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

[PsychoSarah]

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.

-_- why would being an expert in physiology make one an expert in evolutionary biology? I wouldn't expect a heart surgeon to know as much about teeth as a dentist. So, unless I get to see the article in question by "Noble", I can't judge the supposed "idiot scientist's" statements. Physiology as a study is about how systems within bodies work, such as organ systems. Not about how populations change over time. While physiology as a study is a part of biology, the amount of crossover it has with evolutionary biology is weak enough that it is possible for a person with a heavy background in physiology to not be all that great when it comes to evolution. Especially if it has been a significant amount of time since they got their degree and they haven't effortfully kept up to date on developments pertaining to evolution.

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.

Some people are like that. However, you have made claims against items that have been measured a multitude of times. For example, you claimed that mutations could not be beneficial. This claim is demonstrably wrong due to just how many benign mutations have been observed. For example, a mutation in humans which practically eliminates the risk of heart disease in the people that have it. Not to mention that many mutations can have beneficial and detrimental effects. For example, the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia only results in significant symptoms if a person has 2 copies of it. But, people with 1 or 2 copies of it have increased resistance to malaria, which is much more deadly than sickle cell anemia. Thus, having the mutation is beneficial... but only if you live in an area where you could catch malaria. Otherwise, it's purely detrimental.

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

Depending on the logic behind a disagreement about interpretation, it could be a sign of ignorance. Interpretation of data is one thing, but interpretation of scientific theories themselves doesn't leave much wiggle room.

I've seen plenty of disagreements about interpretation of data. For example, let's say that person A wants to test if a school's official colors impact the color preferences of the students. So, they survey all the students at a school in which the official colors are red and blue, and find these to be the most popular colors among the students. When person A declares their findings support their hypothesis, person B retorts "red and blue are popular colors to begin with, so your data is faulty" to which person B replies "the popularity of these colors among the students was notably higher than national averages". Generally, the best way to end such a dispute is to re-test to see if the effect is consistent across different schools with different official colors.

 

[sfs]

Did you not read Post 210?

I read it. It did not contain what I asked for.

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"

Every element in your conclusion is wrong. Thousands of changes occur to produce the information you have for antibodies. Those changes are not heritable. They are changes to the sequence of DNA, and are therefore not epigenetic.

And as a I pointed out before, they are examples of beneficial changes produced by random mutations, something you said there was no evidence for. Why are we still having this discussion? Your claim was wrong.

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."

Yeah, I know that some of them think that (although I think they're wrong). What does that have to do with the claim that random mutations acted on by selection never produce beneficial information?

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.

It's equally valid only if you consider false statements to be valid. Antibody specificity is produced by random mutations -- lots and lots of mutations, most of which don't help at all. The few that do are selected for. That's the process you said couldn't produce information.

 

[USincognito]

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....

1. I said no such thing so spare me the straw man.
2. Information science does not play as significant a role in understanding genetics a biochemistry, etc.. Even further, Shannon Information theory isn't germane because it concerns telecommunications, not biology.
3. Perry doesn't even have a degree in computer science or information systems. He's an electrical engineer whose career seems to be a holistic melange of engineering, design and marketing. Not exactly someone I'd look to a serious scientific source.

 

[USincognito]

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.

I never cease to be amazed at how many Creationist psychic mind readers there are on the Internet. For the record, my evaluation of Marshall comes from the two plus years I've been reading/participating on his Facebook Evolution 2.0 page. In fact that's the only reason I recognized his name at all.

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.

I a layman, who has no more perspective or insight that you or I have, has an opinion on genetics, biology, etc. that proves worthy of consideration we will do. Whenever that happens with Perry's musings, we'll get back to you.

 

[pshun2404]

Wait - where did he say Marshall was incompetent?

No that was Subduction Zone's interpretation...he said unremarkable. So what do you think of some of the points Marshall makes? Are they worthy of consideration? After all, third way evolution grew out of the EES evolutionary paradigm, as opposed to the classical neo-Darwinian MS paradigm. It isn't wrong, it is just different and so questions some of the assumptions of the MS model. To see this, one first has to understand the difference of these points of view on the same evidence.

 

[pshun2404]

1. I said no such thing so spare me the straw man.
2. Information science does not play as significant a role in understanding genetics a biochemistry, etc.. Even further, Shannon Information theory isn't germane because it concerns telecommunications, not biology.
3. Perry doesn't even have a degree in computer science or information systems. He's an electrical engineer whose career seems to be a holistic melange of engineering, design and marketing. Not exactly someone I'd look to a serious scientific source.

Seems to me that's exactly what you were saying so no straw man. The rest is true (except that Information Theory and Information Science while related are not the same) but some of the points he makes are worthy of consideration and need to be answered. Seeing the genome as a code is legitimate (since it is translated and transcribed) and he does understand coding.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No that was Subduction Zone's interpretation...he said unremarkable.

OIC - the incompetence was a reference to Marshall's being a computer engineer rather than a biologist or geneticist. OK.

So what do you think of some of the points Marshall makes? Are they worthy of consideration?

Nothing, and no. In case my opinion is taken as biased, let me quote a review of Mr Marshall's book on a prominent ID site (Uncommon Descent):

Marshall is simply taking ID concepts and ideas and re-packaging them as Evolution 2.0... his “third way” adds nothing new to any of the basic ID arguments offered by its modern-day proponents.
...
I can only offer a final assessment reminiscent of a devastating 18th-century critique attributed to Samuel Johnson: Mr. Marshall, your book “is both good and original but the part that is good is not original and the part that is original is not good.”

'Nuff said, I think.

​

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Such a challenge would require some science and evidence. Where is it?

 

[Loudmouth]

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,

What about large random mutations?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

What evidence makes it valid?

 

[Loudmouth]

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

And yet offspring do have mutations. This is a fact. Those mechanisms do not prevent all mutations from happening. A few get through.

 

[tas8831]

I never cease to be amazed at how many Creationist psychic mind readers there are on the Internet. For the record, my evaluation of Marshall comes from the two plus years I've been reading/participating on his Facebook Evolution 2.0 page. In fact that's the only reason I recognized his name at all.



I a layman, who has no more perspective or insight that you or I have, has an opinion on genetics, biology, etc. that proves worthy of consideration we will do. Whenever that happens with Perry's musings, we'll get back to you.

My goodness - Perry Marshall... a regular PT Barnum - I remember his sad antics on the old Internet Infidels forum more than 10 years ago. He had his hat handed to him on the second page of a thread he started yet continued on declaring his supremacy for another 50 pages or so.

His claims are what those in the know describe as "not even wrong."

 

[tas8831]

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.

"MAY clearly understand..." Then again, he MAY NOT clearly understand.

According to lawyer and anti-Darwin author Phil Johnson, even people in the same general field (e.g., biology) are just 'laymen' when discussing subjects that they are not up to speed in (Johnson then claimed that because he doesn't know ANY science, that he was able to show how evolution was wrong... Go figure...).

Then we have creationist Jerry Bergman (PhD, MS, BS, etc. etc.) - the one accurate thing I think he has ever written:

"A key to success is knowing what one can speak authoritatively about and knowing where one's limits of knowledge and expertise are. All of us have opinions which lie outside of our area of expertise. Most intelligent people are cognizant of this fact and therefore usually avoid pontificating on areas they know little about."

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.

Which presuppositions are those?

What are your presuppositions? What are the presuppositions of of creationists?

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

Sure. Is the person that is arguing outside of their field, who is totally convinced that they are right regardless of what those in the field show them, capable of exhibiting humility? or is clinging to their presuppositions more powerful?

 

[variant]

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.

We can and have directly observed mutation rates within populations.

Further the mutation rates are mutable themselves as the biological mechanisms of DNA replication change over time as well. So, each species will have a range of mutation rates and a different average mutation rate.

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

Cells do protect themselves against mutation, it's not perfect though. Similarly Cells have complex means to protect themselves from uncontrolled growth.

Uncontrolled growth in cells is known by a different name. Cancer.

The argument you are making is, in biological terms, something similar to saying that people don't get cancer.

I can assure you that people do in fact, get cancer, and that mutations do in fact occur.

I can also assure you that people who study the science of biochemistry spend time in their undergraduate education learning about the complex biological mechanisms of DNA copying and do in fact understand how it works.

Nothing about the known biology of the DNA copying process precludes biological evolution from happening. People would have noticed.

A larger understanding of the complex mechanisms of how biological systems operate and how small changes can make big effects is something you would learn in advanced biological studies. The authors of the paper you were talking about are not presenting things that biologists in general are unaware of, which is why the idea that mutation can't drive evolution isn't widely accepted.