Evolution is DEscriptive not PREscriptive

[Astrid]

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

Good stuff, thanks

 

[ottawak]

Good stuff, thanks

Shannon is the "Darwin" of Information Theory. It has developed since, but Shannon's work still stands and understanding it is basic.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

You completely ignore an extremely important part of what you wrote:
DNA....makes sense in context.

Your linguistic argument changes the context in an attempt to demonstrate it doesn't make sense.

If you just want to play the equivocation card, then allow me to point out that "Am Anfang war die Information" is gibberish as an English sentence.

DNA does make sense in context. If the sequences were coded in a different order it wouldn't result in anything because it'd be meaningless.

 

[ottawak]

I'll try to put it simple:
DNA is like a book containing the genetic information. The sentences (aka sequences) are coherent and make sense in context. A mutation is a random change to this book. Most mutations just scramble a few words or sentences - which means the information of those sequences got lost. Some mutations outright delete a sequence - which means the information of those sequences got lost. And some mutations duplicate a sequence - like writing a sentence twice. This doesn't just disturb the flow of reading but it also doesn't add any information. You can read the same sentence a hundred times - you still only get the same information from it.
In order to add information we need a mutation that adds a word, sentence or page to the book that is not only coherent in itself but also makes sense in the context of the entire book. None of the observed mutations has ever done that (and the chances for it are zero).

If you'd like more detailed information I recommend the book "Am Anfang war die Information" by Werner Gitt.

You (and Werner Gitt) are confounding message with information. No doubt you are concerned with the telological implications of evolution, but you are working too hard to find Telos encoded in the information of DNA.

 

[Astrid]

You (and Werner Gitt) are confounding message with information. No doubt you are concerned with the telological implications of evolution, but you are working too hard to find Telos encoded in the information of DNA.

Seems to me it was Feynman who said most of the secrets of
the universe are contained in a drop of water.
That would be information, rather than message,
would it not?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

DNA does make sense in context. If the sequences were coded in a different order it wouldn't result in anything because it'd be meaningless.

DNA is not a language so changing the context is a nonsense argument. I can equivocate with linguistic examples to show your assertion is rubbish. But I expect you'd quite rightly point out that I was cherry picking examples out of context..... while not recognising that's exactly what your "DNA is like a book" argument is doing.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

You (and Werner Gitt) are confounding message with information. No doubt you are concerned with the telological implications of evolution, but you are working too hard to find Telos encoded in the information of DNA.

It would not hurt to read a book about the complexity of the genetic code. It is more complex than any human-developed computer and more efficient than a modern OS.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It would not hurt to read a book about the complexity of the genetic code. It is more complex than any human-developed computer and more efficient than a modern OS.

Yet more equivocation. Do you have anything else?

 

[ottawak]

It would not hurt to read a book about the complexity of the genetic code. It is more complex than any human-developed computer and more efficient than a modern OS.

Complexity is irrelevant.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The salvation of the lost.

On paper or in real life?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It would not hurt to read a book about the complexity of the genetic code. It is more complex than any human-developed computer and more efficient than a modern OS.

And yet you've still not shown anything that shows that ALL mutations are a loss of information like you claimed it did, nor how evolution is prescriptive.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'll try to put it simple:
DNA is like a book containing the genetic information. The sentences (aka sequences) are coherent and make sense in context. A mutation is a random change to this book. Most mutations just scramble a few words or sentences - which means the information of those sequences got lost. Some mutations outright delete a sequence - which means the information of those sequences got lost. And some mutations duplicate a sequence - like writing a sentence twice. This doesn't just disturb the flow of reading but it also doesn't add any information. You can read the same sentence a hundred times - you still only get the same information from it.
In order to add information we need a mutation that adds a word, sentence or page to the book that is not only coherent in itself but also makes sense in the context of the entire book. None of the observed mutations has ever done that (and the chances for it are zero).

If you'd like more detailed information I recommend the book "Am Anfang war die Information" by Werner Gitt.

You did not answer my question.
What is the metric for genetic information and how do you objectively measure it?

If you can't measure it then you can't make claims about gain or loss.

Mutations can change, mutations can add and mutations can duplicate.

The cat.
The cat cat.
The fat cat.

Any normal definition of information allows for actions like mutations to add information... the Creationist version doesn't, so I'd like it explained one day.

It would not hurt to read a book about the complexity of the genetic code. It is more complex than any human-developed computer and more efficient than a modern OS.

That's the analogy... but much like modern genetic computer algorithms increased complexity can come from non intelligent sources.

 

[Astrophile]

And some mutations duplicate a sequence - like writing a sentence twice. This doesn't just disturb the flow of reading but it also doesn't add any information. You can read the same sentence a hundred times - you still only get the same information from it.

If you copy a sentence or a paragraph in a book, you can move the duplicate version to a different place in the book and modify it to add information relevant to its new location while leaving the original sentence or paragraph unchanged in its original place.

 

[Frank Robert]

I'll try to put it simple:
DNA is like a book containing the genetic information. The sentences (aka sequences) are coherent and make sense in context. A mutation is a random change to this book. Most mutations just scramble a few words or sentences - which means the information of those sequences got lost. Some mutations outright delete a sequence - which means the information of those sequences got lost. And some mutations duplicate a sequence - like writing a sentence twice. This doesn't just disturb the flow of reading but it also doesn't add any information. You can read the same sentence a hundred times - you still only get the same information from it.
In order to add information we need a mutation that adds a word, sentence or page to the book that is not only coherent in itself but also makes sense in the context of the entire book. None of the observed mutations has ever done that (and the chances for it are zero).

If you'd like more detailed information I recommend the book "Am Anfang war die Information" by Werner Gitt.

It is said that an image is worth a 1000 words.
Here are multiple Images of mutations that add information

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

It is said that an image is worth a 1000 words.

And 1000 images will get you into a good collage!

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[tas8831]

This is something I see nearly always pop up when evolution is discussed.

Someone invariable goes "Well, evolution says..." or evolution gets treated as some sort of philosophy with tenets to follow.

It simply isn't.

Evolution is a descriptor given to a fact of biology; that animal populations change in response to external pressures. Evolution is not about what a population of animals should do, evolution is about what a population of animals will do.

The theory of evolution is also not something that is prescriptive either, like many people who feel it is a bad thing treat it to be. The theory of evolution merely talks about the minutia, the mechanics, of evolution.

Should be simple, right?

Even more obvious when anti-science types present the out of context quote about the extermination of 'savages'.

To that end, I see that Weikart and the clowns at the DI continue to attack evolution by claiming Darwin was a racist. Doing so all but proves they've admitted that they cannot compete scientifically.

 

[tas8831]

Biophysicist Lee Spetner wrote an entire book showing with detailed probabilistic analysis that information-adding mutations are completely precluded. He also examines the classical textbook cases of mutations cited in favor of neo-Darwinian evolution and shows conclusively that, without exception, they are all losses of information.

Ah, old Lee Spetner - he also, oddly, added his name to the group of numbskulls that tried to claim 1 of the 8 Archaeopteryx fossils available at the time was a forgery. So astounding was their "scientific" analysis, that it was eventually published. In a British photography magazine.

Spetner's conclusions are drawn premised on an idiosyncratic definition of "information."

That is how creationists operate - they like like to re-define words or concepts to meet their needs.

Spetner, like most creationists, crumbles under direct examination.

Reply to Lee Spetner.(2)

 

[tas8831]

You are conflating or equating species adaptation with evolution. Theistic Creationist believe in that, but deny the notion that species somehow transform into other species given a great amount of time etc.

What is this denial predicated on? Desires for it not to be?

 

[tas8831]

All mutations that have ever been observed are a loss of information. Evolution requires mutations that add information. That has never been observed.

Please DEFINE information in a biologically relevant and tested fashion.

Also, please explain the flow of information here:

A single p450 allele associated with insecticide resistance in Drosophila.
"Insecticide resistance is one of the most widespread genetic changes caused by human activity, but we still understand little about the origins and spread of resistant alleles in global populations of insects. Here, via microarray analysis of all P450s in Drosophila melanogaster, we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1. Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene.."​

I'm guessing that this mutation that confers an obvious benefit to the organism does not count as 'new' information. Thus - the 'new information is required' assertion by creationists that do not understand the relationship between genetics and physiology/development is moot.
But these folks are so confident in their folly, aren't they?