Evolution and Creationism

[rossum]

DNA is coded information. I believe you understand how codes work. There are no beneficial changes or accidents to codes or information, any change means loss of information because information already indicates purpose.

Your sources are absurdly wrong. Known mutations can increase Shannon information. Known mutations can increase Kolmogorov information. If you are using a different measure of information then you need to explain what measure you are using and show us the calculations.

If you talk about “loss of information” then you need to have some way to measure the amount of information so you can tell if information has increased, stayed the same or decreased. How are you measuring information here?

 

[Noose001]

Your sources are absurdly wrong. Known mutations can increase Shannon information. Known mutations can increase Kolmogorov information. If you are using a different measure of information then you need to explain what measure you are using and show us the calculations.

If you talk about “loss of information” then you need to have some way to measure the amount of information so you can tell if information has increased, stayed the same or decreased. How are you measuring information here?

Why do we have to have a DNA proof reading mechanism?

It seems you don’t know how codes and information works.

Example; B.U.D is the code for some information and functionality let’s say, budding.

For you to accidentally improve on our initial code to get to B.U.D.H.I.S.T, you’ll have to completely loose your initial meaning and functionality- You can not build on information which is already functioning without loosing functionality.

 

[rossum]

For you to accidentally improve on our initial code to get to B.U.D.H.I.S.T, you’ll have to completely loose your initial meaning and functionality- You can not build on information which is already functioning without loosing functionality.

You are wrong. Some weeds, like Palmer amaranth have evolved resistance to the Roundup herbicide by massively copying parts of their genomes, over 100 copies in some cases. That copying error, from BUDHIST to BUDDHIST was beneficial because in increased the information in their genomes to include “this is how to resist Roundup”.

See Gene amplification confers glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus palmeri.

 

[Noose001]

You are wrong. Some weeds, like Palmer amaranth have evolved resistance to the Roundup herbicide by massively copying parts of their genomes, over 100 copies in some cases. That copying error, from BUDHIST to BUDDHIST was beneficial because in increased the information in their genomes to include “this is how to resist Roundup”.

See Gene amplification confers glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus palmeri .

Nothing more than adaptation which means that the species already had this deterrence mechanism within its arsenal but it was under using it more like our own immune system.

Glyphosate resistance is the function; the article does not specifically say how the function was altered or improved other than having many copies of the same enzyme with the same function.

 

[o_mlly]

Yeah. The fossil record.

No, it does not.

… if you’re arguing against evolution that you’re arguing for creationism, no?

No, I’m not. You’ll have to do your homework and read the thread. I’ve answered this bogus claim many times.

So far on both rabbits and DNA we have nothing from you. I gave you a link on DNA, which you brushed off. That is not the first time you have done that.

Rabbit fossils? Don’t know of any before the Cambrian period. And this absence of evidence allows you to conclude what?

If a rabbit fossil were found, what would the macro crowd do? First, claim a misidentification of the fossil; failing that, claim the strata dating erroneous; failing that, call it a hoax. And ultimately failing the hoax claim, imaginatively work the rabbit fossil into their schema which assumes the reality of macro. Since imagination is the mechanism that invented macro, imagination will have no problem altering the schema to fit the data.

The presence of DNA on earth rose as an issue on this thread only as regards to establishing the time available for macro to occur. So, the paleontologists joined the geologists cheered by macro biologists to find “fossils in rocks” and date that rock. No more than that. Your excellent citation on how DNA came to be was irrelevant. What do you want from me on DNA?

 

[o_mlly]

From the article:

And associations of ideas are not the work of the understanding but the offspring of the investigator’s imagination—an activity which may be described as faith, or more cautiously, as a working hypothesis. (Max Planck).

 

[Freddy]

ImQuiet:

Yeah. The fossil record.

No, it does not.

OK. But there was an enormous amount of informaion on that link that covered a lot more evidence for macroevolution. If you are going to discount it all then could you tell us what process got us to this point? I think you said you’d let us know as soon as you were given my version:

Freddy:

So you were about to give us your alternative…?

Just as soon as we get Fred’s version out of the closet.

That link is about as accurate of ‘my version’ as you can get. So as per your promise above, your alternative would be…?

 

[rossum]

Glyphosate resistance is the function; the article does not specifically say how the function was altered or improved other than having many copies of the same enzyme with the same function .

So, you need to learn more. Glyphosate interferes with a particular essential plant enzyme. Having multiple copies of the DNA for that enzyme allows for multiple parallel production lines instead of just one. That means a lot more of the enzyme. Enough of the enzyme that a normal dose of glyphosate does not block all of it. Enough of the enzyme is unaffected to allow the plant to grow normally rather than to die.

Now we need to see your calculations of the change in the amount of information. Start with three simple examples:

• BUDHISM
• BUDDHISM
• BUDDDDDDDDDDHISM

I look forward to seeing your calculations.

 

[rossum]

Rabbit fossils? Don’t know of any before the Cambrian period. And this absence of evidence allows you to conclude what?

So, you have no explanation for the origin of rabbits. All you have is constant criticism of science because it does not match your secret and unrevealed explanation for the origin of rabbits.

Do you realise how bad that looks? You will not make many converts with that attitude.

 

[Noose001]

So, you need to learn more. Glyphosate interferes with a particular essential plant enzyme. Having multiple copies of the DNA for that enzyme allows for multiple parallel production lines instead of just one. That means a lot more of the enzyme. Enough of the enzyme that a normal dose of glyphosate does not block all of it. Enough of the enzyme is unaffected to allow the plant to grow normally rather than to die.

It is like saying a vaccine causes mutations to the antibody gene. A disease can easily overrun your system but a vaccine primes the already existing gene and causes the release of antibodies to fight the invaders, quantities will depend on the amount needed.

No mutations, no natural selection needed and plants also have these mechanisms.

 

[o_mlly]

That link is about as accurate of ‘my version’ as you can get.

Your version? I think you mean Francisco Jose Ayala’s version. Although I advised against it – playing “link” tag does not work to further the conversation – but if you insist then “tag” your it Darwin on Trial - Phillip E. Johnson - Google Books. (Unfortunately, Mr. Ayala has fallen from grace.)

 

[o_mlly]

All you have is constant criticism of science …

On the contrary, in this thread I have posted my concurrence with the science that underpins microevolution.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

That link is about as accurate of ‘my version’ as you can get.

Your version? I think you mean Francisco Jose Ayala’s version. Although I advised against it – playing “link” tag does not work to further the conversation – but if you insist then “tag” your it Darwin on Trial - Phillip E. Johnson - Google Books. (Unfortunately, Mr. Ayala has fallen from grace.)

Yes, we know you don’t accept it. I even acknowledged that:

o_mlly:

No, it does not.

OK.

So all we again get is you rejecting what is being proposed. But you specifically said that your alternative would be forthcoming once I gave my version of the evidence. I just did. We know you were going to reject it because it doesn’t match your version of the process. But… we don’t know what that is. You won’t tell us. You’ve been asked over a dozen times over the last few days. You said you would give it and I told ImQuiet what would likely happen.

But you keep posting and I’ll just have to keep on asking. That’s the way forums work. So…

What’s your version of the process that has resulted in the biosphere we currently have?

 

[o_mlly]

But you specifically said that your alternative would be forthcoming once I gave my version of the evidence.

I did. “That link is about as accurate of ‘my version’ as you can get.” Sound familiar? Did you read Johnson’s book? The lag between my post and your usual non-response indicates either you did not read or can read at inconceivable speed. Methinks the former. Good try, though. I await the Freddy version, in his own words, as to why we ought accept macro as a scientific hypothesis. That’s the way conversations work.

your secret and unrevealed explanation …

OK. You got me. Here’s my secret. You and Freddy suffer a defect somewhat like Hannibal Lecktor did in “Manhunter”:

GRAHAM
I thought you might be curious to
find out if you’re smarter than
the person I’m looking for.
LECKTOR
Then by implication, you think that
you are smarter than me, since you
caught me.
GRAHAM
No. I knew that I’m not smarter
than you are.
LECKTOR
Then how did you catch me, Will?
GRAHAM
You had disadvantages.
LECKTOR
What disadvantage?.
GRAHAM
You’re insane.

Substitute “slave to scientism” for “insane” and you’ll get my point.

Having only one mode of knowing that can support your worldviews, you will cling to your faith in science like grim death.

I, on the other hand, can know all that you know and more. I have other modes of knowing that I can appeal to when science falls short. You, not so much.

 

[rossum]

It is like saying…

So, you have no way to calculate the quantity of information present in a piece of DNA. Hence your earlier statements about loss of information are worthless because you have nothing to back them up. Without calculated values then you cannot show evidence of an increase, decrease or no change in information.

You need to show us a lot more than you have shown us so far.

 

[rossum]

On the contrary, in this thread I have posted my concurrence with the science that underpins microevolution.

And you have not shown us how microevolutionary changes cannot lead to macroevolutionary changes.

You have still not shown us how you think rabbits originated. Science says they originated through macroevolution. Since you deny macroevolution then you need to provide an alternative explanation for the presence of rabbits on earth.

 

[Noose001]

So, you have no way to calculate the quantity of information present in a piece of DNA. Hence your earlier statements about loss of information are worthless because you have nothing to back them up. Without calculated values then you cannot show evidence of an increase, decrease or no change in information.

You need to show us a lot more than you have shown us so far.

You are the one who needs to show more to support your claims. The article shows a shoddy job done by people guided by their imagination. it is talking about more copies of the same enzyme with the same function which means the information about the enzyme is unaltered.

 

[o_mlly]

And you have not shown us how microevolutionary changes cannot lead to macroevolutionary changes.

Prove a negative? Really? Going back to your ad hominems would be better strategy for you.

Since you deny macroevolution then you need to provide an alternative explanation for the presence of rabbits on earth.

I need to what? I deny that macro is science. Since macro is just speculative imagination, you can imagine your own myths.

 

[rossum]

it is talking about more copies of the same enzyme with the same function which means the information about the enzyme is unaltered.

The information is not unaltered. Those extra copies are a large increase in Shannon information, and a few bits of additional Kolmogorov information. In addition the plant gains the beneficial information: “this is how to resist glyphosate weedkiller”. That is an increase of information on three different measures.

You are claiming no increase in information, then you have to show us how you calculate that zero change. The calculations for Shannon and Kolmogorov information are available on the internet, but they are of no use to you because they both show an increase in this case. You need to show us your different measure, or point us to a website where the calculations are shown.

 

[rossum]

I deny that macro is science. Since macro is just speculative imagination, you can imagine your own myths.

I am not looking for my myths; I am looking for your myths. The ones that explain the presence of rabbits on the contemporary earth.

I understand that you do not accept macroevolution as an explanation. The question is, what do you accept as an explanation for rabbits?