Evolution and Creationism

[Noose001]

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.

As far as i can tell, the Shannon and Kolmogorov theorem are information storage and processing mechanism, you need to demonstrate how they are applicable with mutations affecting functionality.

Gene duplication will give the twice the number of proteins required but will not change or improve the functionality of the protein but anything that interferes with the information about the protein’s structure can not improve its functionality, it can only render it function-less.

Is there a way you can demonstrate how change in Shannon and Kolmogorov information can improve the functionality of a protein?

 

[ImQuiet]

I need to what? I deny that macro is science.

Then give us an alternative. I’ve given you a very comprehensive source with data aplenty that supports macroevolution. For you to write it off as speculation is ludicrous. At least tell me the specific problems you had with my source.

Continuing the discussion as is is sophomoric and a waste of everyone’s time.

 

[rossum]

As far as i can tell, the Shannon and Kolmogorov theorem are information storage and processing mechanism, you need to demonstrate how they are applicable with mutations affecting functionality.

It is an error to talk about meaning/function in this context. Here is a piece of text:

gzhan gyis myong ba ma yin te,
chos spyod bcu yi bdag nyid kyi,
mdo don dran pa la bzhag nas,
blo dang ldan pas mthong 'gyur phyir,

What is the meaning of that text? The meaning is a subjective measure, not an objective measure. Anyone can agree on the Shannon information in that piece because Shannon information ignores meaning. That piece has meaning to someone who can read classical Tibetan. It has no meaning to someone who cannot. Hence, ‘meaning’ is a subjective measure, not an objective measure since it depends on who is doing the reading.

Function is similarly dependent on context. A plant protein is very unlikely to have a function in a mouse. Function is dependent on context, as with meaning.

Gene duplication will give the twice the number of proteins required…

Not in the presence of glyphosate, since the glyphosate disables a number of the protein molecules. Those extra copies are needed to replace the protein molecules that the glyphosate removes. The number “required” will change with the environment, and for a weed growing at the edge of a cultivated field the environment contains glyphosate/Roundup which requires extra copies of the protein to survive.

Is there a way you can demonstrate how change in Shannon and Kolmogorov information can improve the functionality of a protein?

I already have. In the presence of glyphosate the ability of the plant to grow, and not die, is improved. Those multiple copies increase both Shannon and Kolmogorov information.

Alternatively there is the process of duplication followed by mutation of one copy. That is an increase in both types of information and results in a new protein being produced alongside the original. We can see it, for example, in the various globin proteins: myoglobin in muscles and the different haemoglobins found in an embryo, a developing fetus, a newborn baby and an adult. All the various globin proteins are involved in oxygen transportation in different circumstances; they have similar, but not identical, functions.

 

[o_mlly]

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 don’t have any myths. However, I do have mysteries.

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

I do not accept macroevolution as a valid scientific hypothesis. And, there is no other valid scientific hypothesis that can explain the diversity of life on earth as having one common ancestor. Up against this cloud of unknowing, science should put this problem in the same bucket as it put abiogenesis. Keep working on the problems and let us know when you think you’ve got something.

We all would like an answer to the problem, even if only a tentative one. Now, science has no good evidence for macroevolution but has lots of rationales. While science works on new hypotheses, I think it reasonable to turn the problem over to the specialists – the department that thinks about thinking, the specialists who can dissect rationales and test for validity. What fortuitous luck, that’s the Philosophy Department, the very forum we’re in now!

 

[o_mlly]

Continuing the discussion as is is sophomoric and a waste of everyone’s time.

If you wish to be a serious contributor then do your homework – read the thread. It’s narcissistic of one to think the entire community should waste its time and rehash the progress in over 1500 posts for your sake.

 

[ImQuiet]

ImQuiet:

Continuing the discussion as is is sophomoric and a waste of everyone’s time.

If you wish to be a serious contributor then do your homework – read the thread. It’s narcissistic of one to think the entire community should waste its time and rehash the progress in over 1500 posts for your sake.

Don’t patronize me. I’ve given you a source that you have dismissed without giving a reason why. Other “serious contributors” of this thread have encouraged you to look at this source.
So yes, I feel justified in calling this sophomoric. If you can’t be bothered to hold a discussion when I present something, why bother posting?
So let’s try this again. Here is a source detailing why macroevolution is scientifically valid.
Instead of dismissing it outright, read through it, and give your opinion on it based on reasons xyz.
Let’s have a discussion like adults.

 

[rossum]

I don’t have any myths. However, I do have mysteries.

So you do not have anything. In science that will not fly. Newton’s theory of gravity was wrong, and it was known to be wrong. Science didn’t throw it away immediately, but kept it on, warts and all, until there was a better replacement - Einstein. Einstein’s theory of General Relativity has known faults as well. Science is keeping it on for the moment until we can replace it with a theory of Quantum Gravity.

You do not get to throw out macroevolution unless and until you have a tested and workable replacement. It you will not, or cannot, explain your replacement theory, then macroevolution will remain the scientific choice, warts and all.

Science works on “the best theory we currently have”. That was why Newton carried on long after the problems with the orbit of Mercury were known. It was the best then available.

Science only replaces a theory with a better theory. It does not replace a (mostly) working theory with nothing. That is why we have been asking for your explanation of rabbits and or the origin of species.

 

[o_mlly]

Don’t patronize me.

Don’t bore me. Do your homework.

 

[o_mlly]

So you do not have anything.

And neither do you.

 

[o_mlly]

Science only replaces a theory with a better theory.

Abiogenesis?

 

[rossum]

And neither do you.

Macroevolution stands as a scientific theory until someone comes up with something better to replace it. Since you have nothing then you do not get to replace macroevolution.

Abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis is not yet a theory. Currently it is a bunch of hypotheses which are being stress-tested to see which ones stand and which ones fall. Only when we have reduced the number of hypotheses to a smaller, consistent set will we have the makings of a theory of abiogenesis. In any case, abiogenesis covers the time before life started. Evolution covers the time after life started. The two abut but do not overlap.

 

[ImQuiet]

ImQuiet:

Don’t patronize me.

Don’t bore me. Do your homework.

Still haven’t given a valid reason for completely rejecting my source…

 

[Freddy]

o_mlly:

I don’t have any myths. However, I do have mysteries.

So you do not have anything.

I actually think that’s it. I’m afraid we are arguing with someone who really has nothing to offer as an alternative. Just consider this link:

Darwin on Trial - Phillip E. Johnson - Google Books.

O-mlly actually wants to suggest we should all buy a book to know what her alternative is. Except there is nothing in that book that offers an alternative. It is simply a couple of hundred pages telling us why a lawyer (Johnson) thinks that ‘Darwinism’ is wrong. Does he make any attempt to tell us how it therefore happened? No, he doesn’t.

But here it can get confusing. Bear in mind that Johnson is a founding father of the Discovery Institute (and one of the authors of the infamous ‘Wedge Document’).

So does he accept common descent? No - he doesn’t. His book denies it. But the DI itself has no problem with it.

…(if) living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. (My emphasis).

What they discount is what they describe as the unpredictability and randomness of ‘Darwinian’ evolution. That is, they consider it to be driven or controlled by God. From my position? OK, no problem (what I do have a problem with is the fact that they say we can recognise design in nature). But is God involved? For any given Christian - Yes, He must be. So the very institute that he helped found contradicts his own beliefs.

Does Johnson believe in a young earth or an old one? Doesn’t say. Won’t take a position. Which is astonishing for someone who has taken the time to write a book denying evolution. Does he give his opinion of what processes are responsible for the biodiversity we see? No he doesn’t.

So o-mlly says that Darwinism On Trial is her position as regards the process as to how the current biosphere has come to be. And that book has nothing to offer. It tells us nothing. It proposes nothing. So after all this time I think we have an answer.

It’s not that o-mlly is reluctant to tell us what her alternative is to avoid it being ridiculed. It is actually true that she has no alternative. The cupboard is bare.

 

[buffalo]

Macroevolution stands as a scientific theory until someone comes up with something better to replace it. Since you have nothing then you do not get to replace macroevolution.

Even if it is dead wrong? I have little confidence in your version of science. Wrong is wrong.

 

[Freddy]

rossum:

Macroevolution stands as a scientific theory until someone comes up with something better to replace it. Since you have nothing then you do not get to replace macroevolution.

Even if it is dead wrong? I have little confidence in your version of science. Wrong is wrong.

It will be proved wrong when an alterative is proposed that explains the evidence in a better way. Your alternative is simply: ‘God did it’. Unfortunately for you, ‘God did it’ is applicable to both creationism and evolution. So if we have the same term on both sides of an equation, they can be removed.

And then what have you got left? Nothing it seems.

 

[Techno2000]

o_mlly:

ImQuiet:

Continuing the discussion as is is sophomoric and a waste of everyone’s time.

If you wish to be a serious contributor then do your homework – read the thread. It’s narcissistic of one to think the entire community should waste its time and rehash the progress in over 1500 posts for your sake.

Don’t patronize me. I’ve given you a source that you have dismissed without giving a reason why. Other “serious contributors” of this thread have encouraged you to look at this source.
So yes, I feel justified in calling this sophomoric. If you can’t be bothered to hold a discussion when I present something, why bother posting?
So let’s try this again. Here is a source detailing why macroevolution is scientifically valid.
Instead of dismissing it outright, read through it, and give your opinion on it based on reasons xyz.
Let’s have a discussion like adults.

What were the environmental changes that led to the extinction of those of transitional horses ?

 

[Noose001]

What is the meaning of that text? The meaning is a subjective measure, not an objective measure. Anyone can agree on the Shannon information in that piece because Shannon information ignores meaning. That piece has meaning to someone who can read classical Tibetan. It has no meaning to someone who cannot. Hence, ‘meaning’ is a subjective measure, not an objective measure since it depends on who is doing the reading.

Function is similarly dependent on context. A plant protein is very unlikely to have a function in a mouse. Function is dependent on context, as with meaning.

A gene finds its meaning in the function of a protein, you have based your argument so far in the multiplication of the function which to me doesn’t demonstrate micro or macro evolution. The immune system works perfectly within its design by this kind of protein multiplication without any accident.

A plant protein can function well in an animal so long as the function is maintained.

The multiplication of function is not what evolution proposes, it proposes changes in design and functionality.

Example; Shift from a fin to a limb can not come about with multiplication of function but a fin has to loose its entire function first and a whole new thing called a limb has to arise with a new function. You can not claim to improve the functionality of a fin by creating a limb because these are two different things with different functions which can not be improved on.

If i can reword my question; how can information change improve a fin’s functionality?

 

[rossum]

Even if it is dead wrong? I have little confidence in your version of science. Wrong is wrong.

Newton was wrong about the orbit of Mercury. Does that make Newtonian gravity “dead wrong” or was it “mostly, but not completely, right”?

If you have a theory that is less wrong than macroevolution, together with the evidence to support it, then tell us about it. So far you have not shown us anything approaching the level of detail or evidence needed.

There is a lot of evidence for macroevolution, dating back to 1905. You appear, so far, to have a lot less evidence.

 

[rossum]

A gene finds its meaning in the function of a protein, you have based your argument so far in the multiplication of the function which to me doesn’t demonstrate micro or macro evolution.

You are incorrect here. Evolution is a change in the population genome over time. Those extra copies are a change in the genome so that is, by definition, evolution. I agree it is not macroevolution, it is a variation within a species.

A plant protein can function well in an animal so long as the function is maintained.

So, you have leaves, allowing plant proteins related to the development and growth of leaves to work in your body? No, I think not.

The multiplication of function is not what evolution proposes, it proposes changes in design and functionality.

The word “design” is an obvious error here. My example of Palmer amaranth is a change in functionality. The plants with the additional copies have lost the function “killed by glyphosate” and have gained the function “survives glyphosate”. That is a change in function.

Example; Shift from a fin to a limb can not come about with multiplication of function but a fin has to loose its entire function first and a whole new thing called a limb has to arise with a new function. You can not claim to improve the functionality of a fin by creating a limb because these are two different things with different functions which can not be improved on.

Tetrapod limbs evolved from the fins of lobe-finned fishes. They are not like the fins of most fish, which are ray-finned. A lobe-fin is a fin-on-a-stump, see here for one in action. The stump grew bigger and the fin part got smaller.

If i can reword my question; how can information change improve a fin’s functionality?

By changing the shape of the fin. For example, the whale’s ancestors did not have tail flukes. Gradually the end of the tail widened to make a more efficient fin for swimming as they spent more time in the water.

 

[Noose001]

You are incorrect here. Evolution is a change in the population genome over time. Those extra copies are a change in the genome so that is, by definition, evolution. I agree it is not macroevolution, it is a variation within a species.

What we see first is the change in structure and function and so far the explanation of these changes is missing.

So, you have leaves, allowing plant proteins related to the development and growth of leaves to work in your body? No, I think not.

A protein can play a catalytic part in a plant processes as well as animal process if the process is shared or identical.

The word “design” is an obvious error here. My example of Palmer amaranth is a change in functionality. The plants with the additional copies have lost the function “killed by glyphosate” and have gained the function “survives glyphosate”. That is a change in function.

‘Killed by glyphosate’ or ‘survives glyphosate’ are not a functions but outcomes.

Tetrapod limbs evolved from the fins of lobe-finned fishes. They are not like the fins of most fish, which are ray-finned. A lobe-fin is a fin-on-a-stump, see here for one in action. The stump grew bigger and the fin part got smaller.

How? I have seen pictures and even living organisms but the conclusion is only an imagination.

By changing the shape of the fin. For example, the whale’s ancestors did not have tail flukes. Gradually the end of the tail widened to make a more efficient fin for swimming as they spent more time in the water.

How?