Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin: Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

[Ender]

The process is called “stabilizing selection.” Picture a population almost perfectly adapted to an unchanging environment. Almost all mutations doing anything significant, or recombinations doing so, will be removed by natural selection, and so natural selection will prevent much evolutionary change.

This is similar to Sideline’s experiment and the problem I have with both of your statements is that they assume a “perfectly adapted” state. Going back yet again to Rossum’s three basic facts regarding natural selection there is nothing in them that implies such a state exists. I understand the situation you describe and I’m not sure I doubt its existence. What I haven’t seen is any reasonable explanation for it based on the laws of Darwinian evolution. Give me a Darwinian explanation for how perfect adaptation can occur so that the unending competition between individuals within a species cannot yield further changes and tell me which of Rossum’s three basic facts ceases to apply.

Ender

 

[Sideline]

This is similar to Sideline’s experiment and the problem I have with both of your statements is that they assume a “perfectly adapted” state.

No, it doesn’t. It implies that some strategies are better than others, and it implies that new strategies can be inferior to established strategies. It implies what works gets repeated.

It has nothing to do with ideals.

Going back yet again to Rossum’s three basic facts regarding natural selection there is nothing in them that implies such a state exists.

There is nothing in Rossum’s three points that suggest the founder effect or genetic drift.

There is competition and limited resources, populations get bigger than they can support. Why does this suggest that species need to be constantly changing? Yes there will always be changes, and there are even in the most stable of species. But the design that won was the that lasted.

No ideal adaptations. Just winners and losers.

 

[Ender]

Unfortunately “I know it when I see it” does not cut it in science.

I have stayed out of the discussion on information, interesting though it has been, because I have nothing to offer but I would like some clarification. If I say “Today is Monday” is the amount of information different than if I were to say “Aujourd’hui est lundi.” (which is the same thing in French)? There are more characters in French but isn’t the information conveyed exactly the same?

Ender

 

[rossum]

If you mean a standardized formula, no.

Thank you for that.

If all I put on the piece of paper is “I love my wife”, and the other person states in clear, unequivocal tones: “I LOOOOOOVE my wife,” with a big smile on his face, then there is a significant increase in information in the message delivered by speaking.

Correct. “I love my wife” is 6 x 14 = 84 bits. “I LOOOOOOVE my wife” with a big smile, is from an alphabet of about 64 x 8 characters (say 9 bits per character). A human face can be smiling, angry or neutral. Smiling or angry can further be “big” or normal to give a further log[sub]2/sub = 2.3 bits of information. That is a total of (9 x 19) + 2.3 = 173.3 bits.

No algorithms are required to determine this

Here we disagree. Science requires reproducible methods of measuring. You have provided no reproducible means of measuring information so what you have provided is not science. Only science should be taught in science classes so whatever it is you have should not be taught in science class, as per the topic of this thread.

And all I am trying to get you to do is to acknowledge that there is an increase in information between a single-celled amoeba and a multi-celled organism.

There is indeed such an increse. The increase is measurable and is due to evolution. You will have noticed that in most cases my measurements agree with yout subjective assessments, as is the “I love me wife”, “I LOOOOOOVE my wife” example. The amoeba to multi-celled organism is another example of where your subjective assessment agrees with the scientific measurement.

rossum

 

[PEPCIS]

Is it possible English is not your first language?

PEPCIS:

Insults seem to be the soup du jour

for your side of the argument.
Barbarian:

It’s not an insult;

Of course it is. If I say that the moon is made of cheese, and you say, “It ain’t so,” and then I say “It is so,” and then you say, “You can’t understand English,” then that is an intentional insult. Whether or not I properly understand English will have absolutely no bearing on if I am correct or not. If I am wrong, then the strength of your argument will prevail. If I am not, then the strength of my argument will prevail.

The main difficulty, as I understand the difficulty between us, is the question: “What is information?” William Dembski asked the same question, and answered it this way…

Barbarian:

Claude Shannon answered it in a rigorous and useful way…

Well, I tried. You want to debate by insults and outright ignoring of my statements, then I’ll be done. I’m trying to keep things civil, but apparently you have a different agenda.

You need to be more specific. What are you talking about? Do you have a specific experiment in mind? I’d like to know if I’m talking about the same thing as you are.

Barbarian:

If you don’t know what you’re talking about, maybe it’s a good idea to find out?

What do you think the question was for?

 

[Leela]

Dang, what a bunch of rude apples! You know, I AM in the room with you all, and I can “hear” everything that you say. Why not just call me a moron to my face?

I sorry that I made you feel left out. Let me ask you some questions directly.

The point of this thread was about whether ID as a theory that should be taught in science class. As far as I can tell, ID is just a criticism of evolutionary theory rather than an alternative theory.

Some on this thread have said (you, too, I think) that ID should be taught instead of evolution. If ID is just a criticism of evolutionary theory, how could it be taught in the absence of instruction on evolution?"

Do ID proponents actually have a competing scientific theory? If so, they need to explain how ID is falsifiable as every other proponent of every other scientific theory needs to do before a theory is viewed as a valid scientific hypothesis.

I really wish we could stay on topic. I’ve been debating for some about whether I should start a new thread to actually discuss the OP instead of incredulity about evolution.

Best,
Leela

 

[PEPCIS]

"rossum:

Unfortunately “I know it when I see it” does not cut it in science.

I have stayed out of the discussion on information, interesting though it has been, because I have nothing to offer but I would like some clarification. If I say “Today is Monday” is the amount of information different than if I were to say “Aujourd’hui est lundi.” (which is the same thing in French)? There are more characters in French but isn’t the information conveyed exactly the same?

Ender

This is exactly my point. Unfortunately, even when I’ve carefully laid out the argument to explain this discrepancy in Rossum’s position, he completely ignored it (see his response in Post # 597 to my response in Post # 592).

While on the face of it, he seems to agree that there is more information, I did not see him acknowledge that he earlier stated that there was no increase in information when you simply translated the statement from one language to another. That is inconsistent.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

No algorithms are required to determine this

Here we disagree. Science requires reproducible methods of measuring.

I’m not trying to dispute that. Your statement is true. The main thrust (my concern) is

• that there is information in DNA
• that information is unique to intelligent beings
• that the MEDIUM is separate (albeit concrete) from information
• that Shannon information cannot account for the aforementioned
• and therefore we must develop other means for measuring information

These are all things that can be taught in school, and none of them directly challenge the TOE.

rossum:

You have provided no reproducible means of measuring information so what you have provided is not science.

That conclusion is not warranted by the facts of our discussion. In truth, I have clearly shown that while you (and others) measure information by the MEDIUM, that there is a very real concern that such a method can properly account for an accurate accounting of information, because just like I showed in a previous post, the mannerisms, inflections, emphasis on syllables and words, emotions, etc, etc, add volumes of information.

In the same manner, DNA has "mannerisms, inflections, emphasizing syllables and words, infusing emotions, etc, etc, and thereby adding volumes of information that scientists are not currently seeing. They are not seeing it solely because their mindset is evolutionary, and it prevents them from properly examining what is before them.

rossum:

Only science should be taught in science classes so whatever it is you have should not be taught in science class, as per the topic of this thread.

If that were true, then much of what passes for science in evolutionary classes would be tossed out.

And all I am trying to get you to do is to acknowledge that there is an increase in information between a single-celled amoeba and a multi-celled organism.

rossum:

There is indeed such an increse.

Very good. That’s a definite movement in the right direction.

rossum:

The increase is measurable…

I’m sure that it is. The question is by what formulation, and does it account for all the different inflections, emotions, emphasis on syllables, etc, etc.?

rossum:

…and is due to evolution.

That is your BELIEF.

rossum:

You will have noticed that in most cases my measurements agree with yout subjective assessments, as is the “I love me wife”, “I LOOOOOOVE my wife” example. The amoeba to multi-celled organism is another example of where your subjective assessment agrees with the scientific measurement.

Not quite. The first time that I challenged you with the translation scenario, you claimed that one had more information than the other. This is inconsistent with what you stated in a later post.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian notes that twice PEPCIS fails to properly read a statement:
Is it possible English is not your first language?

Insults seem to be the soup du jour for your side of the argument.

It’s not an insult; I’m genuinely confused as to why a simple English sentence befuddles you.

Of course it is. If I say that the moon is made of cheese, and you say, “It ain’t so,” and then I say “It is so,” and then you say, “You can’t understand English,”

But that’s not what happened, is it? I said a hurricane has a great deal of order and contains information, and you interpreted that to mean I said order is information. Which is why I asked if English wasn’t your first language.

William Dembski asked the same question, and answered it this way…

Claude Shannon answered it in a rigorous and useful way. That’s why communication engineers use Shannon’s version, not Dembski’s version. Shannon’s works. Dembski’s doesn’t.

Well, I tried. You want to debate by insults and outright ignoring of my statements, then I’ll be done. I’m trying to keep things civil, but apparently you have a different agenda.

If it offends you that no one uses Dembski’s notion of information in the real world, I’m not sure what do do about that. Shannon’s works. Dembski’s doesn’t. That’s how it is.

It’s good to ask questions about things you don’t know. But you were telling us about the issue of teeth in birds as if you actually knew what you were talking about. Now we find out you don’t know about it at all.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The process is called “stabilizing selection.” Picture a population almost perfectly adapted to an unchanging environment. Almost all mutations doing anything significant, or recombinations doing so, will be removed by natural selection, and so natural selection will prevent much evolutionary change.

This is similar to Sideline’s experiment and the problem I have with both of your statements is that they assume a “perfectly adapted” state.

No. You’ve read it incorrectly. “Almost perfectly” is an observable condition, pretty much like a closed system in physics. There are no truly closed systems, but there are systems sufficiently closed to make the difference negligable. Likewise, there are very well adapted populations for which the observation works.

Going back yet again to Rossum’s three basic facts regarding natural selection there is nothing in them that implies such a state exists.

Happens often, as Darwin writes. I’ll see if I can get you a quote from his book.

What I haven’t seen is any reasonable explanation for it based on the laws of Darwinian evolution.

Darwin’s claim is that species tend to become more fit for their environment by natural selection. Hence, there are three possibilities according to his theory:

1. Low fitness, few niches open. Directional selection, moving the population one way or another.
2. Low fitness, many niches open. Disruptive selection, leading to adaptive radiation, and many new species.
3. High fitness, no new niches open. Stablizing selection, tending to remove any new variation.

Give me a Darwinian explanation for how perfect adaptation can occur

As you see, that was a reading error.

so that the unending competition between individuals within a species cannot yield further changes

Sure. A highly-adapted population is subject to natural selection, just like any other. So, mutations will be one of three kinds:

1. Don’t do much of anything. This is the vast majority.
2. Do something harmful. A few of these happen, but in a highly-adapted population, they will be much more common. So most of them are removed by natural selection, which in this case, tends to promote stasis.
3. Do something useful. Since no population is perfectly adapted (see my original statement) there will likely some, although as the population becomes more and more fit, those will become increasingly rare.

Hence, stabilizing selection is the cause evolutionary stasis. If we have a very good sample of fossils from a species, we see rapid evolution until a high level of fitness is obtained, and then stasis with little evolution thereafter. Assuming the envirionment is selectively the same, of course.

This is why we don’t see that pattern in horses. We have a huge number of fossils which show very gradual change over time. But it’s because the envirionment was also slowly changing, and hence the usual pattern was not stasis, but slow and continous change. The world got cooler and drier, and the forests gave way to grasslands. Horses evolved to fit.

Rossum’s points seem to fit just fine.

 

[rossum]

I have stayed out of the discussion on information, interesting though it has been, because I have nothing to offer but I would like some clarification. If I say “Today is Monday” is the amount of information different than if I were to say “Aujourd’hui est lundi.” (which is the same thing in French)? There are more characters in French but isn’t the information conveyed exactly the same?

The amount of information depends on how it is measured. Shannon information has increased because of the extra characters and also because of the larger alphabet in French. With all the accented letters a single letter in French conveys more information than a single letter in English. English has 26 letters, French has 26 basic letters plus 14 accented letters for a complete alphabet of 40 symbols. Hence a French letter gives you more information (1 in 40 possible) than an English letter (1 in 26 possible).

In terms of Kolmogorov information the content is the same since Kolmogorov information is less focused on the actual coding used, than the theoretical minimum possible coding.

rossum

 

[rossum]

that there is information in DNA

Agreed.

that information is unique to intelligent beings

I am not sure what you are saying here. DNA is present in a great many organisms, most of which are not intelligent. Some of the information in our DNA is that same as that in other non-intelligent beings since a great deal of our cellular machinery is the same as theirs. Some of the information in our DNA is unique to our species and some is unique to individuals (as with paternity testing).

that the MEDIUM is separate (albeit concrete) from information

I am not at all sure that in a biological (as opposed to a philosophical) sense you can separate the information from its current representation. It can indeed be represented as DNA, RNA or as a chain of amino acids but nowhere in biology do we ever deal with the information apart from its medium. Philosophy is of course different.

that Shannon information cannot account for the aforementioned

Here we disagree. If you have a better measure of information then please propose it. Until then I will use the best measure I have available.

and therefore we must develop other means for measuring information

You are at liberty to try. Until such better methods have been developed I will continue to use the best methods currently available.

If that were true, then much of what passes for science in evolutionary classes would be tossed out.

Evolution is science by any accepted definition of science.

That is your BELIEF.

No, it is an observed fact. We have observed gene duplications of DNA and we have observed mutations in DNA. Gene duplication followed by mutation results in new information by any reasonable measure.

Start with a gene:
CTA GTG CTA GTG AAA GAA TGT TAT TCT GTC TTC ACA CGC GAG

Duplicate the gene:
CTA GTG CTA GTG AAA GAA TGT TAT TCT GTC TTC ACA CGC GAG
CTA GTG CTA GTG AAA GAA TGT TAT TCT GTC TTC ACA CGC GAG

Mutate one of the copies:
CTA GTG CTA GTG AAA GAA TGT TAT TCT GTC TTC ACA CGC GAG
CTA GTG CTA GTG AAA GAA GGT TAT TCT GTC TTC ACA CGC GAG

Where we used to have one gene coding for one protein we now have two different genes coding for two different proteins, in the example above TGT (cysteine) was replaced by GGT (glycine). That is an increase in information using only known and observed evolutionary mechanisms. My acceptence that evolution can increase information is based on the observation of reality.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Which one has more information?

http://www.symbols.com/pics/small/28/2801.gif

or

http://www.symbols.com/pics/small/28/2802.gif

 

[ricmat]

Mutate one of the copies:
CTA GTG CTA GTG AAA GAA TGT TAT TCT GTC TTC ACA CGC GAG
CTA GTG CTA GTG AAA GAA GGT TAT TCT GTC TTC ACA CGC GAG

Where we used to have one gene coding for one protein we now have two different genes coding for two different proteins, in the example above TGT (cysteine) was replaced by GGT (glycine). That is an increase in information using only known and observed evolutionary mechanisms. My acceptence that evolution can increase information is based on the observation of reality.

rossum

Hi Rossum. I haven’t been following this sub-thread closely and have a question about your post above.

It seems you are claiming that any new “protein coder” is “new information”? Or is it just that you are saying “it is different”?

By analogy, it seems to me that we can all agree that the Enclylopedia Britannica has X amount of information. If you randomly go in and change 1 character to some other character, I find it hard to believe that the new version would be considered an increase of information. It is easy to imagine that in some very restricted cases it is neutral (e.g. an extra space between words), or that it is harmful (e.g. “The value of pi is 2.14159…”). Could you give an example of increasing information using this encyclopedia example which more of us might understand?

Thanks.

 

[The_Barbarian]

By analogy, it seems to me that we can all agree that the Enclylopedia Britannica has X amount of information. If you randomly go in and change 1 character to some other character, I find it hard to believe that the new version would be considered an increase of information.

Very true. But remember, it applies to populations. So if we have five million copies, and someone changes one of them by one character, the population has an increase in information.

That’s not the only way it happens, of course. Sometimes, genes get duplicated, leaving one copy free to mutate, and this also results in an increase in information.

Would you like to learn about some others?

Could you give an example of increasing information using this encyclopedia example which more of us might understand?

See above.

 

[redneck22]

Hi Rossum. I haven’t been following this sub-thread closely and have a question about your post above.

It seems you are claiming that any new “protein coder” is “new information”? Or is it just that you are saying “it is different”?

By analogy, it seems to me that we can all agree that the Enclylopedia Britannica has X amount of information. If you randomly go in and change 1 character to some other character, I find it hard to believe that the new version would be considered an increase of information. It is easy to imagine that in some very restricted cases it is neutral (e.g. an extra space between words), or that it is harmful (e.g. “The value of pi is 2.14159…”). Could you give an example of increasing information using this encyclopedia example which more of us might understand?

Thanks.

GOD IS NOW HERE
GOD IS NO WHERE

Same letters, same spaces, same length, vastly different information.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

Dang, what a bunch of rude apples! You know, I AM in the room with you all, and I can “hear” everything that you say. Why not just call me a moron to my face?

I sorry that I made you feel left out.

I’m not feeling “left out.” LOL Just imagine that you’re in the room with me and a few other of my friends, and we all begin to engage each other about how odd you are, and how we think that you are incapable of formulating a logical sentence.

Wouldn’t feel good. That’s all I’m saying. A bit insensitive. Easy to get dragged into, for sure.

Either way, apology accepted. Thanks.

Leela:

Let me ask you some questions directly.

Sure!

Leela:

The point of this thread was about whether ID as a theory that should be taught in science class. As far as I can tell, ID is just a criticism of evolutionary theory rather than an alternative theory.

Even if that was all that ID was, it would still be fully acceptable to introduce it into a classroom setting. Or are you claiming that the TOE is so sacrosanct that it could never be challenged?

Leela:

Some on this thread have said (you, too, I think) that ID should be taught instead of evolution.

Yes, I agree with that statement. For that matter, I work at a private Christian school where Creationism/Intelligent Design theories are not sacrosanct, but taught alongside of evolution theory. That’s because the philosophy of the school is to make sure that our children are taught what they need to make it through secular college.

Leela:

If ID is just a criticism of evolutionary theory, how could it be taught in the absence of instruction on evolution?"

That’s a good point. But then again, if ID was just a criticism of evolutionary theory, then there would be no problem, would there?

You could teach the the criticisms that are developed by ID without teaching Intelligent Design as a competing theory.

You can teach Intelligent Design as a theory which contends that the origins of life are brought about by a higher intelligence, without teaching who you believe that Higher Intelligence is.

Leela:

Do ID proponents actually have a competing scientific theory?

Of course they do. Richard Dawkins states that the flora and fauna of the world “impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” Clearly, if ID’ers see REAL design and planning, they could not be faulted for this, because even Dawkins acknowledges that he is impressed with this “appearance.” The only difference between Dawkins and an ID’er is that Dawkins believes in evolution’s ability to produce an intelligent code, while ID’ers believe that a higher power introduced the code.

Leela:

If so, they need to explain how ID is falsifiable as every other proponent of every other scientific theory needs to do before a theory is viewed as a valid scientific hypothesis.

There are certain ideas which are absurd, and can easily be dismissed because they lack scientific standing and are not amenable to testing, and what is referred to as “falsifiability.” Ideas such as “the Moon is made of cheese.” But Intelligent Design is not an absurd idea, but one that proposes the concept that things that are designed will exhibit special qualities that can be differentiated from those things which arise randomly by natural forces.

 

[ricmat]

GOD IS NOW HERE
GOD IS NO WHERE

Same letters, same spaces, same length, vastly different information.

Yes, and one of them is wrong.

 

[redneck22]

For that matter, I work at a private Christian school where Creationism/Intelligent Design theories are not sacrosanct, but taught alongside of evolution theory. That’s because the philosophy of the school is to make sure that our children are taught what they need to make it through secular college.

.

Must be a fine institution, keep up the good work.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

that there is information in DNA

Agreed.

Yes, but you still have yet to define “information.” You can’t measure what you don’t know what you’re measuring.

that information is unique to intelligent beings

rossum:

I am not sure what you are saying here.

I’m trying to be quite direct.

Information does not arise spontaneously, but is a product of an abstract mind.

rossum:

DNA is present in a great many organisms, most of which are not intelligent.

No, I didn’t say that DNA makes the organism intelligent. I’m saying that an intelligence created DNA coding.

that the MEDIUM is separate (albeit concrete) from information

rossum:

I am not at all sure that in a biological (as opposed to a philosophical) sense you can separate the information from its current representation. It can indeed be represented as DNA, RNA or as a chain of amino acids but nowhere in biology do we ever deal with the information apart from its medium. Philosophy is of course different.

I certainly understand what you are saying, but you are wrong to attempt to exclude all philosophical thought from scientific endeavors. Nobody comes to the science table devoid of a philosphical bias.

Even so, from a biological perspective, you MUST understand that information is separate from the MEDIUM, just as you stated, it can be represented in DNA, RNA, or as a chain of amino acids. Each is a different MEDIUM, yet each represents information.

that Shannon information cannot account for the aforementioned

rossum:

Here we disagree. If you have a better measure of information then please propose it. Until then I will use the best measure I have available.

I certainly can appreciate your clinging to the only thing that you’ve ever known. But the main point to keep in mind is that you are not measuring information, but the MEDIUM that it is carried on. While this can give you a sense of having your feet firmly planted in science, it is misleading and cannot accurately measure the true quantity of information.

Not only that, but it places you in a mindset where you are prone to discount other plausible sources for understanding the uniqueness of information and its true measure.