• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

no evidence for evolution

Originally posted by Lanakila
Jerry, evolutionists make it hard to understand and lose most common people in the technical aspect. I am trying to simplfy it. Funny

From what Rufus, Morat & I explained, do you see how trying to talk about "information" can only needlessly complicate the discussion? I don't mind talking about "information", but since it doesn't directly pertain to evolutionary biology you will have to be very precise in explaining what it is and how to measure it before you can reasonably make statements about how it can or cannot be introduced by evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Lanakila

Not responsible for the changes here.
Jun 12, 2002
8,454
222
60
Nestled in the Gorgeous Montana Mountains
Visit site
✟32,973.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by D. Scarlatti


This isn't science it's Christian apologetics. Look at the publisher for crying out loud.



"Theism," a.k.a. supernaturalism, is off limits to science, by definition.

Dembski is a huckster with a sack full of useless analogies.

Ad hominim argument. If you don't like the information attack the source.
 
Upvote 0

Lanakila

Not responsible for the changes here.
Jun 12, 2002
8,454
222
60
Nestled in the Gorgeous Montana Mountains
Visit site
✟32,973.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Rufus et al.,

Regarding this current discussion, your claim that one must first “measure the amount of information contained in the gene pool” is in this case anyway, a classical example of bifurcation (false dilemma). That is, whether intentional or not, you have still evaded the stock issues previously revealed in this discussion.

1. Natural selection manipulates “pre-existing information”.
2. Genetic mutation deletes/rearranges “pre-existing information”.
3. Ergo: the “theory” of biological evolution cannot account for the “pre-existing information”.

To be sure, the very best natural selection can do with a mutation is to produce what is termed “balanced polymorphism” like sickle cell anemia. In this case, this condition caused by a genetic mutation provides resistance to malaria, but likewise threatens the overall heath/survivability of the organism. The question is not how much information is there, in the gene pool, but rather where did the information come from in the first place!

The various functions of genetic mutations (insertion, translocation, deletion, and inversion) are in fact, merely deletion, rearrangement or a combination of the same of “pre-existing information” this is inescapable.

The fact is that neo-Darwinistic theory is intrinsically “theory laden” and a convoluted representation of both scientific data and philosophical foundations of cosmogony.

Like it or not, you have quite a dilemma my friends, because classical evolutionary theory unequivocally begins with a presupposition (i.e. faith) that the worldview of naturalism is valid and then proceeds to evaluate the scientific data accordingly. Yet, the theoretical infrastructure of such cannot support the scientific evidence or philosophical data.

I beg of you, please attempt to conduct a careful introspective evaluation, of your hearts and minds, to make sure that you are seeking after truth, regardless of the consequences. It is obligatory to us within the academic community to be honest, with both ourselves and the data, so that we achieve not “our” conclusion, but “the” conclusion—objective reality.
 
Upvote 0
2. Genetic mutation deletes/rearranges “pre-existing information”.

This is the point at which you derail. You have not demonstrated that this is the case, you have ignored the fact that some kinds of mutations do more than delete or rearrange base pairs, and you have not given a quantifiable definition of "information" by which we can test this fact. You have even ignored that one of your own sources has admitted frankly that mutations can add information.

I hope you can see where this line of argument will have to go, unless you can find a way to substantiate this point that you have been insisting on all along...
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Lanakila

Like it or not, you have quite a dilemma my friends, because classical evolutionary theory unequivocally begins with a presupposition (i.e. faith) that the worldview of naturalism is valid and then proceeds to evaluate the scientific data accordingly. Yet, the theoretical infrastructure of such cannot support the scientific evidence or philosophical data.

I beg of you, please attempt to conduct a careful introspective evaluation, of your hearts and minds, to make sure that you are seeking after truth, regardless of the consequences. It is obligatory to us within the academic community to be honest, with both ourselves and the data, so that we achieve not "our" conclusion, but "the" conclusion - objective reality.

Bravo. That's the whole story in a nutshell.
 
Upvote 0

chickenman

evil unamerican
May 8, 2002
1,376
7
43
Visit site
✟24,874.00
yes, jerry is right, information can be added to a genome, it isn't just rearrangement of existing information, thats why all your points are invalid - even if they were valid there is a vast capacity for increased information via rearrangement in our genome because only ~1 percent of it actually codes for proteins, so 99 percent of it is available for rearrangement to create new information.
 
Upvote 0

Lanakila

Not responsible for the changes here.
Jun 12, 2002
8,454
222
60
Nestled in the Gorgeous Montana Mountains
Visit site
✟32,973.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
How is information added? Duplication of the same information isn't adding anything. Mutations only rearrange, delete or on some rare occasions, duplicate the same pre-existing information. Take the dog born the other day with six legs. That is a duplication of the code for legs, and possibly a rearrangement of the same. This is basic genetics. Look at the data wanting truth, please.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Lanakila
How is information added? Duplication of the same information isn't adding anything. Mutations only rearrange, delete or on some rare occasions, duplicate the same pre-existing information. Take the dog born the other day with six legs. That is a duplication of the code for legs, and possibly a rearrangement of the same. This is basic genetics. Look at the data wanting truth, please.

I see you have added to your list of the "only" things mutations can do to pre-existing "information". That's a good step.

Now, I don't know about the dog with six legs.. If such a thing happened, one would be able to guess that the mutation that caused it was in a regulatory gene (like the homeobox genes).

Now you asked a very specific question: How is information added? Well, before, you defined "information" the genetic code. The genetic code is an arrangement of base pairs of nucleotides. Adding base pairs (as in a duplication event), would then lengthen the genetic code. So in the sense that you have defined "information" any duplication or insertion event would add "information", and therefore your next statement that duplication isn't adding anything is wrong, according to the definition of information you have provided.

I will give you an illustration that might help. Lets say, for the moment, that there are only brown-eyed people in the world, and there is no gene (or set of them) for blue eye color.

Now lets say that there is a mutation in the gene that forms the pigment in the iris of the eye, that causes the pigment to have slightly different molecular properties, and to reflect a "blueish" mixture of light instead of a "brownish" mixture of light. Now, that gene is spread through a few generations until someone winds up with two copies of it and has blue eyes instead of brown. Now the gene pool has more variation than it did before, and loosely speaking it has more "information" than it had before.

Does this help?
 
Upvote 0

Lanakila

Not responsible for the changes here.
Jun 12, 2002
8,454
222
60
Nestled in the Gorgeous Montana Mountains
Visit site
✟32,973.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
It may be adding information by your definition, but its not new or novel information. Its only a duplication and insertion. So, you are still stuck with the dilemma. Also, the dilemma of where the information came from in the first place.
 
Upvote 0

Oliver

Senior Member
Apr 5, 2002
639
23
52
Visit site
✟23,492.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by Lanakila
It may be adding information by your definition, but its not new or novel information. Its only a duplication and insertion. So, you are still stuck with the dilemma. Also, the dilemma of where the information came from in the first place.

How is it not new information (by your definition)? Remember that Jerry considered a situation where only brown eyes existed.
Earlier, you gave an example of long fured and short fured wolves, and in your example the short fured genes disappeared from a population. In that case, you said that "the genetic code for short fur is "lost"" and therefore "genetic information has been lost".
You've been presented with the exact opposite here: if the blue eyes genes (or alleles) appear while they did not previously exist, it is not a gain of information, but if they are lost, it is a loss of information? Why?
 
Upvote 0

D. Scarlatti

Well-Known Member
Jun 3, 2002
1,581
88
Earth
✟2,620.00
Faith
Atheist
Originally posted by Lanakila
The fact is that neo-Darwinistic theory is intrinsically "theory laden" and a convoluted representation of both scientific data and philosophical foundations of cosmogony.

That sounds impressive, but is in fact both redundant and irrelevant. I'll go you one better: seeing is theory laden. Indeed it may be said that facts are theory laden. The solution to problems that may arise pursuant to N.R. Hanson's "Gestalt switch" is related to the degree to which an observer has been trained in his or her respective field. For example, a six-year-old and a professional geneticist looking through a microscope at a chromosome would be observing the same physical entity, that is, the sense experience itself, the physical and physiological processes of the transmission of images onto the retina, would provide "neutral data." However the geneticist obviously would recognize such an object as something much closer to what it really "is," and would see much more than the six-year-old. This is what Hanson (and Kuhn and Feyerabend, for that matter) meant by theory ladenness, in that the understanding of the data is related to the skills of the observer.

That two geneticists, based on their respective training and experience would "see" two different things when observing one chromosome is more to the point of what Hanson and the others discussed, but disagreements at such high levels of understanding have nothing to do with whether "neo-Darwinistic theory" is valid. With all due respect, I think before you start bandying about phrases such as "theory laden" you should do a little bit more reading in the philosophy of science.

What on earth "neo-Darwinistic theory" has to do with the "philosophical foundations" of the origin of the universe I have no idea. "Cosmogony" is a very impressive sounding term, but it has nothing to do with biology, I'm afraid.

Like it or not, you have quite a dilemma my friends, because classical evolutionary theory unequivocally begins with a presupposition (i.e. faith) that the worldview of naturalism is valid and then proceeds to evaluate the scientific data accordingly.

First you were talking about "neo-Darwinistic theory," and now you are talking about "classical evolutionary theory." It would be helpful if you could define these terms, and elucidate the difference, if any.

In science "naturalism" is a method, not a "worldview," which is hardly surprising, since science by definition deals with nature and the natural world. It has nothing to do with "faith." Phillip Johnson, despite being corrected on numerous occasions, continues to propagate this rather obvious error of conflation. Of course data from the natural world is evaluated according to methodological naturalism. That's what science does.

Johnson and yourself, apparently, are committing a fundamental error in confusing metaphysical naturalism with methodological naturalism. So long as you are unable to discern these two concepts you will not have a very good idea about how science is meant to operate. Until then the dilemma is yours.

Yet, the theoretical infrastructure of such cannot support the scientific evidence or philosophical data.

Huh? What "philosophical data"? I hope you will take the time to explain what you meant by this sentence. It makes little sense to me. By the way it's the scientific evidence that supports the "theoretical infrastructure," not the other way around.

I beg of you, please attempt to conduct a careful introspective evaluation, of your hearts and minds, to make sure that you are seeking after truth, regardless of the consequences.

Your use of the word "heart" further belies your confusion with respect to metaphysical, or ontological, and methodological naturalism. In fact your use of the word is an excellent example of the difference between "faith" and science. The methodology of scientific observation informs us that the heart is an organ involved in the circulation of the blood. It has nothing to do with "careful introspective evaluation."

It is obligatory to us within the academic community to be honest, with both ourselves and the data, so that we achieve not "our" conclusion, but "the" conclusion—objective reality.

If you claim that "objective reality" exists, how can you simultaneously claim the theory ladenness of observations? According to Hanson et al the very idea of theory ladenness means that "objective reality" cannot be objectively perceived! So which is it?

Further on Dembski. In No Free Lunch he refers to "the traditional three laws of thermodynamics," and subsequently claims to have "discovered" a fourth, the "law of conservation of information." Unfortunately for Dembski, there already are four laws of thermodynamics: the first, the second, the third, and the zeroth. If Dembski really was in a position to have discovered an additional law of thermodynamics, don't you think he would have been aware that there were already four?
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Lanakila
It may be adding information by your definition, but its not new or novel information. Its only a duplication and insertion. So, you are still stuck with the dilemma.

I don't think you understand. First, I used your definition of information, not mine. Second a duplication only introduces new information by your definition, but other kinds of mutation introduce new traits, which is important to evolution, and therefore should be considered when you define "information" so that you can discuss it.

Third, I am not stuck with any dilemma, until you demonstrate the following:
1) information has an application to the biological system
2) mutations cannot introduce it.

The standard theory is that genetic variability is introduced by mutation, and this has been confirmed.

Also, the dilemma of where the information came from in the first place.

No dilemma here, merely an unanswered question that bears only tangentially on the subject of evolution.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Now lets say that there is a mutation in the gene that forms the pigment in the iris of the eye, that causes the pigment to have slightly different molecular properties, and to reflect a "blueish" mixture of light instead of a "brownish" mixture of light. Now, that gene is spread through a few generations until someone winds up with two copies of it and has blue eyes instead of brown. Now the gene pool has more variation than it did before, and loosely speaking it has more "information" than it had before.

Does this help?

No. Your "proof" above that information is added is pure speculation. I realize that speculation is the entire foundation of evolution, but that's the problem with your discussion on the issue of information. You think in terms of speculation, and L is talking in terms of facts.

Unfortunately, you've successfuly diverted the discussion to debate whether or not your speculation on brown/blue eyes is adding information. But it doesn't matter where this debate ends up, because all you're discussing is whether or not something you imagined could be defined as adding information. You just left the world of reality and entered the world of Jerry's mind. So it's a no-win situation for anyone but Jerry and anyone who can "imagine" what Jerry imagines.

Once again, the most you can prove is that you have a good imagination. That's not science, that's fantasy.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by npetreley


No. Your "proof" above that information is added is pure speculation. I realize that speculation is the entire foundation of evolution, but that's the problem with your discussion on the issue of information. You think in terms of speculation, and L is talking in terms of facts.

Good grief! Did you not read this thread? She is speculating that mutations cannot add information. I am countering that speculation.

Where did I say there was "proof" of anything in the illustration I gave her?

If you don't have anything to add to the discussion, please bluster elsewhere.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Jerry Smith

If you don't have anything to add to the discussion, please bluster elsewhere.

Adding your imagination is adding nothing, Jerry. The fact that you don't like that truth pointed out leads to YOUR bluster.

Are you so threatened by the possibility that I'll push this thread back onto facts and away from what you can imagine?
 
Upvote 0

Lanakila

Not responsible for the changes here.
Jun 12, 2002
8,454
222
60
Nestled in the Gorgeous Montana Mountains
Visit site
✟32,973.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Earlier, you gave an example of long fured and short fured wolves, and in your example the short fured genes disappeared from a population. In that case, you said that "the genetic code for short fur is "lost"" and therefore "genetic information has been lost".


In this case I was talking about natural selection. Genetic mutation mutation is a rearrangement, duplication, insertion, or what ever else you can describe it. But, Jerry's example of the eyes is like Nick said, only in his imagination. The thing with eye color is in a diverse population the genetic code for eye color will not likely be lost. Unless you are looking for a Chinese man with blue eyes. You can look really hard, but unless that same Chinese man has at least someone with blue eyes in his recent background, the code for blue is gone. We know blue is recessive. So trying to invent a case where someone without the genetic code for blue eyes,by mutation has offspring with blue eyes is a faulty argument.
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
49
Visit site
✟20,190.00
Faith
Atheist
The problem here is defining information. You are obviously not using the Shannon definition, since by that measure information is added all the time.

So you're using another measure. But you won't share what you mean.

So, unless we can figure out what you means by "information" we cannot discuss it. You claim no new information has been added. Several attempts (from as general as simple duplication) to a specific example (a new allele arising) have been made to find out what you consider new information.

The example of a new allele is useful. Do you consider the appearance of a new allele as "new information"? You considered the loss of an allele as "losing information", after all.

We cannot discuss whether information can be added or not until we know what you mean by "information". This should be self-evident.

If you accept the appearance of a new allele (and I see no reason why that would not be considered "new information") then the evolution of nylon-digesting bacteria should be sufficient.

The eye example is not faulty. It is quite on topic. In a population consisting of solely brown-eyed people, with no blue-eyed recessive's lurking, would a mutation that caused blue eyes be "new information"? The fact that blue eyes exist now is immaterial. We're talking a restricted population without that allele.
 
Upvote 0