

Are there any other TE's who agree with this statement?

Not quiet what I said. How can one talk about information gain until information is defined?

 

[Micaiah]

Only if we have another chemical based intelligent code that has a medium of organic molecules that we know can change over time due to the influence of random mutations and natural selection.

Can you point us to one?

We know of no other 'information system' by which we can compare DNA to. Any analogies (unlike the language or signal comparisons of SETI) are lacking one or more of the elements or characterisics of DNA. They are not organic, they are not self replicating, and they are not influenced by random mutation or natural selection.

A computer could be programmed to simulate self replication, mutations, and natural selection. We don't have 'living' information systems because man lacks the intelligence to make one.

 

[Micaiah]

Not quiet what I said. How can one talk about information gain until information is defined?

Do you agree that the DNA is an information system?

 

[notto]

A computer could be programmed to simulate self replication, mutations, and natural selection. We don't have 'living' information systems because man lacks the intelligence to make one.

So then we really can't make a comparision of one organic biological code to another as you suggested to determine if one who's origin is unknown is designed based on the comparison. This is one of the main reasons that intelligent design isn't science. It is subjective and based on poor analogy instead of objective and demonstratable evidence that lead to conclusions.

 

[random_guy]

Do you agree that the DNA is an information system?

I don't know until you define what is meant by information. I really don't understand what's so hard to understand. How can we discuss a subject unless we're clear what the terms mean.

For example, if a person doesn't understand the term science, I can define it so we can further discuss it. If you want to discuss information or apply information theory to biology, then you need to define information.

 

[Micaiah]

I don't know until you define what is meant by information. I really don't understand what's so hard to understand. How can we discuss a subject unless we're clear what the terms mean.

For example, if a person doesn't understand the term science, I can define it so we can further discuss it. If you want to discuss information or apply information theory to biology, then you need to define information.

Okay, I thought you had a little more insight into this topic. I'll start from scratch.

All living things are made up of little itsy bitsy things called cells. The DNA is something that lives in the cell. You and I started off as a cell, but that is another story.

Have you ever heard someone say you look like your mummy or daddy. Why is that so? Well, it is because you have copies of the DNA from your mummy and daddy living in each of your cells. Why do you have a big nose, why is your back hairy, why do you have big ears that stick out, , and why are your eyes green. It is all to do with your DNA. Your body is amazing. There are lots of parts to your body. The shape of all of these parts, how they fit together, and how they operate is all contained in the DNA. The last time you watched Micky Mouse it was all stored on a DVD. In the same way, all the information about your body, which is a lot more than a Micky Mouse cartoon is stored in your DNA.

I hope this little discussion was helpful. Now, can we agree that DNA is an information system?