Upvote
0
-
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.
Pasteur and spontaneous generation
- Thread starter rmwilliamsll
- Start date
- Status
Yep, it was a BIG hoax to see just how gullible the fundies are and they fell for it hook, line and sinker.
So after you remove the hook from your mouth, you can read this
http://www.nmsr.org/april_fool.html
Upvote
0
withreason
Active Member
well, of course..funny ...the extremes people will go through....
http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/science_today.htm
well..this is all old news..I have hundreds of such claims..http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/06/dissent_from_darwinism_goes_gl.html
Upvote
0
Makes you wonder when, while "over 600 scientists around the world express their doubt about Darwinian evolution", more than 10,500 clergy profess acceptance of evolutionary theory (http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/clergy_project.htm). If that many clergy accept evolution, you can't help but fathom how many real scientists accept it.
Upvote
0
I see you still are chewing on some metal. Soooo (and hey guys you just knew the old steve-o-meter was coming) how many of those 601 "scientists" are named Steve
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
Have a good one
Upvote
0
withreason
Active Member
at least we have some humorous Anecdotes instead of outright sarcasm and ridicule, I think you can see my post was meant for that...but....this layman..must find some answers that.. Layman.. shouldn't be asking of our exalted members...."of such high degree"..that claim to be Christian...for starters! yet ..have no proof to show me...only ridicule...to answer . where is the proof that mutation produces an increase in genetic information, against the proof that shows that it does not! even though some recent testing seems to show lower rates of Entropy Estimates for Natural DNA Sequences, this in no way reflects the "hypothesis" that dna can increase the amount of information sequences through mutation.I see you still are chewing on some metal. Soooo (and hey guys you just knew the old steve-o-meter was coming) how many of those 601 "scientists" are named Steve
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
Have a good one
dont give me the fossil record as proof! or, biological enhacements ...(and the fossil record is an argument all by itself!)
...
</IMG>
Upvote
0
Now just so we are on the same page, Like you, I too am a layman. The last biology course I took was over 45 years ago, last biochem course was 40 years ago. So no, I by no stretch of the imagination am claiming to be some High Exalted one. I'm just somebody who hates to see the forces of ignorance try to set this country back a couple of hundred years.
Now to your questions/assertions..
where is the proof that mutation produces an increase in genetic information
I could ask you to define what you mean by information and we both know that you'll dance around that one like all the other creationists who try to use the information argument. However if you want to be the first to cross that threshhold and actually define terms so there is no ambiguity that you can hide behind, then we might get somewhere discussing the concept. Until that time, all I can say is that there are plenty of examples of "information" increasing in the genome depending on how you want to define information.
Now you claim you have proof's that it can't happen... I'd like to see that before you leave for Stockholm to pick up your prize.
I see you mention entropy; let me save you a lot of embarrassment, don't try the old 2LoT argument because that has been shot down so many times, it doesn't even have legs for the layman anymore. Heck even some creationist organizations have said not to use it because it has become such an embarrassment to them and made them look like morons.
So, do you actually have any evidence disproving evolution or is this just another empty assertion??? The ball is in your court.
Upvote
0
Actually, grimbly, there is such a thing as information entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy
I didn't read the above article, but I had to know something about Shannon when I taught a class in Engineering Technology on Communication (I don't remember the title) -- it was techy oriented, but I had the students compute the entropy for short sequences on exams. This was now 7+ years ago.
In any case, I'd give withreason the benefit that he was staying within his topic on this one.
I didn't read the above article, but I had to know something about Shannon when I taught a class in Engineering Technology on Communication (I don't remember the title) -- it was techy oriented, but I had the students compute the entropy for short sequences on exams. This was now 7+ years ago.
In any case, I'd give withreason the benefit that he was staying within his topic on this one.
Upvote
0
Deamiter
I just follow Christ.
Holy handbuckets, however can you go about disproving something that has not been defined?!?
Give me one just ONE definition for information in a biological context!
In genetics, the health of a population is sometimes related to the extent of its genome. The larger the variety (i.e. the larger the number of mutations) the more able the population is to adapt to differing and/or changing environments.
If the size of the genome is the standard of information, then EVERY mutation actually increases the amount of information in the population. And it's certainly a positive thing for the population as the larger the genome, the more likely the population is to survive a disease or drought etc...
Of course, I suspect you don't like that definition. I suspect actually that you're trying to use a definition based on computers that defines transmission of ones and zeros and regards a signal as degraded if any of the bits are corrupted. If this is the case, can you justify why such a system would be ideal for DNA as well even though perfect transmission of DNA would prevent populations from adapting to even small changes in their environments?
Give me one just ONE definition for information in a biological context!
In genetics, the health of a population is sometimes related to the extent of its genome. The larger the variety (i.e. the larger the number of mutations) the more able the population is to adapt to differing and/or changing environments.
If the size of the genome is the standard of information, then EVERY mutation actually increases the amount of information in the population. And it's certainly a positive thing for the population as the larger the genome, the more likely the population is to survive a disease or drought etc...
Of course, I suspect you don't like that definition. I suspect actually that you're trying to use a definition based on computers that defines transmission of ones and zeros and regards a signal as degraded if any of the bits are corrupted. If this is the case, can you justify why such a system would be ideal for DNA as well even though perfect transmission of DNA would prevent populations from adapting to even small changes in their environments?
Upvote
0
Deamiter
I just follow Christ.
You're quite right that such a concept exists, but as I just said (in a post that crossed yours) it would be quite invalid to apply information theory as it is defined in terms of transmission of a binary message to DNA.Tinker Grey said:
From the wikipedia site:
wikipedia said:
Now sexual reproduction by its very nature prevents the exact duplication of a string of DNA. If exact transmission of the string is the standard of highest information content (as it is in the transmission of binary digits between computers), then simply the act of procreating degrades the information significantly [edit -- see below]. By this definition, you would have degredation of information in sexual reproduction even if mutations did not exist!
And again, that doesn't even begin to touch on the fact that adaptation (or micro-evolution, whatever) is impossible without mutation. A larger genome (more mutations) actually makes a population BETTER able to adapt to its environment. Essentially, if one were to insist on a computer-based definintion of information, then less information (more genetic diversity) would actually make a population more fit. An example is news in the past few months that commercally produced bananas are in danger because growers are pulling all their seeds from the same small stock that grows the fastest and sweetest. Because they replant the same seeds every year and do not allow sexual reproduction in the growing banana trees, they have been seeing increasing problems with disease and climate changes. Without a large genetic base, the bananas don't have the genetic variety to adapt to their changing environment.
That's all fine until you get a creationist saying that "mutations can't increase information!" by which they try to imply that mutations cannot help a population. However, since sexual reproduction and mutations are both essential to the existance of a population and they both count as lowering the information content by the standards of binary transmission of data, by this definition, mutations and sexual reproduction both lower the information content of a population to the benefit of the population.
[edit -- I originally had put "the process of procration degrades information exponentially" here but since many base pairs between any set of parents are the same, that's quite incorrect and it'd be nearer geometrically. However, since women and men have differing genes relating to their gender, even the sexual reproduction of a specially created Adam and Eve would degrade information content by this definition and even if they never had a single mutation, their "perfect" offspring would suffer information degredation, though with no ill effects to their survival or ability to reproduce.]
Upvote
0
Oh, I would never attempt to use information entropy for a discussion such as this.
I was just pointing out to grimbly that not all usages of "entropy" go to 2LoTD. And in this case, withreason was being consistent within his post.
I was just pointing out to grimbly that not all usages of "entropy" go to 2LoTD. And in this case, withreason was being consistent within his post.
Upvote
0
Tinker, I too was aware of Shannon entropy, I actually waded through some of his papers when this "information" stuff started coming up. Like Deamiter said, and I asked withreason, before we talk about "evolution can't increase information", we need to define what you mean by information and we will also need a metric for measuring when information has increased or decreased.
My point was that creationists love to talk in vague ambiguities so that their arguments are impervious to examination. Scientists like to talk in particulars so that their arguments can be examined to see if the hold up to rigorous scrutiny. It's the difference between trying to arrive at some truth and obfuscation. I didn't want to waste my time arguing against...
"Evolution can't increase information"
"Ok, how do you define information?"
"Information is that stuff that evolution can't increase"
I want some kind of metric and if one can not be supplied, then we are dealing with pure rhetoric and it's not worth anybodies time. So that's the point I was trying to make (not very successfully obviously) but Deamiter hit the nail on the head in his posts.
Upvote
0
Well, I certainly agree with your above point. And, you do state it well in the above post (#73).
Glad we're on the same page.
Glad we're on the same page.
Upvote
0
withreason
Active Member
well, if you would humor my ignorance please I will try to define what I mean, I am referring to the properties of an original nucleotide sequences, for example..the Nanoarchaeum, with 490,885 base pairs.and a string of almost half a million characters. if tests show a reduction of entropy within the letters(codons) of the nucliotide sequences, than ..that suggests to me that entropy is still active within the characters of the string. how ...with entropy present at any level, could there be any re-arrangement of new character sequences to allow genetic mutation to multiply the original nucleotide sequence..?? and my creationist view always looks for entropy!! yet Deamiter was quite remarkable in the reproductive comparison...KUDOS
Upvote
0
Great, And I really mean it ( no sarcasm), now we can get some where.
Now would you be kind enough to show me (links are OK), how entropy was measured and how they determined that entropy is still active and most importantly how this is a barrier to evolution. (I know in the chemical sense it is always active but that doesn't help your argument)... Gibbs Free energy and all that.
thank you!
Upvote
0
withreason
Active Member
there is no webpage, this is my own question that I surmised from the Shannon entropy standard,and the Nanoarchaeum was just an example to illustrate my question for you. being...if entropy has a measurrable level than it must be an active constant within the DNA sequence, I think that points a clear direction to my interest...it is a generalization of the entropy question. and reproductive sequences would be from original nucleotide sequences, not new codon sequencing from genetic mutation.
anyhow.....it's past my bed time..cheers!
heres a link...http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
anyhow.....it's past my bed time..cheers!
heres a link...http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
Upvote
0
Ok, so we are clear here,you are not talking chemical or statistical thermodynamic entropy here but rather the very distinct property of information entropy. Correct??
Upvote
0
Deamiter
I just follow Christ.
I do apologize, but I'm a physicist and when I hear entropy, I automatically think "thermal processes can't be reversed without adding energy." Can you verify that you are indeed talking ONLY about a single definition of entropy? Is your definition of entropy this "information entropy" where an original message (or set of characters) is the perfect message and any deviation is a change in entropy?
If you're using entropy in the usual (non-information) way I can describe how DNA can exist and constantly be gaining thermal entropy through chemical and thermal processes and yet still exist unchanged because the food we eat replaces any energy lost. But if you're still talking about a strict computer-based definition of entropy, this would be quite off-topic.
The problem with this regarding genetic diversity and sexual reproduction is that a perfect transmission of your genes is NOT the best standard for reproduction. In fact, cloning is horrible for a population (probably why even single-celled organisms often swap sections of DNA). We could talk all day about what exactly your definition says about a genome, but the key here is that the definition based on binary transmissioin of data does not apply directly to the sexual reproduction of a population.
In transmitting data, every bit must be transmitted perfectly for the information content to be highest. Computers run all sorts of checks to make sure that the data is correct and if it fails the tests, it is retransmitted.
In contrast, as I said before, when passing on genes the "best" method includes as much variation as possible while retaining the organism's function. No two creatures have exactly the same DNA, yet most survive quite nicely.
But anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself here. You're quite right, creationists are always looking for "entropy" gain, but the key to the discussion is that NO definition of entropy gain requires that a mutation be harmful to an organism. If it were a message from one computer to another, any mutation is harmful to the transmission, but a DNA sequence is not a message. The more a population's genome is varied the more able it is to adapt to an environment.
In essence, yes, if it were somehow important that DNA be transmitted perfectly, it would fall under the definitions based on computer transmissions, but since that is not the case, conclusions based on transmission of binary messages (like, "any signal degredation is bad") cannot be applied to DNA.
If you're using entropy in the usual (non-information) way I can describe how DNA can exist and constantly be gaining thermal entropy through chemical and thermal processes and yet still exist unchanged because the food we eat replaces any energy lost. But if you're still talking about a strict computer-based definition of entropy, this would be quite off-topic.
I'm confused by the above quote. By the information standard of entropy, the only way to gain entropy (note that a gain in entropy is analygous to a "decay" of information -- a reduction of entropy is impossible in a truly closed system, but I THINK I understand that you meant the opposite) is to change or corrupt the message.
The problem with this regarding genetic diversity and sexual reproduction is that a perfect transmission of your genes is NOT the best standard for reproduction. In fact, cloning is horrible for a population (probably why even single-celled organisms often swap sections of DNA). We could talk all day about what exactly your definition says about a genome, but the key here is that the definition based on binary transmissioin of data does not apply directly to the sexual reproduction of a population.
In transmitting data, every bit must be transmitted perfectly for the information content to be highest. Computers run all sorts of checks to make sure that the data is correct and if it fails the tests, it is retransmitted.
In contrast, as I said before, when passing on genes the "best" method includes as much variation as possible while retaining the organism's function. No two creatures have exactly the same DNA, yet most survive quite nicely.
But anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself here. You're quite right, creationists are always looking for "entropy" gain, but the key to the discussion is that NO definition of entropy gain requires that a mutation be harmful to an organism. If it were a message from one computer to another, any mutation is harmful to the transmission, but a DNA sequence is not a message. The more a population's genome is varied the more able it is to adapt to an environment.
In essence, yes, if it were somehow important that DNA be transmitted perfectly, it would fall under the definitions based on computer transmissions, but since that is not the case, conclusions based on transmission of binary messages (like, "any signal degredation is bad") cannot be applied to DNA.
Upvote
0
Ok, I read your link, after I asked my question... Don't know how I missed the link but I did so I think ( from the link) that you are referring to entropy in an information sense only.
Now from your link, I saw a few problems like this empty assertion. Here he asserts that DNA is a language.
On the right, all information is based on language. You cannot symbolically represent something without language. That's what language is. Language is a symbolic representation of something else.
And again here.
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
Now the problem right there with that assertion is that it is just plain wrong. There is nothing symbolic about DNA, it is just a copolymer and follows the rules of chemistry just like any other polymer. Now the resulting proteins that are ultimately synthesized in the ribosomes in response to the mRNA that was copied from the appropriate DNA strand are not the translation of some arbitrary symbolic code but rather a series of cascading chemical reactions. There is nothing symbolic going on. There is no intelligence interpreting some symbols that have been agreed on between sender and receiver like we see in language. Rather what you have is a group of chemical reactions triggering more chemical reactions and more and more.....
No question it is complex, even frighteningly complex but when you examine it closely, there is no magic. Now we, when we describe DNA, sometimes use a language paradigm and may even refer to it as a code, but that is our way of relating to something using an analogy It is a limitation of our way of relating to complex things but that still does not detract from the fact that what goes on in the cell is just plain old chemistry. Nothing symbolic, no preordained conventions, just plain old chemistry
To all biologists, If I've bungled things too badly, sorry my biochem is 40 years old and I'm too cheap to go but a new biochem book (They don't come cheap)
Now from your link, I saw a few problems like this empty assertion. Here he asserts that DNA is a language.
On the right, all information is based on language. You cannot symbolically represent something without language. That's what language is. Language is a symbolic representation of something else.
And again here.
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
Well the first thing about a language, any language, is it symbolically represents something other than itself. All of you have papers on the tables here, and the papers have paper and they have ink. But the message on the flier there on the table has nothing to do with paper or ink for the most part. Paper and ink is just the medium that carries it.
[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]To have a language, to have information, you have to have a transmitter and a receiver. Somebody has to talk and somebody has to listen. And then it has these four characteristics; it has an alphabet, it has grammar, it has meaning, and it has intent.
[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Every language has those four things. DNA has them; all the stuff going on inside your computer has them. If dogs are barking and yelping, the communication has all of these four things. It doesn't matter if it's mating calls if it's pheromones between insects.
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
from
[/FONT]http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis2.htm
Now the problem right there with that assertion is that it is just plain wrong. There is nothing symbolic about DNA, it is just a copolymer and follows the rules of chemistry just like any other polymer. Now the resulting proteins that are ultimately synthesized in the ribosomes in response to the mRNA that was copied from the appropriate DNA strand are not the translation of some arbitrary symbolic code but rather a series of cascading chemical reactions. There is nothing symbolic going on. There is no intelligence interpreting some symbols that have been agreed on between sender and receiver like we see in language. Rather what you have is a group of chemical reactions triggering more chemical reactions and more and more.....
No question it is complex, even frighteningly complex but when you examine it closely, there is no magic. Now we, when we describe DNA, sometimes use a language paradigm and may even refer to it as a code, but that is our way of relating to something using an analogy It is a limitation of our way of relating to complex things but that still does not detract from the fact that what goes on in the cell is just plain old chemistry. Nothing symbolic, no preordained conventions, just plain old chemistry
To all biologists, If I've bungled things too badly, sorry my biochem is 40 years old and I'm too cheap to go but a new biochem book (They don't come cheap)
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
