De novo genes and the "no new information" argument

[SkyWriting]

Do you have anything useful to contribute to this thread or are you just here to...

I went through each paragraph.
25 minutes ago#4
22 minutes ago#7
22 minutes ago#11
19 minutes ago#12
18 minutes ago#14
9 minutes ago#19

 

[Shemjaza]

Oh. I was expecting the real definition for some reason.

Do you ascribe to the common creationist idea that "evolution can't increase genetic information"?

If so, what is the definition and metric of information?

If not, then what point are you trying to make?

 

[Speedwell]

What is the real definition?

Here you go:

http://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shannon/entropy/entropy.pdf

 

[SkyWriting]

Great post! Clear, concise problem for creationists. I look forward to the deafening silence on the subject from creationists on this forum.

Only because I didn't respond as the OP desired.

 

[SkyWriting]

Do you ascribe to the common creationist idea that "evolution can't increase genetic information"?

Yes. All needed changes are in the original design. Neither God nor the environment can change the intended outcome.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes, individuals and couples can produce new sequences of DNA that did not exist.
There are thought to be reasons this happens, that are not random or useless.

Yes. All needed changes are in the original design. Neither God nor the environment can change the intended outcome.

These two quotes seem to be a contradiction.

If new sequences that are not a part of DNA enter without conscious decision how are they already a part of the design?

Are you able to answer the question about how information is measured?

 

[pitabread]

Are you able to answer the question about how information is measured?

Prediction: they will not answer this (insofar as providing a metric).

 

[Shemjaza]

Prediction: they will not answer this (insofar as providing a metric).

I think you are correct.

There are a number of definitions of information that I've seen clarified... but in every case either evolution can account for the increase, or it can be demonstrated that it isn't necessary for evolution.

 

[pitabread]

There are a number of definitions of information that I've seen clarified... but in every case either evolution can account for the increase, or it can be demonstrated that it isn't necessary for evolution.

That's how it always goes. Either it's demonstrated how evolution can increase genetic information or the definition is irrelevant to genetics.

I've yet to see a creationist provide a definition of genetic information that is demonstrably applicable to genetics and where it's demonstrated to be impossible to increase. And the existence of reversal mutations basically guarantees that any definition of information re: genetics will always be able to allow for the increase of genetic information.

 

[Ophiolite]

That's how it always goes. Either it's demonstrated how evolution can increase genetic information or the definition is irrelevant to genetics.

I've yet to see a creationist provide a definition of genetic information that is demonstrably applicable to genetics and where it's demonstrated to be impossible to increase. And the existence of reversal mutations basically guarantees that any definition of information re: genetics will always be able to allow for the increase of genetic information.

The conclusion one seems to be forced towards is that either,

• Specific Creationists are so ill informed of InformationTheory that make those egregious mistakes and misinterpretations that tend to benefit their arguments.

Or,

• Specific Creationists are deliberately confusing different definitions of information in order to support their arguments.

Ignorance or equivocation, it is a sad choice. I would welcome an alternative, more palatable explanation from any Creationist (or Evolutionist, for that matter).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Here you go:

http://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shannon/entropy/entropy.pdf

Shannon information theory applies to the communication of messages via potentially lossy media. Can you explain how it is relevant to the context we're discussing?

 

[essentialsaltes]

For example, this paper describes the identification of various de novo genes in 15 different species of yeast: Molecular Portrait of De Novo Genes in Yeasts

<creationist hat>Surely the Ark was big enough to carry 15 pairs of yeast cells.</creationist hat>

 

[inquiring mind]

if creationists argue that evolution can't produce de novo genes and that these are from the originally created "kinds", it pushes the definition of "kind" down to the species level, possibly even the subspecies level.

Bodie and Georgia stated this in AIG years ago:
"Creation scientists use the word baramin to refer to created kinds (Hebrew: bara = created, min = kind). Because none of the original ancestors survive today, creationists have been trying to figure out what descendants belong to each baramin in their varied forms. Baramin is commonly believed to be at the level of family and possibly order for some plants/animals (according to the common classification scheme of kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species). On rare occasions, a kind may be equivalent to the genus or species levels."
Then they discuss the 'bait and switch' tactic regarding the definition of species that took place in scientific circles. Quite interesting.
What Are “Kinds” in Genesis?
(by Bodie Hodge and Dr. Georgia Purdom on April 16, 2013; last featured October 1, 2013
Featured in The New Answers Book 3)

 

[Speedwell]

Bodie and Georgia stated this in AIG years ago:
"Creation scientists use the word baramin to refer to created kinds (Hebrew: bara = created, min = kind). Because none of the original ancestors survive today, creationists have been trying to figure out what descendants belong to each baramin in their varied forms. Baramin is commonly believed to be at the level of family and possibly order for some plants/animals (according to the common classification scheme of kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species). On rare occasions, a kind may be equivalent to the genus or species levels."
Then they discuss the 'bait and switch' tactic regarding the definition of species that took place in scientific circles. Quite interesting.
What Are “Kinds” in Genesis?
(by Bodie Hodge and Dr. Georgia Purdom on April 16, 2013; last featured October 1, 2013
Featured in The New Answers Book 3)

That "bait and switch" rant was hilarious moonshine. No, the term species did not originate in the Bible.

 

[inquiring mind]

That "bait and switch" rant was hilarious moonshine. No, the term species did not originate in the Bible.

Maybe to you... Do you read Latin Speedwell? Latin Vulgate Genesis 1:24 dixit quoque Deus producat terra animam viventem in genere suo iumenta et reptilia et bestias terrae secundum species suas factumque est ita

 

[Speedwell]

Maybe to you... Do you read Latin Speedwell? Latin Vulgate Genesis 1:24 dixit quoque Deus producat terra animam viventem in genere suo iumenta et reptilia et bestias terrae secundum species suas factumque est ita

Translated from the Hebrew into Greek and then into Latin. And because Jerome settled on the word "species" it proves that the concept of biological species (as "kinds") originated in the Bible, but evil scientists switched the definition in order to discredit the Bible?

 

[inquiring mind]

Translated from the Hebrew into Greek and then into Latin. And because Jerome settled on the word "species" it proves that the concept of biological species (as "kinds") originated in the Bible, but evil scientists switched the definition in order to discredit the Bible?

The point is the Vulgate was written 1300 years before Linnaeus and his classification system. Do you think the Vulgate ‘species’ meant ‘kind’ or the new ‘whatever-it-is’ scientific definition?

 

[Speedwell]

The point is the Vulgate was written 1300 years before Linnaeus and his classification system. Do you think the Vulgate ‘species’ meant ‘kind’ or the new ‘whatever-it-is’ scientific definition?

The concept of genus and species as a categorization system for animals dates from as far back as Aristotle. I doubt that the translators of the Septuagint or Jerome gave much thought to the matter. Certainly, Jerome did not derive his concept of "species" from the Bible.

 

[inquiring mind]

The concept of genus and species as a categorization system for animals dates from as far back as Aristotle. I doubt that the translators of the Septuagint or Jerome gave much thought to the matter. Certainly, Jerome did not derive his concept of "species" from the Bible.

Again, the point is that the 'bait and switch' involved changing 'species' from what all previous writers obviously were referring to as 'kind' and changing it to something else (whatever-it-is, have they ever agreed on a definition?).

 

[Speedwell]

Again, the point is that the 'bait and switch' involved changing 'species' from what all previous writers obviously were referring to as 'kind' and changing it to something else (whatever-it-is, have they ever agreed on a definition?).

No. "All previous writers" did not base their usage of "species" on the Bible. The term was already in both the Latin and Greek lexicons independently of the Bible.