Question 3

[Gadarene]

Would I not be right in saying that the fact that this needed to be done in a lab would imply design? In other words, the designer of the experiment "created" the perfect environment for this to take place... (just thinking aloud...). Anyway, read on...

This is like saying that 2+2 isn't 4 because you solved the problem on a calculator rather than on paper. Genetic changes and their effects are genetic changes and their effects.

The experimenter isn't manually selecting which exact genes get favoured, they select which organisms are more likely to breed that have the traits they want. The only difference between this and natural selection is that in nature the environment selects.

What is described above is completely identical to my understanding of evolution. The thing that bothers me, is that it seems a big leap to go from what is described above to using this model as an explanation for how a simple organism gradually mutates to become MORE advanced than the one before. As I've always understood it, information does NOT increase through a mutation, it is only lost through a mutation. For example, if the long necked giraffes gradually mutate to have longer and longer necks, they slowly LOSE the genetic information to have small necks. Does not the phenomena of both the giraffe and the fruit fly being UNABLE to breed with each other after a number of generations prove that genetic information had been lost? At best, genetic information has remained the same and just changed in form, but most likely, genetic information has been lost. It certainly has NOT increased...

It proves that their genetics have changed to the point of reproductive incompatibility, not that information has been lost, although if the genes are now redundant and have been replaced with new genetics then there is no net loss of information as you describe it.

This would agree with all observable laws of physics. Things tend to begin orderly and that increase towards disorder (increase in entropy). Systems begin with a certain amount of energy and either energy is lost or changes form, but cannot INCREASE without outside energy coming in. Systems begin with a certain amount of information and then information either changes form or is lost - information cannot be gained without an outside source?

Right. So there are no external sources of energy available to an organism at all?

High-entropy states are not necessarily "disordered". Crystals are high entropy states and are highly "ordered".

 

[tonybeer]

The environment in my hypothetical example I created a scenario in a lab. However it is not any different to a group of "small neck giraffes" wandering into a new environment where the food sources are higher than previous.

Information can increase through mutation and this has been observed. I'm not sure where you got this idea from as the only reference I can find to this idea is from Creationist websites, and not from any physics sources.

Information can increase without an outside source. You are confusing thermodynamic entropy and information entropy. They are different. You are right that thermodynamic entropy (disorder) always increases without an outside energy source. However this is nothing to do with information theory.

This aritcle explains with a reference to genetics, which is an area I do not know a huge amount about: Evolution of new information - EvoWiki

Simpler organisms to complex ones is what we see in the fossil record.

ps "molecules to man" - evolution is just "one organism to another"

Molescules to simplest organic matter is abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a different topic entirely.

 

[ianb321red]

Ian, there are several problems with the text you quote. I won't go into all of them but here's a couple to think about:

Firstly, we still do not have eyewitness accounts. We have Paul's version of conversations he had 20 years previously. Think back 20 years. Can you honestly say you remember details of important conversations you had then?

Regarding your first comment:

1) Yes, I honestly can remember details of conversations I had 20 years ago. I passed my driving test when I was 19. After I passed (first time I hasten to add) my driving instructor said to me "I always knew you were a good driver, but I never told you so as to keep you on your mettlel". I remember clearly a bird defecating on the car windscreen (LOL) during my driving test. I remember my Dad waiting for me when I got home to see if I passed. I remember telling my next door neighbour that I'd passed first time. I remember ringing my grandparents to tell them. Later that month, my Grandad passed away and I remember conversations I had with him in the hospice.

2) Given the HUGE importance of what Paul was recording, I really don't have a problem with him writing this down 20 years later accurately.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What is described above is completely identical to my understanding of evolution. The thing that bothers me, is that it seems a big leap to go from what is described above to using this model as an explanation for how a simple organism gradually mutates to become MORE advanced than the one before. As I've always understood it, information does NOT increase through a mutation, it is only lost through a mutation. For example, if the long necked giraffes gradually mutate to have longer and longer necks, they slowly LOSE the genetic information to have small necks. Does not the phenomena of both the giraffe and the fruit fly being UNABLE to breed with each other after a number of generations prove that genetic information had been lost? At best, genetic information has remained the same and just changed in form, but most likely, genetic information has been lost. It certainly has NOT increased...

Your assumption is that the genes for a short neck have been lost. Why? Redundant genes are not lost, the are just....redundant. Long neck = new information.

There are many ways genetic information can change or increase, all of which are observable. Any change in information is, by definition, new information. Information can be duplicated or incorrectly copied, all of which can lead to new information. Please don't believe those who tell you otherwise.

This would agree with all observable laws of physics. Things tend to begin orderly and that increase towards disorder (increase in entropy). Systems begin with a certain amount of energy and either energy is lost or changes form, but cannot INCREASE without outside energy coming in. Systems begin with a certain amount of information and then information either changes form or is lost - information cannot be gained without an outside source?

That is correct for closed systems where there is no external source of energy. The Earth is not a closed system and there are external sources of energy. Again, please don't believe those who tell you otherwise.

I was reading about microbes and bacteria. Even the very smallest types of organism known to man are stunningly complex in make-up. It seems virtually implausible to me that these organisms firstly just came into being without design and even if they did, they then constantly gave rise through mutations to MORE COMPLEX organisms as we climb the evolutionary tree. I do not think we observe this...

We have been observing a small proportion of organisms for just over 100 years. Given that such changes would require millions of years, don't you think you should start with small steps? Lots of small steps = big changes.

EITHER the most simple organisms began in a very simple form and then went through numerous mutations that INCREASED information (which is something we do NOT observe)

But we do observe it. The synthesis of nylonase in flavobacterium is an obvious example (Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

OR the most simple organisms began in a very complex form in the first place, which would surely imply a designer?

Nope, small changes over time is all that is required.

However, isn't it necessary to demonstrate how information can INCREASE in complexity without any design to prove "molecules-to-man" evolution?

That's been done many, many, many times.

 

[Robban]

Regarding your first comment:

1) Yes, I honestly can remember details of conversations I had 20 years ago. I passed my driving test when I was 19. After I passed (first time I hasten to add) my driving instructor said to me "I always knew you were a good driver, but I never told you so as to keep you on your mettlel". I remember clearly a bird defecating on the car windscreen (LOL) during my driving test. I remember my Dad waiting for me when I got home to see if I passed. I remember telling my next door neighbour that I'd passed first time. I remember ringing my grandparents to tell them. Later that month, my Grandad passed away and I remember conversations I had with him in the hospice.

2) Given the HUGE importance of what Paul was recording, I really don't have a problem with him writing this down 20 years later accurately.

Though we do not forget, much of the time we don,t recall.
Some are gifted with such memories as you say, concerning spiritual matters especially.
It is told that before times when a Sage would visit a village or town on a Shabbot, there was most often one there who would remember exactly word for word, it not being permitted to write on Shabbot.
It is also told that at times the Sage would come into extas and roll around on floor, then the one who was to remember what he said had to roll around on the floor too, so as not to miss a single word.

 

[ianb321red]

That is correct for closed systems where there is no external source of energy. The Earth is not a closed system and there are external sources of energy. Again, please don't believe those who tell you otherwise.

We know the earth is an open system; but that's not how the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument is applied in the point that Danny is making..

 

[tonybeer]

We know the earth is an open system; but that's not how the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument is applied in the point that Danny is making..

As I said in my post thermodynamic entropy is different to information entropy.

The argument Danny was making was saying information cannot increase because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics but the two are not equivalent.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

We know the earth is an open system; but that's not how the 2nd law of thermodynamics argument is applied in the point that Danny is making..

You cannot choose how to apply a law - it either applies or it doesn't.

As tony points out, the law is applied erroneously because it is confused with information entropy. Either way, the claim is false.

 

[MorkandMindy]

No, I think Ianb is right.

God created the earlier life forms and they have just deteriorated since then. Early humans used to live about a thousand years whereas now-a-days 70 is considered 'old'.

The earliest bacteria contained all the information in their DNA we have and more. Don't forget they used to run the planet, produce the oxygen in the atmosphere and stabilise the climate, they did that before we even knew what oxygen was, they had libraries and cities and stuff just like we have but more complex and underwater.

 

[Oafman]

No, I think Ianb is right.

God created the earlier life forms and they have just deteriorated since then. Early humans used to live about a thousand years whereas now-a-days 70 is considered 'old'.

The earliest bacteria contained all the information in their DNA we have and more. Don't forget they used to run the planet, produce the oxygen in the atmosphere and stabilise the climate, they did that before we even knew what oxygen was, they had libraries and cities and stuff just like we have but more complex and underwater.

That's correct. They even had bacteria internet, with a forum where they could argue when they should have been doing more productive things, like evolving.

 

[King Mob]

That's correct. They even had bacteria internet, with a forum where they could argue when they should have been doing more productive things, like evolving.

guffaw, guffaw.

 

[tonybeer]

Danny - are you happy now mutations can and do result in an increase in "information"?

 

[MorkandMindy]

He is discussing it with the earliest life forms on Earth because they make more sense than we do.

If the same applies to religion you would expect Buddhism at 2,500 years old to make more sense than Christianity at under 2,000, and Mormonism at 180 years old to make hardly any sense at all...

 

[Danny777]

Danny - are you happy now mutations can and do result in an increase in "information"?

Sorry, been unable to get to computer for couple of days.

Re increase or decrease of genetic information:

Even if it was the case that mutations "can and do result in positive mutation" it seems most probable that when the mutation occurs that it would result in a decrease in genetic information or a less beneficial adaptation.

Another poster made the point that information is not lost-it is just made "redundant". Whether you call it lost or redundant the result is the same - over time the long necked giraffes will be unable to breed short necked giraffes. Doesn't this redundant point work both ways though? Maybe every creature HAS a very broad amount of genetic information that remains redundant UNTIL a particular environment causes it to be activated?

As I understand it, even though there can be huge variation (due to environment) within a kind of animal, a giraffe will always remain a giraffe. It might become a short fat giraffe but will not become a cow. Whilst it can be factually proven that immense variation occurs within species-I understand it remains an unproven theory that one species evolves into another.

Do you not at least have to admit that increases in genetic information (if possible at all) are FAR less likely to occur through mutation than decreases in information? (This seemed to be admitted in the link you attached).

For "molecule-to-man" evolution to be true there would need to be a vast number of (far less likely) beneficial mutations-surely there is a leap of faith involved particularly when dealing with certain kinds of mutation like ones that lead fish to fly or breathe using lungs as opposed to gills? Even if it POSSIBLE, surely it NOT a likely sequence of mutations and certainly a sequence that is not proven beyond and doubt.

I was reading about amoeba. They are staggering complex-not simple organisms...yet they are considered an example of a "simple" organism! When looking into the workings of the basic forms of life they are still amazingly complex. The array of "beneficial" mutations needed even to reach to most basic life form surely leaves this "information" increase theory as wishing thinking or at best guesswork?!

The point I'm trying made is that before you can call any scientific theory a fact you need to rely on more than what "can", "may" or "possibly" happened - you need to be certain and MOST mutations we observe are NOT beneficial for any creature. We both agree that creatures are observed to mutate/evolve to adapt to the environment they are in. However, it seems a touch presumptuous to declare AS FACT the idea that a big-bang scenario led to the amazing complexity we see today. Given the fact that most mutations are not beneficial should we not AT LEAST keep open the possibility that life began (through design) already with immense complexity in distant past and this information pool allows creatures to adapt to its changing environment with great versatility? Or is this idea too horrible to comprehend?!

I wouldn't blame you if you get bored with this conversation-I'm am just a layman trying to explain what presently makes sense to me!

 

[Gadarene]

You keep insisting that mutations cause loss of information no matter what is said to you yet you do not provide anything to back this assertion up.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Sorry, been unable to get to computer for couple of days.

I have an apology too, I'm not Tony. But he seems to be out at the moment and I'm trying to avoid doing a particular piece of work.

Re increase or decrease of genetic information:

Even if it was the case that mutations "can and do result in positive mutation" it seems most probable that when the mutation occurs that it would result in a decrease in genetic information or a less beneficial adaptation.

No, the survival differentiated replication step means mutations that increase the reproductive likelihood have a selection advantage that helps those mutations that are useful and rejects the ones that are unhelpful, and this makes up for what would otherwise be a preponderance of non helpful mutations.

Just look around, the same situation exists in car repairs. There are many ways to get it wrong, but the successful garages are the ones that usually get it right however unlikely that may seem.

The cost of getting it wrong is also offset by the benefits of getting it right.

Compare for example birds and mammals. Birds have robust damage resistant DNA, mammals have fragile DNA. Mammal offspring frequently miscarry and are reabsorbed or rejected early on, that is the fate of most foetuses. It is wasteful.

Birds have a much lower rate of serious genetic mutations I understand and therefore far lower losses in that area. But look at the diversity; the huge rate of destruction mammals have to live with has given some increase in the rate and amount of evolution.

Birds range from penguins to humming birds to ostriches.

Mammals include bats, shrews and elephants, a more diverse range, but mammals have also taken up permanent residence in the water - dolphins porpoises and whales, so getting it wrong a lot more has led to getting it right a few more times too and evidently that has paid off.

Another poster made the point that information is not lost-it is just made "redundant". Whether you call it lost or redundant the result is the same - over time the long necked giraffes will be unable to breed short necked giraffes. Doesn't this redundant point work both ways though? Maybe every creature HAS a very broad amount of genetic information that remains redundant UNTIL a particular environment causes it to be activated?

Are you suggesting the primeval slime might have had all the DNA sequences in a dormant state to become a fern.

I mean who would aspire to be a human with 23 pairs of chromosomes if they had the chance to be an Adder's Tongue Fern with 1,260?


The reason the information becomes redundant, either temporarily or permanently is because there is very little competition pressure to eliminate it, but a lot to achieve progress. So our DNA is a junk yard, or treasure trove of code to make gills, scales, a tail, all sorts of interesting things.



The problem with people rejecting evolution is it ruins one of the best tools for understanding the World that exists. It isn't that big a deal in England because Christianity is continuing to decline and is now down to a low enough level not to ruin the education system. But over in the US the effect Fundamentalist Christianity is having on the school level science education system is devastating.

 

[MorkandMindy]

You keep insisting that mutations cause loss of information no matter what is said to you yet you do not provide anything to back this assertion up.

I guess if a person is thinking of only one individual of one species then bombarding the DNA with radiation could cause damage and therefore a decrease in information in that only existing individual that represents that species, and would be either a change or a loss of information.


I guess the missing link here is that the situation is often one with trillions of identical individual bacteria or whatever it is, bombarding some of them with radiation will cause some changes, some variety and therefore including all the variations the total amount of DNA information has actually gone up.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Given the fact that most mutations are not beneficial should we not AT LEAST keep open the possibility that life began (through design) already with immense complexity in distant past and this information pool allows creatures to adapt to its changing environment with great versatility? Or is this idea too horrible to comprehend?!

There is nothing horrible about having a creator, it is just that there is no evidence there was one or that one is needed.

The first scientists who found the scriptures to be in error or a divine creator to be unnecessary sometimes stopped their science at that point, kept hold of their faith, and it was therefore left to someone else a bit latter to complete the picture. The claim that scientists are running away from God is completely wrong.


it is the science that doesn't point to God

I wouldn't blame you if you get bored with this conversation-I'm am just a layman trying to explain what presently makes sense to me!

Christian evangelists paint a picture of an incompetent science, that still 150 years later holds to evolution as a flimsy theory, physics that is still unable to understand what sound is, geology that has yet to discover it's first rock,


with the average Christian far wiser than a Nobel Laureate scientist and far better connected for knowing the creator of the Universe rather than constantly having to guess.


Some people feel better by believing that stuff. Some people find believing that they are wearing a parachute makes them feel safer when they fly, again, there's no harm in believing that either as long as you never put it to the test.

 

[Danny777]

You keep insisting that mutations cause loss of information no matter what is said to you yet you do not provide anything to back this assertion up.

I have backed this up...

Tony brought up the example of giraffes. The giraffes environment changes (trees get taller) and only the giraffe with the longer necks survive because only they can reach the food. The longer neck giraffe breed with each other causing long necked giraffe as off-spring and over generations the length of the necks of giraffe gets longer. This is an adaptation to the environment. I was told that you would reach a point where it would no longer be possible to breed a shorter necked giraffe. This means the mutation HAS caused a loss of information. I was then told the information is not lost, its is simply redundant - I can't see the difference. The giraffe had moved from a point where they could breed short necked giraffe and now no longer can - hence information is lost (certainly not increased!).

Examples like this could be made with just about any species - this process of adapting to the environment NORMALLY results in a loss of previous information. At best, the pool of genetic information remains the same. Even the evolutionist in the link I was sent admitted that mutations are not usually beneficial and that even if it was accepted that genetic information did increase, this was a far less likely outcome of a mutation.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I have backed this up...

Tony brought up the example of giraffes. The giraffes environment changes (trees get taller) and only the giraffe with the longer necks survive because only they can reach the food. The longer neck giraffe breed with each other causing long necked giraffe as off-spring and over generations the length of the necks of giraffe gets longer. This is an adaptation to the environment. I was told that you would reach a point where it would no longer be possible to breed a shorter necked giraffe. This means the mutation HAS caused a loss of information. I was then told the information is not lost, its is simply redundant - I can't see the difference. The giraffe had moved from a point where they could breed short necked giraffe and now no longer can - hence information is lost (certainly not increased!).

Examples like this could be made with just about any species - this process of adapting to the environment NORMALLY results in a loss of previous information. At best, the pool of genetic information remains the same. Even the evolutionist in the link I was sent admitted that mutations are not usually beneficial and that even if it was accepted that genetic information did increase, this was a far less likely outcome of a mutation.

Information being lost means it no longer exists. That is not the same as genes becoming redundant and dormant - the information still exists, it is just not used. The gene may also undergo changes - in which case the information is indeed lost, but only because it has been replaced by new information.

Look at Down's Syndrome. That is caused by a partial or complete copy of chromosome 21. An additional chromosome is additional information. In this instance the mutation is not beneficial, but that does not alter the fact that it is new information.

I was born with extra muscles in my hands. Again, that was caused by a non-beneficial mutation (they were discovered and surgically removed when I was a teenager because I had a trouble writing long essays due to the muscles restricting blood flow when I held a pen for long periods). That was new genetic information which I hope has not been passed to my sons