no evidence for evolution

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Bump because I made those edits.

Well, I've read it several times, and I still don't see new information there. Perhaps you've left out the enzymes that were produced pre-frame-shift.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Nick,

I simply quoted the abstract of the review. Read the paper if you want to find out more about Nylon-oligmer-metabolizing bacteria.

 

[Lanakila]

This same argument is going on at this forum board. The creationist there has more time to argue than I. Check it out:

http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000003.html

What is interesting is that Chad is only in 8th grade, which is very embarrassing to me that he understands this topic and can explain it better than I. This is an ongoing debate, on the thread above.

 

[Morat]

You mean how he avoids giving a measureably definition of information? How he ignores that by standard measurable definitions of information (Shannon) information is added all the time?

I don't see how this can be any clearer, Lanakila. By the Shannon definition, which is the standard for information theory, information can (and is) added quite easily to a genome.

You assert this is false, but refuse to explain why by the Shannon definition, and refuse to offer a different measure of information.

Your argument consists solely of what appears to be a circular definition of information. That is, of course, that information is that which cannot be added to a genome via any mutation.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Here is something that Ernst Mayr has to say on this subject.

Bacteria and even the oldest eukaryotes (protists) have a rather small genome. . . . This raises the question: By what process is a new gene produced? This occurs, most frequently, by the doubling of an existing gene and its insertion in the chromosome in tandem next to the parental gene. In due time the new gene may adopt a new function and the ancestral gene with its traditional function will then be referred to as the orthologous gene. It is through orthologous genes that the phylogeny of genes is traced. The derived gene, coexisting with the ancestral gene, is called paralogous. Evolutionary diversification is, to a large extent, effected by the production of paralogous genes. The doubling sometimes affects not merely a single gene, but a whole chromosome set or even an entire genome.

What Evolution Is pp 38-39

 

[Lanakila]

Rufus you asked for peer review of Werner Gitt's book on information theory and although I didn't find it trueorigins has the same basic argument on it here:

http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp#b72

 

[Morat]

You won't find a peer-review of Gitt's information theory because he hasn't submitted it. And, as best I can tell, he's working well outside his field.

The article is highly amusing in that it attempts to elevate Gitt (whose work with information theory has been carefully shielded from actual criticism by information theoriests and mathmaticians) to the level of Shannon and Bayesian information theory.

The section on Gitt seems to be charmingly short on actual math (as opposed to other sections) and fails to reference any peer-reviewed papers (and there are some) on information and DNA. Strangely, none of them see the problems True Origins claims when dealing with information on a genetic level.

 

[Lanakila]

Funny I read the same article and got the opposite out of it,LOL. I guess that can be attributed to "creationist" bias verses evolutionist facts. I have Gitt's book and he is a mathemetician so this is not out of his field (as you assume). You guys may want to actually pick up a book occasionally instead of reading talkorigins all day.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Lanakila
I have Gitt's book and he is a mathemetician so this is not out of his field (as you assume).

Since when is biology part a de facto part of mathematics? Sorry, Gitt is no where near his field. Last thing I saw, he was listed as an IT manager of a department in Germany. Unless his book is how to manage a network, I don't see how deals with anything near to his occupation.

You guys may want to actually pick up a book occasionally instead of reading talkorigins all day.

You're getting desperate if have to make such an appeal. If you want to play "who’s more qualified," I’m game.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Here are Gitt's "Universal Laws for Information" (from the trueorigin link)

1. It is impossible to set up, store, or transmit information without using a code.
   
2. It is impossible to have a code apart from a free and deliberate convention.
   
3. It is impossible to have information without a sender.
   
4. It is impossible that information can exist without having had a mental source.
   
5. It is impossible for information to exist without having been established voluntarily by a free will.
   
6. It is impossible for information to exist without all five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics [the purpose for which the information is intended, from the Greek apobeinon = result, success, conclusion[73]].
   
7. It is impossible that information can originate in statistical processes.

Lanakila,

Would you please demonstrate how these relate at all to actual biology? Theory is worthless if it can't be applied to real life. My advisor reminds me that all the time.

 

[Morat]

Gitt can be shown to be wrong by simple astronomy.

The hydrogen line of a far away star is chock full of information. Several bits worth at least.

And that alone holes Gitt's theory.

 

[Lanakila]

The critical fact to clarify here is that natural selection only selects from "preexisting information" in the organism's genome. That is, the information contained in the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) are made from twenty different amino acids that are arranged in specific configurations and sequences that provide specific "data" for some 50,000 proteins (in humans ) to function. These amino acids are listed as: alanine, arginine, asparagine, aspartic acid, cysteine, glutamine, gluamic acid, glycine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, proline, serine, threonine, tryptophan, tryosine, and valine. This information is subsequently stored via a double helix structure (DNA strand) with just four chemical "letters" (i.e., symbols/bases): A, G, T, C.

The designation as "information" is qualified by the fact that the DNA within living organisms possesses both lexical and syntactical data. The former are represented by the symbolic designations of the chemical alphabet described above and the latter by expressors, repressors, and operators within the function of the genome (Gitt, 97). Thus, DNA possesses a chemical language (inferring conceptual intent), which is translated to produce both pragmatic, and apobetic (purposeful/intended) results (Gitt, 111).


This is the application to real biology that you are talking about. My hubby typed it out on page 12 of this thread.

Morat, I am not an astronomer so I cannot say whether you are right or wrong here. (I have no earthly idea)

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by Lanakila
The designation as "information" is qualified

Hubby's editor might want to have another look at using the word "qualified" in this sentence. It reduces the strength of whatever positive claim he's trying to make.

by the fact that the DNA within living organisms possesses both lexical and syntactical data. The former are represented by the symbolic designations of the chemical alphabet described above and the latter by expressors, repressors, and operators within the function of the genome (Gitt, 97).

Just because scientists have named the consitutent chemicals in DNA does not mean the chemicals themselves possess "lexical and syntactical data." Hubby is applying a linguistic analogy of his own devising and further extending that analogy as his justification for whatever definition of "information" he and Gitt would like to apply to biological entities. It's not very convincing, to say the least.

He might as well mention all the pretty colors and fancy geometrical shapes textbook authors use to differentiate between the base pairs and other components of the double helix.

By the way maybe your expertise in astronomy is commensurate with Gitt's expertise in genetics.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Lanakila
The critical fact to clarify here is that natural selection only selects from "preexisting information" in the organism's genome.

Huh. The world you live in, in which there are never transcription errors when copying things, must be a very different one than I live in.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Lanakila,

I asked you to explain how Gitt's "laws" relate to biology. Hubby's words don't do that. In fact, I see no mention of any of Gitt's "laws" there.

As best as I can tell this is Hubby's argument, feel free to correct as necessary.

1. DNA contains information.
2. Selection only works with information, it does not create it.
3. Mutation cannot add information.
4. Evolution requires the addition of information. (Not expressly stated, but it is implied.)
5. Thus evolution cannot explain the diversity of life.

1 & 2 are applicable to biology, no one disputes that.
3 & 4 & 5 are not.

3 has only been asserted but not shown. In fact, Hubby hasn’t really explained why gene duplication and divergence is not considered an addition of information in this scheme. He also hasn’t addressed the nature of information in a population, which is essential if there is an appeal to limits of selection.

4 neglects the fact that evolution still occurs whenever populations change, even if the total amount of information does not. Evolution even occurs with the loss of alleles, although I think you have admitted that.

5 is an invalid conclusion since evolution is more than mutation plus selection.

The biggest hole in the argument so far is 3. That is where Hubby should concentrate his efforts in applying theory to biology, if he wants to prove his argument.

 

[seebs]

It's gonna be an uphill climb; it is *PAINFULLY OBVIOUS* to anyone who studied information theory, even casually, that mutation can "add information".

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs
It's gonna be an uphill climb; it is *PAINFULLY OBVIOUS* to anyone who studied information theory, even casually, that mutation can "add information".

Okay...we've got to prove that evolution creates new species. I know! We'll define speciation as reproductive isolation. Problem solved.

Okay...now we've got to prove that mutation can produce new information. I know! We'll define new information as the rearrangement of old information! Problem solved.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
Okay...now we've got to prove that mutation can produce new information. I know! We'll define new information as the rearrangement of old information! Problem solved.

So now in addition to rejecting all of biology, geology, and physics, you are now rejecting all of information theory as well? Why don't you just give in to the slippery slope and follow your thinking to its logical conclusion?

The motto of npetreley: "All scientific knowledge I disagree with is poppycock."

 

[Morat]

Morat, I am not an astronomer so I cannot say whether you are right or wrong here. (I have no earthly idea)

I used a bad term, here. I meant "spectra", not "hydrogen line". Specifically, the spectrum of light emitted by a star tells any observer the composition of a star or gas cloud.

So, to sum up, light emitted from a star or gas cloud has several bits worth of information, detailing the physical makeup of the cloud or star.

Heck, even something as simple as the color and luminosity of the star conveys information: surface tempature.

Information does not require sentience.

 

[SLP]

Originally posted by Lanakila
I would say the same options as the evolutionist. That more study needs to be done. For example I was a little stumped on the Archaeoptryx information that Jerry had posted, but after a little study, I am no longer stumped. The evidence he gave that archaeoptryx was a dinosaur was compelling but, there are still some problems with calling it a true link. For example, archaeoptryx had feathers, which required it to be a warm blooded creature, instead of a cold blooded relative. The genetic jump from warm blooded to cold blooded hasn't been proven to exist, so it appears from examining the evidence more clearly that archaeoptryx really is a bird and not a dinosaur or even a true link between the two.

 

What is the substantiation for this claim:

 

"For example, archaeoptryx had feathers, which required it to be a warm blooded creature..."

 

You seem to be making matter-of-fact statements for which there do not seem to be any facts in support.  Not 'proven' - will anything ever be 'proven' to the creationist?