My Change Challenge

[Chriliman]

Good. Because I'm ignorant of what you meant by your post #37. The text is clear. The sub-text is deeply obscure.

Looking forward to the removal of ignorance.

I've never heard someone call a bed a 'set', which is why I said the meaning of the sentence was changed, but apparently one can call a bed a 'set' so the meaning didn't actually change... :/

 

[Ophiolite]

I've never heard someone call a bed a 'set', which is why I said the meaning of the sentence was changed, but apparently one can call a bed a 'set' so the meaning didn't actually change... :/

I believe you may have missed the thrust of the argument.

Letters are arbitrary symbols that, in combination, may represent intelligible words. If we take a sentence and change/modify one or more letters we may produce gibberish, or we may produce a new words that alter the meaning of the sentence.

The codons of DNA are arbitrary elements that, in combination as genes, may produce a functioning protein. If we take a gene and change/modify/mutate one or more condons we may produce gibberish, or we may produce a new protein that performs a different function within the cell.

In either case, sentences or genes, how many changes did we make? For the example sentence, was it one change of a word, or was it two changes of letters, or were more change required to arrive at the end product? How we define this determines how closely the second sentence is related to the first.

 

[Chriliman]

I believe you may have missed the thrust of the argument.

Letters are arbitrary symbols that, in combination, may represent intelligible words. If we take a sentence and change/modify one or more letters we may produce gibberish, or we may produce a new words that alter the meaning of the sentence.

The codons of DNA are arbitrary elements that, in combination as genes, may produce a functioning protein. If we take a gene and change/modify/mutate one or more condons we may produce gibberish, or we may produce a new protein that performs a different function within the cell.

In either case, sentences or genes, how many changes did we make? For the example sentence, was it one change of a word, or was it two changes of letters, or were more change required to arrive at the end product? How we define this determines how closely the second sentence is related to the first.

Letters are not arbitrary symbols, there is a reason and/or system behind the usage of letters. DNA codons may be arbitrary, but that's just an assumption you're making, they very well may have intentional purpose similar to how letters have intentional purpose and are not arbitrary.

Anyhow, I see the point you're trying to make, but it's all predicated on the assumption that codons have no intentional purpose (since humans didn't make them), but the analogy to letters fails because letters do have intentional purpose.

I stand by my conclusion that 2 letters were changed which consequently changed the meaning as well, equaling 3 changes in total.

 

[Willby]

I get the point both 2 and 1 are correct.
2 from the perspective of the letter sequence.
1 from the perspective of function.

As a follow up how different as a % are the following sequences?

1234512345
124512345

Is the 1 difference the deleted 3?
Or are there 7 differences, the digits in the rows that don't line up?

 

[AV1611VET]

As a follow up how different as a % are the following sequences?

1234512345
124512345

Is the 1 difference the deleted 3?
Or are there 7 differences, the digits in the rows that don't line up?

They're still numbers though.

 

[Willby]

They're still numbers though.

Yes they are just like you are still.
A hominid
A primate
A mammal
An animal
A eukatyote

OK I know you don't believe this and that's fine but a central part of ToE is that groups diverge and differntiate. Its groups within groups, as time goes on groups can become large and contain new sub-groups but mammals stay mammals etc.

This also means you are (atleast from a cladistic point of view) a fish!
But not if you view fish as simply a taxa. Thought I'd add that before you get any silly ideas.

 

[Larniavc]

Something to illustrate a point...

Suppose I have this text:

Toby made his bed. Then he went outside.​

I change that to:

Toby made his set. Then he went outside.​

How many changes have I made?

Three.

Two letters, one meaning.

 

[AV1611VET]

This also means you are (atleast from a cladistic point of view) a fish!
But not if you view fish as simply a taxa. Thought I'd add that before you get any silly ideas.

Too late.

Don't be surprised if they come up with something on paper.

They'll even fake drawings to show we start out as fish, then turn into humans.

​

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

But I can also say that the B was changed to an S, and the D was changed to a T, so that's two changes, isn't it?

Which claim is more valid, that there is 1 change or 2 changes?

It depends on whether you are counting a word change as a change (1), a letter change as a change (2), or a pixel change as a change (lots).

The only reason the change made sense was that "set" has a predefined definition. In your analogy, the software that interprets the sentence would have to understand what the new word meant, and that couldn't happen unless it underwent a simultaneous, similar change. A better analogy would be "Toby made his *e#. Then he went outside.", which demonstrates the Creationist point that information is lost when mutations occur.

 

[Willby]

Too late.

​

The 'start out as fish then turn into humans' is nonsense. Haeckel got that wrong, as any modern biologist would tell you 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' has been rejected for a long time now and his drawings are only refered to now as part of the history of science. (*)

The reality of embryology is that fish and human embryos start out similar (i.e that they are similar when both at the same early stage) and differentiate as they devolop, the common precursor tissues becoming modified to different end tissues. At no point does a human embryo look like an adult fish but an early human embryo does look like an early fish embryo.

BTW I'm using fish in the loose everyday sense here.

*I'm sure you can find people trying to use his diagrams to 'prove evolution' those people are wrong to do so. The existence of such examples can also no more be used as an argument against evolution than can the wide spread fake relic trade of the past be used as an argument against the existance of God. Bad arguments are bad whoever makes them.

 

[Willby]

It depends on whether you are counting a word change as a change (1), a letter change as a change (2), or a pixel change as a change (lots).

The only reason the change made sense was that "set" has a predefined definition. In your analogy, the software that interprets the sentence would have to understand what the new word meant, and that couldn't happen unless it underwent a simultaneous, similar change. A better analogy would be "Toby made his *e#. Then he went outside.", which demonstrates the Creationist point that information is lost when mutations occur.

All analogies will be flawed to some extent.

As to your point about the software that interprets the sentance needing a simultaneous, similar cahnge.
This is of course not needed with mutations to DNA. It will get transcribed into RNA and then translated into a protein sequence (*) whatever the sequence change. People get hung up on anologies and metaphores with DNA, in reality it is a process of physical interactions between enzymes, bases, tRNA etc.

* A mutation resulting in a new stop codon will stop the protein production and a frameshift will really mess things up though.

 

[AV1611VET]

BTW I'm using fish in the loose everyday sense here.

But we have lungs ... fish don't.

They have gills.

 

[Willby]

But we have lungs ... fish don't.

They have gills.

Quite right, I can see nothing gets past you

Interestingly (to me anyway) the same tissues in fish embryos that develop into gills develop into various head and neck structures in human embryos, not into the lungs.
Lungs appear to be highly modified gut tissue.

BTW Yes I'm going on abit, my background is in Marine Biology so I find this stuff facinating.

 

[Ophiolite]

A better analogy would be "Toby made his *e#. Then he went outside.", which demonstrates the Creationist point that information is lost when mutations occur.

I am astounded that you actually said that! Perhaps you were tired.

Since you appear to agree that the changes to "set" made sense, then you must agree that some changes make sense.
Therefore, your example is one of a sub-set of possible answers, there being two sub-sets in this regard: changes that make sense; changes that do not make sense.
We might also consider two sub-sets of the first: changes that make sense, by altering information; changes that make sense by adding information.

These changes would be represented thus:

• Loss of information - "Toby made his *e#. Then he went outside."
• Change of information - "Toby made his set. Then he went outside."
• Addition of information - "Toby made his big bed. Then he went outside."

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

I am astounded that you actually said that! Perhaps you were tired.

Since you appear to agree that the changes to "set" made sense, then you must agree that some changes make sense.
Therefore, your example is one of a sub-set of possible answers, there being two sub-sets in this regard: changes that make sense; changes that do not make sense.
We might also consider two sub-sets of the first: changes that make sense, by altering information; changes that make sense by adding information.

These changes would be represented thus:

• Loss of information - "Toby made his *e#. Then he went outside."
• Change of information - "Toby made his set. Then he went outside."
• Addition of information - "Toby made his big bed. Then he went outside."

Agreed. Example 1 can be demonstrated in nature. Example 2 has never been proven to happen, I believe because it is impossible without intelligence ("set" only makes sense to us because we have a predefined definition). Example 3 is impossible without intelligence.

 

[Ophiolite]

Agreed. Example 1 can be demonstrated in nature. Example 2 has never been proven to happen, I believe because it is impossible without intelligence ("set" only makes sense to us because we have a predefined definition). Example 3 is impossible without intelligence.

There are many instances of number 2. I am occupied at present, but will return with examples (unless another member provides some in the interim.)
Your assertion 3 is an unfounded and can be ignored until such times as you provide justification through evidence or reasoned argument.

Based upon prior experience I think it likely that when presented with the evidence for 2. you will reject it out of hand with more unfounded assertions. I do hope I am mistaken. You seem to be relatively new to the forum, so perhaps you have not previously been presented with the evidence. If your knowledge of evolution is based upon creationist teachings that would be understandable. I hope you will view the evidence when it is presented with a truly open mind. Otherwise you are closing your eyes to a process that - if your belief in a God is correct - was put in place by your God.

 

[Willby]

Agreed. Example 1 can be demonstrated in nature. Example 2 has never been proven to happen, I believe because it is impossible without intelligence ("set" only makes sense to us because we have a predefined definition). Example 3 is impossible without intelligence.

Don't get hung up on the analogies, if you want to understand how functionality can be added to a genome then opsins are a good place to start. These are the light receptor proteins, they show a pattern of duplication, a frequently observed phemonenom, followed by diversification, also frequently observed.

Those processess combined, duplication followed by diversification, can add 'information' without the need for an intelligence. If you have a selection process this will result in greater adaption. Natural selection, i.e the physical nature of the environment meaning that different variants have different chances of reproduction, has been observed many times and provides the selection needed.

 

[Willby]

Whilst having a quick google I found this paper.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1206269/pdf/ge13841331.pdf

I post it here not as evidence of adding information but simply to expand on the subject of gene duplication and to show those unfamiliar how science is really done. You might want to compare it to the offering of the typical creationist.

 

[Ophiolite]

Don't get hung up on the analogies,

Good advice. Unfortunately many creationists are fact averse. Analogies can provide a means of making them at least a little aware of the shaky foundations to which they have trusted their beliefs.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Good advice. Unfortunately many creationists are fact averse. Analogies can provide a means of making them at least a little aware of the shaky foundations to which they have trusted their beliefs.

@Circumcised_Heart
It takes a little while to weigh up the implications of evolution biblically...

• That the creation story in Genesis may have been written as a simplistic summary/parable of the process so that many cultures throughout history could make some sense of it.
• That God can still be honoured as Creator.
• To decide between the different evolutionary options within christianity such as theistic evolution, orthogenesis, homogenises, emergent evolution, creative evolution, etc.
• To find answers to questions within the bible that at first reading seem in conflict with evolution.

I have found the website biologos.org a really helpful resource for both learning to understand how evolution works and also how science need not be in conflict with the bible.