Why is it that every time genetic "information" is brought up to argue in favor of design...

[pshun2404]

Are there Any arguments you post here that you have not already been trounced in on Topix?

Is Creationism and Intelligent Design debunked forever?

I do love the creationist tendency to portray (either implicitly or explicitly) someone from which they have plucked a 'juicy quote' as some kind of ultimate authority.

And I also love how others responded there:

"Obstruction by grandiose verbosity is exactly what he loves to do."

Yes by all means go to that thread....not one person produced one piece of evidence to support their claim. In that thread not one piece of evidence produced "debunked" either. Big claim no substance (a lot of attempts at character assassination and name calling...it is that forum's atheist MO).

SO now I will ask you...why are you struggling so hard to derail the topic of this thread (like continually happens on Topix which is why there is no one there).

 

[pshun2404]

"The gene is a package of information, not an object... In biology, when you're talking about things like genes and genotypes and gene pools, you're talking about information, not physical objective reality... This dearth of shared descriptors makes matter and information two separate domains of existence, which have to be discussed separately, in their own terms." (George C. Williams. The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution. New York, Simon & Schuster, 1995. p. 42-43)

Oh that's right he is too old...he doesn't understand. It does not matter that Ventor and a host of others agree. They must not be educated in genetics or evolution theory.

 

[sfs]

So therefore, Genes influence what we will look like and how we function. HOW? Because they contain the information our bodies need to make chemicals called proteins. In effect, they are responsible on the physical level of becoming what we end up being (a fish versus a reptile...or a human). They contain all the INFORMATION necessary to perform this end all function.

Surely you deny none of this....

I have no problem with treating genes (and a lot of other DNA) as carrying information. It's when people start making metaphysical claims based on the presence of information that the arguments get squirrelly. Given the way you're using "information" here, then sure, genes carry information. We also know that, in the same sense, DNA can acquire information from a process of random mutation and selection.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh that's right he is too old...he doesn't understand. It does not matter that Ventor and a host of others agree. They must not be educated in genetics or evolution theory.

The problem is that ID/creationists refuse to define a metric for information that is relevant to biology and genetic sequences, all the while claiming that information can not increase due to evolutionary mechanisms. Surely you can see why you would need a way to measure information before you can claim that it increases or decreases.

 

[pshun2404]

I have no problem with treating genes (and a lot of other DNA) as carrying information. It's when people start making metaphysical claims based on the presence of information that the arguments get squirelly. Given the way you're using "information" here, then sure, genes carry information. We also know that, in the same sense, DNA can acquire information from a process of random mutation and selection.

I know this is your position (which I disagree with based on the studies and conclusions of the third way evolutionists and others like Perry Marshall) I was addressing Tas...

I am glad however that you specified "acquired" because it implies information already there was changed by these things (though there is no evidence any such acquisitions are at all positive).

 

[pshun2404]

The problem is that ID/creationists refuse to define a metric for information that is relevant to biology and genetic sequences, all the while claiming that information can not increase due to evolutionary mechanisms. Surely you can see why you would need a way to measure information before you can claim that it increases or decreases.

Yes the whole "information cannot increase" thing is not sound, but I do challenge that it increases in some useful meaningful way such as bringing about such transformations like bringing reptile genomes to become mammal genomes. Plus ways to measure information ARE indeed important in understanding what we mean by increase or decrease.

 

[sfs]

I know this is your position

It's the consensus conclusion of the field of biology based on the last century of work.

which I disagree with based on the studies and conclusions of the third way evolutionists

What Third Wave biologist claims that useful genomic information cannot be produced by random mutation and selection?

and others like Perry Marshall

It's debatable whether appeal to authority is always a logical fallacy. Appeal to non-authorities, on the other hand, is pretty clearly a nonstarter.

I am glad however that you specified "acquired" because it implies information already there was changed by these things (though there is no evidence any such acquisitions are at all positive).

There is no doubt whatsoever that genetic information acquired through random mutation can be beneficial. We'd all be dead if that weren't the case. You carry genetic information coding for thousands of antibodies, each exquisitely tuned to a particular virus or bacterium. You weren't born with that information. It was generated through a process of random mutation and selection as you were exposed to each pathogen.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...the whole "information cannot increase" thing is not sound, but I do challenge that it increases in some useful meaningful way such as bringing about such transformations like bringing reptile genomes to become mammal genomes.

A change in genomic information is just a change in genomic sequence. Since you concede that information can 'increase', in what sense do you think it can increase if not in some 'useful meaningful way' ? On what grounds do you challenge it changing in some 'useful meaningful way' ?

 

[pshun2404]

It's the consensus conclusion of the field of biology based on the last century of work.

What Third Wave biologist claims that useful genomic information cannot be produced by random mutation and selection?

It's debatable whether appeal to authority is always a logical fallacy. Appeal to non-authorities, on the other hand, is pretty clearly a nonstarter.

There is no doubt whatsoever that genetic information acquired through random mutation can be beneficial. We'd all be dead if that weren't the case. You carry genetic information coding for thousands of antibodies, each exquisitely tuned to a particular virus or bacterium. You weren't born with that information. It was generated through a process of random mutation and selection as you were exposed to each pathogen.

It's the consensus conclusion of the field of biology based on the last century of work.

The conclusion was believed before the work was done! In fact as evidence comes about it is often interpreted through the presupposition.

"which I disagree with based on the studies and conclusions of the third way evolutionists"

What Third Wave biologist claims that useful genomic information cannot be produced by random mutation and selection?

The quote I gave was the CONSENSUS opinion of the members BASED ON their more recent work. In full it reads “Even today, the general public, and many scientists, are not aware of decades of research in evolutionary science, molecular biology and genome sequencing which provide alternative answers to how novel organisms have originated in the long history of life on earth. This web site is dedicated to making the results of that research available and to offering a forum to expose novel scientific thinking about the evolutionary process. The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations. We now know that the many different processes of variation involve well-regulated cell action on DNA molecules.”

If you have an argument with them that is your prerogative,

 

[pshun2404]

One of the reasons for their alternative consensus conclusion is expressed here by James Shapiro. In “A Third Way” by Shapiro he reports:

“First, then, all cells from bacteria to man possess a truly astonishing array of repair systems which serve to remove accidental and stochastic sources of mutation. Multiple levels of proofreading mechanisms recognize and remove errors that inevitably occur during DNA replication. These proofreading systems are capable of distinguishing between newly synthesized and parental strands of the DNA double helix, so they operate efficiently to rectify rather than fix the results of accidental misincorporations of the wrong nucleotide. Other systems scan non-replicating DNA for chemical changes that could lead to miscoding and remove modified nucleotides, while additional functions monitor the pools of precursors and remove potentially mutagenic contaminants. In anticipation of chemical and physical insults to the genome, such as alkylating agents and ultraviolet radiation, additional repair systems are encoded in the genome and can be induced to correct damage when it occurs.

It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability. By virtue of their proofreading and repair systems, living cells are not passive victims of the random forces of chemistry and physics. They devote large resources to suppressing random genetic variation and have the capacity to set the level of background localized mutability by adjusting the activity of their repair systems.”

He goes on to say “The existence of cellular biochemical activities capable of rearranging DNA molecules means that genetic change can be specific (these activities can recognize particular sequence motifs) and need not be limited to one genetic locus (the same activity can operate at multiple sites in the genome). In other words, genetic change can be massive and non-random.”

“...our current knowledge of genetic change is fundamentally at variance with neo-Darwinist postulates.”

http://truemedmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Shapiro.1997.BostonReview1997.ThirdWay.pdf

 

[USincognito]

I know this is your position (which I disagree with based on the studies and conclusions of the third way evolutionists and others like Perry Marshall) I was addressing Tas...

Perry Marshall is a computer engineer who has done a great job promoting himself, but apart from that his Evolution 2.0 is unremarkable.

 

[sfs]

If you have an argument with them that is your prerogative,

I do have an argument with them(*), but right now I have an argument with you. I asked you for a Third Wave biologist who said that random mutation and selection couldn't produce useful genetic information. You haven't done so.

(*) Some of them, anyway.

 

[pshun2404]

I do have an argument with them(*), but right now I have an argument with you. I asked you for a Third Wave biologist who said that random mutation and selection couldn't produce useful genetic information. You haven't done so.

(*) Some of them, anyway.

Did you not read Post 210? Or the consensus statement that introduces us to them? I took what I have read from them and I conclude these few changes that DO OCCUR that have beneficial effects (like your heritable anti-body example) are "epigenetic" but contribute NOTHING in terms of producing new organs (say from gills to lungs) or the transformation of creatures from one into another (reptiles into mammals) which was my point.

It is THEIR SITE which concludes (without rebuttal from any of them) that "The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations."

Certainly a pre-coded defense mechanism like the production of anti-bodies (which preserves the organism) may be seen as NOT an accidental random mutation. These may be seen as a purposeful pre-coded biochemical response mechanism. It is not wrong it is just a different and equally valid way of interpreting the same data. The former just looks at what it is and what always happens (the actual data), and the second explains what they see through the filter of a belief they already accepted (the preconceived conclusion dictating the interpretation).

 

[pshun2404]

Perry Marshall is a computer engineer who has done a great job promoting himself, but apart from that his Evolution 2.0 is unremarkable.

Saying that Information Science has nothing to contribute to understanding the genetic code is like sating Cosmology has nothing to contribute to Astrophysics or that Nuclear science has nothing to contribute to dating method....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Saying that Information Science has nothing to contribute to understanding the genetic code is like sating Cosmology has nothing to contribute to Astrophysics or that Nuclear science has nothing to contribute to dating method....

Bad analogy on your part. And of course that is not what he said or implied. He merely pointed out the incompetence of Marshall

 

[pshun2404]

Bad analogy on your part. And of course that is not what he said or implied. He merely pointed out the incompetence of Marshall

His relegating Marshall to incompetent and his work "unremarkable" is a typical default technique that avoids dealing with the logic, reasoning, or source opinions he has presented. My point was that other sciences can have their perspective and ask the questions that their fields propose and these should be considered and dealt with rationally and with objective consideration or refutation of the content.

 

[pshun2404]

One idiot scientist named Fenrir actually responded to an article by a Physiologist name Noble saying “However famous Noble may be in physiology, he’s a blundering tyro when it comes to evolutionary biology. “ Insane! Why is this person (Fenrir) unable to comprehend that this Ph. D., CBE, FRS, FRCP, in Physiology may clearly understand the premises of Evolutionary Biology though notes that his area of expertise poses some questions to SOME of these premises? Asking questions when you note possible discrepancies is GOOD scientific thinking not ignorance.

The funny thing is that they are often the first to scream there is a difference between “accepted beliefs” and demonstrated evidence for those beliefs when arguing against YECs...the problem being they will not or are incapable of applying the same standards to their own presuppositions.

Is such a scientist mentally incapable of accepting the difference between disagreement of interpretation and ignorance?

 

[Subduction Zone]

His relegating Marshall to incompetent and his work "unremarkable" is a typical default technique that avoids dealing with the logic, reasoning, or source opinions he has presented. My point was that other sciences can have their perspective and ask the questions that their fields propose and these should be considered and dealt with rationally and with objective consideration or refutation of the content.

Has anyone of note accepted his work? Has his work been supported by others? I have a feeling that you will not find anything.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

His relegating Marshall to incompetent and his work "unremarkable" is a typical default technique that avoids dealing with the logic, reasoning, or source opinions he has presented.

Wait - where did he say Marshall was incompetent?

 

[dmmesdale]

"Codes" don't have intention.

Totally useless to the debate.