Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Speedwell]

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog

^this represents information beyond a random sequence of letters

Oje eihje oerjf rtf jduyrh idee kdh kadft fos

^ this is what random mutation of that sequence looks like. It no longer represents information beyond a random sequence of letters.


In DNA this would be the difference between a healthy living creature and something not living at all

That's just where your analogy fails.

 

[Shemjaza]

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog

^this represents information beyond a random sequence of letters

Oje eihje oerjf rtf jduyrh idee kdh kadft fos

^ this is what random mutation of that sequence looks like. It no longer represents information beyond a random sequence of letters.


In DNA this would be the difference between a healthy living creature and something not living at all

That is a cat

That is a cat cat

That is a fat cat

Not every mutation is negative and mutation doesn't imply the whole DNA chain rearranges every generation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That is a cat

That is a cat cat

That is a fat cat

Not every mutation is negative and mutation doesn't imply the whole DNA chain rearranges every generation.

Agreed, but did you get 'That is a fat cat' by inserting random letters, or by choosing them specifically ?

Tho quick browj for yomph oyet toi haxy kog

^ this is randomly altering only some of the letters, and so is only part way to specifying zero useful information- it's not part way to writing a novel!

i.e. the direction is the same regardless of the speed

 

[pitabread]

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog

^this represents information beyond a random sequence of letters

Oje eihje oerjf rtf jduyrh idee kdh kadft fos

^ this is what random mutation of that sequence looks like. It no longer represents information beyond a random sequence of letters.


In DNA this would be the difference between a healthy living creature and something not living at all

DNA is not a written language. Can you define genetic information with respect to genetics?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

DNA is not a written language. Can you define genetic information with respect to genetics?

It is a quaternary digital code structured hierarchically, and functioning according to a common code convention

If this was detected emanating from a cell phone tower, Chinese satellite, or a distant star system, it would certainly be recognized as an intelligent information medium, which you might call 'written language' and/or have a semantic debate about, but I would not make an exception for DNA, no, regardless of the implications

 

[pitabread]

It is a quaternary digital code structured hierarchically, and functioning according to a common code convention

If this was detected emanating from a cell phone tower, Chinese satellite, or a distant star system, it would certainly be recognized as an intelligent information medium, which you might call 'written language' and/or have a semantic debate about, but I would not make an exception for DNA, no, regardless of the implications

I'm trying to avoid the argument-via-analogy because it invariably leads to equivocation and/or false equivalence. This is how every single argument about genetic information goes.

DNA is a biochemical molecule. Define genetic information as it pertains to DNA/genetics. If you want to claim it's a "quaternary digital code structured hierarchically" or whatever other word salad you want to use, fine. Define it with respect to the biochemistry involved.

(And don't just assert either. There is a difference between merely asserting something versus defining/measuring it.)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm trying to avoid the argument-via-analogy because it invariably leads to equivocation and/or false equivalence. This is where every single argument about genetic information goes.

DNA is a biochemical molecule. Define genetic information as it pertains to DNA/genetics.

(And don't just assert either. There is a difference between merely asserting something versus defining/measuring it.)

again, a quaternary digital code structured hierarchically, and functioning according to a common code convention is not an analogy, it is an accurate description.

Of course DNA is certainly analogous to computer software and hardware in many ways, (as Dawkins and Gates have pointed out) but that would be merely an analogy, which is why I avoided that.

quaternary simply means base 4 as opposed to digital (base 2) which refers to the 4 common chemical nucleotide bases utilized in DNA.- that's not particularly controversial

Language can be presented in many ways, the point, as always, is about the 'language' or 'information' itself- regardless of it's medium used to present it

 

[Shemjaza]

Agreed, but did you get 'That is a fat cat' by inserting random letters, or by choosing them specifically ?

Tho quick browj for yomph oyet toi haxy kog

^ this is randomly altering only some of the letters, and so is only part way to specifying zero useful information- it's not part way to writing a novel!

i.e. the direction is the same regardless of the speed

If you made tiny changes to billions of novels and only kept the good ones a slight amount of randomness could improve it.

The flaw of your analogy is that very small changes happen over the scale of the genetic code and mostly they do nothing, but sometimes they give a benefit.

The fat cat example was of a very small sentence where a repetition error occurred then a substitution error which ended up with more information in the sentence.

Mutations happen on a small scale and drastically problematic variations won't even develop and a unlikely to pass on their negative qualities if they do.

 

[pitabread]

again, a quaternary digital code structured hierarchically, and functioning according to a common code convention is not an analogy, it is an accurate description.

The problem is the analogies invariably slip in when people start equivocating over the words like "digital" and "code".

Even your initial response in this thread, you immediately jumped to an analogy using written language. DNA is not a written language.

Language can be presented in many ways, the point, as always, is about the 'language' or 'information' itself- regardless of it's medium used to present it

Except that there are different definitions depending on the context. There is no singular definition of words like "information"; it's context specific. To avoid equivocation, we need to be clear on this point.

Which is why I ask, in the context of genetics/DNA, define information as it pertains specifically to genetics/DNA.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If you made tiny changes to billions of novels and only kept the good ones a slight amount of randomness could improve it.

The flaw of your analogy is that very small changes happen over the scale of the genetic code and mostly they do nothing, but sometimes they give a benefit.

The fat cat example was of a very small sentence where a repetition error occurred then a substitution error which ended up with more information in the sentence.

Mutations happen on a small scale and drastically problematic variations won't even develop and a unlikely to pass on their negative qualities if they do.

"and only kept the good ones"

^ there's you're trouble (I would submit to you) the process works fine if you have an intelligent agent determining which alterations will 'pay off' at some future point

And I think here we run into one of those inherent biases in our brains- everything we do is in 'anticipation' of a future event- and it is almost impossible to remove this from our thought experiments

But computers can, and without the benefit of foresight, deleterious mutations will always vastly outnumber advantageous ones.

 

[Shemjaza]

"and only kept the good ones"

^ there's you're trouble (I would submit to you) the process works fine if you have an intelligent agent determining which alterations will 'pay off' at some future point

And I think here we run into one of those inherent biases in our brains- everything we do is in 'anticipation' of a future event- and it is almost impossible to remove this from our thought experiments

But computers can, and without the benefit of foresight, deleterious mutations will always vastly outnumber advantageous ones.

It's not about saving up it's about survival right away.

Neutral mutations build up all over the place, but it's the positive mutations that drive change.

It doesn't matter that the negative are more common than positive as they will not statistically be selected for.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog

^this represents information beyond a random sequence of letters

Oje eihje oerjf rtf jduyrh idee kdh kadft fos

^ this is what random mutation of that sequence looks like. It no longer represents information beyond a random sequence of letters.


In DNA this would be the difference between a healthy living creature and something not living at all

Nobody thinks that whole chunks of functional DNA are suddenly randomised...

Are you suggesting that it's only information, in this context, if it's beneficially functional in providing a reproductive advantage? i.e. what, in everyday contexts, we'd call useful information?

That's technically semantic information - because it has intentionality (in the philosophical meaning of being about something). This is a valid concept, but not particularly useful in genetics except for things like quantifying the amount of 'functional' genetic material.

The problem is that genetic code doesn't work like the English language or a computer program, where flipping letters or bits is likely to make it unintelligible (although English has redundancy that makes it quite resilient) - genes code for proteins and flipping a nucleotide will typically produce a very slightly different protein that will fold into very slightly different shape that may work slightly better, slightly worse, or it may do something completely new (beneficial or otherwise), or there may be no effect on its activity at all... and so-on.

 

[pitabread]

Neutral mutations build up all over the place, but it's the positive mutations that drive change.

Neutral mutations appear to be capable of driving change as well, including increasing complexity.

E.g.:

The Surprising Origins of Evolutionary Complexity

The generality of Constructive Neutral Evolution

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The problem is the analogies invariably slip in when people start equivocating over the words like "digital" and "code".

Even your initial response in this thread, you immediately jumped to an analogy using written language. DNA is not a written language.

So if we received a hierarchically structured digital code as in 'Contact' from a distant star system... using any mathematical base or medium you can imagine.... as a staunch skeptic of alien intelligence, one might similarly object to anyone using the words 'digital' 'code' 'language' or 'information' for being potentially analogous to products of human intelligence- and so biasing our determination of the source..

But if you demand that all such useful and perfectly accurate words are strictly banned in describing the signal, should you not ask yourself...is it really the mere words themselves that are problematic for you? or the substantive implications of the observation itself?

 

[pitabread]

So if we received a hierarchically structured digital code as in 'Contact' from a distant star system...

And you're right back into analogies. I don't care about computer code, languages, alien communications, or Jodi Foster movies...

None of that is relevant to talking about DNA.

Define genetic information as it pertains specifically to genetics.

If you can't or won't then there is nothing else to discuss.

 

[Speedwell]

So if we received a hierarchically structured digital code as in 'Contact' from a distant star system... using any mathematical base or medium you can imagine.... as a staunch skeptic of alien intelligence, one might similarly object to anyone using the words 'digital' 'code' 'language' or 'information' for being potentially analogous to products of human intelligence- and so biasing our determination of the source..

But if you demand that all such useful and perfectly accurate words are strictly banned in describing the signal, should you not ask yourself...is it really the mere words themselves that are problematic for you? or the substantive implications of the observation itself?

Afraid of finding God, in other words? That kind of insinuation is really beneath you, Threepwood.

 

[Speedwell]

"and only kept the good ones"

^ there's you're trouble (I would submit to you) the process works fine if you have an intelligent agent determining which alterations will 'pay off' at some future point.

Not at "some future point." Evolution does not contrive chains of variation directed towards a future goal. It only works on the next generation.

And I think here we run into one of those inherent biases in our brains- everything we do is in 'anticipation' of a future event- and it is almost impossible to remove this from our thought experiments

It is just that bias which causes some people difficulty in understanding the theory of evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

Agreed, but did you get 'That is a fat cat' by inserting random letters, or by choosing them specifically ?

Tho quick browj for yomph oyet toi haxy kog

^ this is randomly altering only some of the letters, and so is only part way to specifying zero useful information- it's not part way to writing a novel!

i.e. the direction is the same regardless of the speed

But you've go two layers going on in your "Quick brown fox" analogy. You've got a string of symbols--information. And, you've got a meaningful message coded into them which is absent from DNA.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And you're right back into analogies. I don't care about computer code, languages, alien communications, or Jodi Foster movies...

None of that is relevant to talking about DNA.

Define genetic information as it pertains specifically to genetics.

If you can't or won't, then there is nothing else to discuss.

I did; the quaternary code in this case is stored in chemical nucleotide bases

the whole point is that analogies and mediums don't matter- it is a digital code convention whether you care or not

for further reading look up DNA computing

"DNA computing is an emerging branch of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry, and molecular biology hardware, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies."

^ should they be forbidden from referring to this as DNA computing since they might be accused of drawing analogies with human designed computing software & hardware?

Point being again, 'computing' here it's not an analogy, it's simply an accurate description of what DNA is inherently designed to do

it would make no difference if you forbade the language, the substance of the digital information system remains there for all to see

 

[Speedwell]

I did; the quaternary code in this case is stored in chemical nucleotide bases

the whole point is that analogies and mediums don't matter- it is a digital code convention whether you care or not

for further reading look up DNA computing

"DNA computing is an emerging branch of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry, and molecular biology hardware, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies."

^ should they be forbidden from referring to this as DNA computing since they might be accused of drawing analogies with human designed computing software & hardware?

Point being again, 'computing' here it's not an analogy, it's just an accurate description

it would make no difference if you forbade the language, the substance of the digital information system remains there for all to see

Yes, it is possible to encode meaningful content into a DNA molecule. So what?