New argument against Evolution: new information is slow

[chilehed]

...New information is slower, than old information is forceful...

With no coherent definition of terms, this is meaningless.

 

[Gottservant]

With no coherent definition of terms, this is meaningless.

I disagree, but so that you may understand:

New information is unsynthesized data assembled into a novel structure.

Old information is synthesized data existing in a predefined structure.

 

[chilehed]

I disagree, but so that you may understand:

New information is unsynthesized data assembled into a novel structure.

Old information is synthesized data existing in a predefined structure.

Still meaningless.

 

[Gottservant]

The thing is I can make it clearer too:

New information is more tentative than old information is threatening

 

[Gottservant]

Still meaningless.

I don't regard your judgment very highly at this stage, I obviously said more than enough for what you asked.

There is a clear precedent that humans did not take over the world when dinosaurs were around; there is a clear precedent that animals do not take over humans while humans are around; there is a clear precedent that slaves do not overwhelm their masters when slavery is law - I could go on.

At the cellular level this means things do not just change form. Proteins do not mutate into something new while the immune system is around.

 

[Assyrian]

The thing is I can make it clearer too:

New information is more tentative than old information is threatening

How are new temperature measurements from a weather station tentative? How can something be more tentative that something else is threatening? How do you quantify the level of tentativeness and the level of threating to even begin to compare them? How do tentativeness and threatening change the amount of information and therefore the speed of information transfer? As chilehed said, your assertions are simply meaningless.

 

[chilehed]

I don't regard your judgment very highly at this stage...

I don't care about your regard for my judgement.

You use the terms information, slower, forceful, data, tentative, threatening in odd ways that indicate you have some novel meaning for them. And yet you haven't explained what those meanings are, nor how you intend to make measurements. Without clear terms, what you are saying is meaningless gobbledegook.

There is a clear precedent that humans did not take over the world when dinosaurs were around; there is a clear precedent that animals do not take over humans while humans are around; there is a clear precedent that slaves do not overwhelm their masters when slavery is law - I could go on.

At the cellular level this means things do not just change form. Proteins do not mutate into something new while the immune system is around.

Non sequitur.

 

[Gottservant]

How are new temperature measurements from a weather station tentative? How can something be more tentative that something else is threatening? How do you quantify the level of tentativeness and the level of threating to even begin to compare them? How do tentativeness and threatening change the amount of information and therefore the speed of information transfer? As chilehed said, your assertions are simply meaningless.

You are talking about dead information (weather measurements), I am talking about living information (dna in a living organism).

You need to translate the context properly if you are going to argue with me.

 

[Gottservant]

I don't care about your regard for my judgement.

Case in point.

You use the terms information, slower, forceful, data, tentative, threatening in odd ways that indicate you have some novel meaning for them. And yet you haven't explained what those meanings are, nor how you intend to make measurements. Without clear terms, what you are saying is meaningless gobbledegook.

I am asking you to evaluate the argument on first principles, not hard to do.

Non sequitur.

unmediated obiectio

 

[Assyrian]

You are talking about dead information (weather measurements), I am talking about living information (dna in a living organism).

You need to translate the context properly if you are going to argue with me.

If you are going to distinguish between information in DNA as part of a living organism and the normal meaning of information I suggest you come up with a different term for DNA 'information'. Of course then you lose your link between DNA and learning, which is a completely different process to DNA transcription.

 

[Gottservant]

If you are going to distinguish between information in DNA as part of a living organism and the normal meaning of information I suggest you come up with a different term for DNA 'information'. Of course then you lose your link between DNA and learning, which is a completely different process to DNA transcription.

An intelligent comment, I shall give it further thought.

 

[Smidlee]

I think I understand what you are referring to even though "information" is too general of a term.(there are different types of information) In Christianity if you mean by new information as the new nature (man) vs the old man then the old nature does have a head start from the new nature. As Christians we are totally depended on God to live the spiritual life as the new nature is powerless to overcome the old nature without the power of God. That way no Christian has the right to brag or feel superior over another Christian. (Pride)


This would be the same in biology. If a space alien (man) which had slightly superior genes (new information) married an earth woman and had children the chances of the new genetic information becoming fixed in the populated over time is close to zero. (the new genes would quickly get deluded with each generation) This is why evolution heavily depends on a lot of bottlenecks of death. Something needs to wipe out the "old information" as you put it in order for the new information to take hold. (an alien invasion is needed to wipe out inferior man)

P.S evolution has a sex problem.

 

[Gottservant]

Yeah, I agree, what you said compliments the point I was trying to get across.

Well done for seeing the argument in the light of Christian doctrine, that was hard to do.

 

[Fascinated With God]

The speed of DNA change is not just a product of mutations, but also of fluctuations in population sizes. New traits can suddenly become dominate overnight with a mass die-off of competition. Population bottlenecks involve rapid changes in DNA.

This was an old argument between Darwin and Henry Huxley, Darwin insisted that evolution was a slow gradual continuous process and Huxley argued that it could be swift and discontinuous instead. Decades ago science proved Huxley right and Darwin wrong about the true nature of evolution.

 

[gluadys]

This would be the same in biology. If a space alien (man) which had slightly superior genes (new information) married an earth woman and had children the chances of the new genetic information becoming fixed in the populated over time is close to zero.

Actually, if the new genes conferred a benefit, the chance of them becoming fixed in the population is close to 1.

(the new genes would quickly get deluded with each generation)

No, they wouldn't. What makes you think they would be?

One of the problems faced by Darwin's theory is that most scientists of the time thought of heredity being a matter of blending the traits of the parents. Sounds like you still think that is how heredity works.

Mendel showed that was incorrect. Genes remain distinct even when they are not expressed and can be passed on without dilution to another generation.

This is why evolution heavily depends on a lot of bottlenecks of death. Something needs to wipe out the "old information" as you put it in order for the new information to take hold.

No, this isn't true either. All, and I mean ALL that is needed is for those who possess the new genes to have more surviving offspring on average than those who don't. Those who don't do not need to die of a famine or plague or disaster or anything else. They can carry on as usual, with even the same reproductive rate as usual (e.g. if their usual rate of reproduction was 4 surviving offspring, they could keep on having 4 surviving offspring and the new trait would take over so long as those with the new genes had a reproductive rate of 5 surviving offspring.)

What would actually happen is that those with the new genes would become, in each generation, a larger proportion of the population. Eventually those without the new trait would, as often as not, mate with those who do, so their offspring would also begin to inherit the new gene. Eventually you get a generation in which everyone has the new gene even though nothing was done to "wipe out" the old information.

P.S evolution has a sex problem.

Really? What I see in your post is a problem understanding the process of reproduction and inheritance at the molecular level. If you understand meiosis, you can figure out why any new gene which confers a benefit on its possessors will become fixed in the population--and no extra help needed from invasions or bottlenecks. Takes longer to become fixed in a larger population, but as long as the benefit is there, it will become fixed.

 

[sfs]

This would be the same in biology. If a space alien (man) which had slightly superior genes (new information) married an earth woman and had children the chances of the new genetic information becoming fixed in the populated over time is close to zero.

To a good approximation, the probability of the beneficial variant becoming fixed is twice the beneficial advantage it provides (assuming it's not recessive). So a variant that gives a 1% advantage has a 2% probability of fixation.

(the new genes would quickly get deluded with each generation)

In your example, the new variant starts out as a single copy in the population. It can't get any more diluted than that.

This is why evolution heavily depends on a lot of bottlenecks of death.

Incorrect. Natural selection in fact operates better in a large population.

Something needs to wipe out the "old information" as you put it in order for the new information to take hold.

Also quite incorrect. Old information is automatically wiped out when the old generation dies. Evolution happens because the new generation has new variants and new frequencies of old variants.


P.S evolution has a sex problem.[/QUOTE]

 

[sfs]

Actually, if the new genes conferred a benefit, the chance of them becoming fixed in the population is close to 1.

No. Once the new variant reaches a reasonable frequency, it's almost certain to fix (assuming a fairly large population), but when it is at very low frequency, it can easily by lost by chance.

 

[gluadys]

No. Once the new variant reaches a reasonable frequency, it's almost certain to fix (assuming a fairly large population), but when it is at very low frequency, it can easily by lost by chance.

Correction noted. I was assuming a frequency sufficient to be more subject to natural selection than to accident or genetic drift, but I neglected to state that assumption.

 

[Gottservant]

An intelligent comment, I shall give it further thought.

I thought about it some more and I've decided that your observation is disingenuous. Dead information can't be compared with itself, living information can. There is no need to come up with a separate term, because this much is evident a priori and to give a new term would suggest that there is a progression from the dead to the living, which would only further complicate what is a very simple (albeit advanced) argument.

No, : dead information is old, old information cannot out-force old information.

Yes, : new living information is slow, old information can out-force new information.

Two completely sensible statements, the latter of which refutes radical evolution.

If you want another example, consider limbs of a body. The limbs are new relative to the oldness of the torso, but that doesn't mean that the new limbs outgrow the old torso. Far from it, the new limbs grow only when the torso grows. Why is this so? Because the torso is forceful about what growth it will allow and the new limbs are too slow to demand more growth from the torso, when it is out of keeping with the torso.

Thus we grow limbs that do not destroy us.

It is a principle, that governs all of Creation.

 

[Fascinated With God]

No, : dead information is old, old information cannot out-force old information.

Yes, : new living information is slow, old information can out-force new information.

Two completely sensible statements, the latter of which refutes radical evolution.

How do you defining "living" information vs. "dead" information? Your terms are completely subjective, vague and meaningless. They can mean anything you want and could never be objectively tested.

Using totally subjective terms that you made up yourself and have no solid meaning is not the basis for "completely sensible statements" that all would naturally agree on.