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

[PEPCIS]

"buffalo:

What you have though is many different (adapted) encyclopedias all with slightly different characteristics.

Many of them are effectively identical to the original copies, with merely neutral mutations.

Another evolutionary canard. There is no such thing as “neutral” when mutations occur. If we are to believe the evolutionary drivel regarding information, every mutation is an increase in information, regardless of whether it adds meaning. Rossum has stated this on many occassions.

If a mutation occurs in an encyclopedia, according to rossum, that encylopedia will be far more likely to experience SEVERAL mutations. This is a dramatic increase in the data points, but an overall decrease in meaning, therefore a decrease in information.

What I find nearly comical in this presentation is the idea that we can compare evolution to the finely tuned machinations of the human mind (an encyclopedia). The Human mind is DELIBERATE in the placement of each letter, jot, tittle, abbreviation, etc, etc. Evolution, operating by the forces of nature by the mechanism of natural selection, could never produce anything unique, especially not UNdeliberately. Pastor John MacArthur once argued quite eloquently regarding this issue “that the genetic mutations necessary to produce a tapeworm from an amoeba are as unlikely as a monkey typing Hamlet’s soliloquy, and hence the odds against the evolution of all life are impossible to overcome.”

 

[PEPCIS]

There are many more extinct species than there are extant species.

I sure hope so.

 

[Ender]

Since I am not a mind reader I can never know exactly what the creator of the message was thinking. All I have to go on is the content of the message. When I measure the meaning of the message I can only measure the meaning as I see it. It is possible that the sender will measure a different meaning, but I cannot know what meaning she originally intended.

It is apparent to me that the meaning within a message is imparted by the sender. You are undoubtedly correct in saying that the receiver may not understand or may misunderstand what the meaning is, but if two people interpret the message in contradictory ways it does not mean that the message has two meanings, rather it means that at least one of them is wrong.

Extracting meaning from the message is a different activity than creating it in the first place. The phrase “Aujourd’hui est dimanche” has meaning that is completely independent on anyone’s ability to extract it.

Measuring information (as opposed to meaning) is less subject to error.

Yes, and such measurement may be extremely useful in determining whether the entire message has been accurately transmitted but such a measure is useless in understanding its content.

Does the Bible example help?

It helps in clarifying why you believe that meaning is provided by the person who receives the message and I will grant that there are layers of meaning in the Bible (Shakespeare et al) that resonate with some individuals and not others, nonetheless meaning cannot be extracted where it has not first been inserted. I accept the existence of ambiguousness (does Shane ride off and die?) where the individual may draw his own conclusion but that is only possible where no specific meaning has been included. Meaning must go in before it can come out.

Ender

 

[The_Barbarian]

It is apparent to me that the meaning within a message is imparted by the sender.

So, this isn’t really about “information.” The information from a hurricane, for example, is not imparted by a “sender,” unless you think God is directly heating water in the North Atlantic.

You are undoubtedly correct in saying that the receiver may not understand or may misunderstand what the meaning is, but if two people interpret the message in contradictory ways it does not mean that the message has two meanings, rather it means that at least one of them is wrong.

That’s demonstrably untrue. I spend a lot of time listening to people. Sometimes the information they give me when they talk to me, has very little to do with the message they intended for me.

“Message” is what they intended. “Information” is what they actually told me.

In nature, we find information, but the “message” is beyond science.

 

[buffalo]

So, this isn’t really about “information.” The information from a hurricane, for example, is not imparted by a “sender,” unless you think God is directly heating water in the North Atlantic.

That’s demonstrably untrue. I spend a lot of time listening to people. Sometimes the information they give me when they talk to me, has very little to do with the message they intended for me.

“Message” is what they intended. “Information” is what they actually told me.

In nature, we find information, but the “message” is beyond science.

If my message says stop and you stop when you see it. Then my message had its intended effect. I composed, I transmitted, you saw, you received, you acted. That was my intent.

 

[rossum]

There is no such thing as “neutral” when mutations occur.

The creationist site you got that from was lying to you. They told you an untruth. Why do you trust a website that claims to be Christian yet is not aware of Deuteronomy 5:20? If you would prefer not to be lied to then I suggest that you steer well clear of that website in future.

Start with a piece of DNA: ACG GGT TAC. This codes for the three amino acids Threonine, Glycine and Tyrosine in that order when translated into protein. Now mutate the DNA: ACG GGA TAC. This codes for exactly the same three amino acids Threonine, Glycine and Tyrosine in that order when translated into protein. The mutation in the DNA has zero effect on the final protein produced because GGA, GGC, GGG and GGT all code for Glycine. The genetic code is redundant, and in this case there are four different ways to code for Glycine. Even worse for your lying creationist website there are six different ways to code for Leucine: CTA, CTC, CTG, CTT, TTA and TTG. This sort of mutation is called a “synonymous mutation” and results in exactly the same protein being produced. Since exactly the same protein is produced, there is no difference in the effect of the protein on the organism, and hence the mutation is neutral. All synonymous mutations are neutral because they have no effect on the phenotype. Your creationist site was lying to you. You should mistrust whatever else they say.

You need to find a better website to read, one that does not lie to you.

If we are to believe the evolutionary drivel regarding information, every mutation is an increase in information, regardless of whether it adds meaning. Rossum has stated this on many occassions.

My apologies for not being clearer. Some mutations add information, some mutations leave the amount of information the same and some mutations reduce the amount of information present. For an example of the last consider the removal of a piece of DNA: ACG GGT TAC mutates to ACG TAC with the middle codon removed (ACG -]GGT/-] TAC). This is an information reducing mutation.

I have indeed indicated that information and meaning are separate. See I = 0 (Information has no intrinsic meaning) for a more complete non-mathematical discussion.

As a piece of advice to you I would suggest that rather than making unsupported statements you also provide references to support what you are saying. This is the standard means of arguing on scientific subjects. By providing external references to support your statements you are showing that you are not just expressing a personal opinion.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

Another evolutionary canard. There is no such thing as “neutral” when mutations occur.

You’ve been misled about that; most of them are neutral.

genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297

If we are to believe the evolutionary drivel regarding information, every mutation is an increase in information, regardless of whether it adds meaning.

That’s right, every mutation in a population is an increase in information. Would you like to see the numbers?

Rossum has stated this on many occassions.

He’s right, as he usually is, about such things.

If a mutation occurs in an encyclopedia, according to rossum, that encylopedia will be far more likely to experience SEVERAL mutations. This is a dramatic increase in the data points, but an overall decrease in meaning, therefore a decrease in information.

You’re still conflating “meaning” and “information.”

What I find nearly comical in this presentation is the idea that we can compare evolution to the finely tuned machinations of the human mind (an encyclopedia). The Human mind is DELIBERATE in the placement of each letter, jot, tittle, abbreviation, etc, etc. Evolution, operating by the forces of nature by the mechanism of natural selection, could never produce anything unique, especially not UNdeliberately.

Dr. Barry Hall once observed the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system in a culture of bacteria by nothing more than random mutation and natural selection. Reality trumps any argument.

Pastor John MacArthur once argued quite eloquently regarding this issue “that the genetic mutations necessary to produce a tapeworm from an amoeba are as unlikely as a monkey typing Hamlet’s soliloquy, and hence the odds against the evolution of all life are impossible to overcome.”

The poor guy probably never heard of natural selection; most likely, he’s not lying, just woefully ignorant.

 

[buffalo]

The creationist site you got that from was lying to you. They told you an untruth. Why do you trust a website that claims to be Christian yet is not aware of Deuteronomy 5:20? If you would prefer not to be lied to then I suggest that you steer well clear of that website in future.

Start with a piece of DNA: ACG GGT TAC. This codes for the three amino acids Threonine, Glycine and Tyrosine in that order when translated into protein. Now mutate the DNA: ACG GGA TAC. This codes for exactly the same three amino acids Threonine, Glycine and Tyrosine in that order when translated into protein. The mutation in the DNA has zero effect on the final protein produced because GGA, GGC, GGG and GGT all code for Glycine. The genetic code is redundant, and in this case there are four different ways to code for Glycine. Even worse for your lying creationist website there are six different ways to code for Leucine: CTA, CTC, CTG, CTT, TTA and TTG. This sort of mutation is called a “synonymous mutation” and results in exactly the same protein being produced. Since exactly the same protein is produced, there is no difference in the effect of the protein on the organism, and hence the mutation is neutral. All synonymous mutations are neutral because they have no effect on the phenotype. Your creationist site was lying to you. You should mistrust whatever else they say.

You need to find a better website to read, one that does not lie to you.

My apologies for not being clearer. Some mutations add information, some mutations leave the amount of information the same and some mutations reduce the amount of information present. For an example of the last consider the removal of a piece of DNA: ACG GGT TAC mutates to ACG TAC with the middle codon removed (ACG -]GGT/-] TAC). This is an information reducing mutation.

I have indeed indicated that information and meaning are separate. See I = 0 (Information has no intrinsic meaning) for a more complete non-mathematical discussion.

As a piece of advice to you I would suggest that rather than making unsupported statements you also provide references to support what you are saying. This is the standard means of arguing on scientific subjects. By providing external references to support your statements you are showing that you are not just expressing a personal opinion.

rossum

It is important to note the neutral theory is controversial.

 

[eichenb2]

test

 

[Ender]

So, this isn’t really about “information.” The information from a hurricane, for example, is not imparted by a “sender,” unless you think God is directly heating water in the North Atlantic.

I think you are conflating information with meaning; didn’t we establish that “Information is independent of meaning. (rossum)”? You may gather all the information you can about the structure of a hurricane but unless you correctly interpret the information it is useless. That is, the data has meaning that is not provided by the interpreter but is inherent in the hurricane. If you think the receiver creates the meaning then we should be able to divert hurricanes simply by interpreting the data so that they all peter out in the Atlantic.

I spend a lot of time listening to people.

Perhaps not as much as you think as you keep inserting religious responses to me although I have never included religious references in my posts.

Sometimes the information they give me when they talk to me, has very little to do with the message they intended for me.

Content has nothing to do with intent. The data is either included in the message or it isn’t - and you aren’t using the word information in the form rossum uses it and which is the way I have used it. For him information is simply a measurable quantity, like temperature; you are using it like PEPCIS did as content, data, … the (apparently) non-scientific definition.

In nature, we find information, but the “message” is beyond science.

This discussion is becoming a word game. If you find message too anthropomorphic then use something else. In order to communicate we need a fixed vocabulary that we all use. I am willing to use anybody’s definitions so long as they are unambiguous and don’t change. So: explain what you mean by information.

Ender

 

[PEPCIS]

It does appear that the disagreement lies in the definition of information with yours being a strictly mathematical construct measuring the physical content of a message.

That would be wrong. Rossum (via Shannon) is NOT measuring the physical content of the message, but the MEDIUM of the message. The content of the MEDIUM is information. Rossum is not measuring the information, but the MEDIUM.

Ender:

I assume this would explain why the Shannon value differs from the Kolmogorov value.

No, the reason why the Shannon value differs from the Kolmogorov value is because one measures more of the MEDIUM than the other. Neither Kolmogorov, nor Shannon, measure the content of the message. They just measure the data points (the MEDIUM).

Ender:

Without stepping too deeply into this, information is useless unless it has meaning and we know that DNA sequences have meaning since the information is not random and specific reactions occur as a result of its coding. Is the difference then between you and PEPCIS over the meaning contained within DNA rather than its information content?

No, the difference between rossum and myself is not that rossum advocates the Shannon method of measuring, but because rossum (as an evolutionist) rejects the notion that information is solely a product of an intelligent being. That is why he rejects the idea that meaning MUST be associated with information (as you correctly observed).

 

[PEPCIS]

The PI example - if the first deletrious mutation is ?.314159 then the number of decimals of precision won’t matter. The odds against it recovering from the ? is huge.

As usual, you come out with yet another excellent observation: when mutations occur, there is no law which states that it must be the FINAL CHARACTER in a string of characters.

That is why evolutionary scenarios are so bogus, because they rely on fairy tale concepts. When you examine those fairy tales, you find that they crumble so easily.

 

[PEPCIS]

How about methicillin resistant staphlococcus aureus?

That’s not a mutation. That’s a fine example of methicillin resistant staphlococcus aureus bacteria dominating because of its pre-existing resistance. No mutation necessary. One cite that I visited stated that MRSA evolved “through random mutations and the acquisition of plasmids.”

But reality is that plasmids occur naturally in bacteria, and bacteria could have acquired a plasmid (by consumption) that was beneficial to methicillin resistance. Again, no mutation necessary.

 

[The_Barbarian]

This is reality…

**Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008 Feb;52(2):643-7. Epub 2007 Dec 10.
Staphylococcus aureus clinical isolate with high-level methicillin resistance with an lytH mutation caused by IS1182 insertion.

We previously reported that deficiency of the lytH gene, whose product is homologous to lytic enzymes, caused the elevation of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus strain SR17238, a strain of S. aureus with a low level of resistance to methicillin (low-level MRSA) (J. Bacteriol. 179:6294-6301, 1997). In this study, we demonstrated that deficiency of lytH caused the same phenomenon in four other clinical isolates of low-level MRSA, suggesting this deficiency to exist in clinical isolates. We therefore searched the region including lytH in 127 clinical isolates of MRSA by PCR and found one strain, SR17164 (methicillin MIC, 1,600 microg/ml), in which the lytH gene was inactivated by insertion sequence IS1182. lytH::IS1182 was replaced with intact lytH in this strain by integration and excision of the plasmid carrying the lytH region. Recombinants with intact lytH genes showed methicillin MICs of 800 microg/ml, twofold lower than those of the recombinants with lytH::IS1182 and the parent. In addition, S. aureus SR17164, which has a high level of methicillin resistance, had properties similar to those caused by lytH deficiency; that is, the resistance levels of strain SR17164 and lytH-deficient variants from strain SR17238 were not significantly affected by llm inactivation, which greatly lowered resistance levels in most other high-level MRSA strains. These findings suggest that lytH inactivation contributed, to some extent, to the resistance level of S. aureus SR17164. To the best of our knowledge, this strain is the first clinical isolate of MRSA for which the genetic base for high-level resistance has been clarified.**

Read about it, and learn.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
So, this isn’t really about “information.” The information from a hurricane, for example, is not imparted by a “sender,” unless you think God is directly heating water in the North Atlantic.

I think you are conflating information with meaning;

Um, I just made a distinction between information and meaning.

You may gather all the information you can about the structure of a hurricane but unless you correctly interpret the information it is useless.

So, you’re conflating information with meaning, then.

That is, the data has meaning that is not provided by the interpreter but is inherent in the hurricane.

Since the assertion was that meaning was the intent of the sender, who do you think the “sender” was in this case?

If you think the receiver creates the meaning

You’re the one conflating information and meaning, remember.

You are undoubtedly correct in saying that the receiver may not understand or may misunderstand what the meaning is, but if two people interpret the message in contradictory ways it does not mean that the message has two meanings, rather it means that at least one of them is wrong.

Barbarian observes:
That’s demonstrably untrue. I spend a lot of time listening to people. Sometimes the information they give me when they talk to me, has very little to do with the message they intended for me.

Perhaps not as much as you think as you keep inserting religious responses to me although I have never included religious references in my posts.

If you think it isn’t God, who do you think is sending messages in hurricanes? More to the point, the message may be something quite different from that which the sender intended it to be.

You’re trying to use “information” as though it were meaning. But it’s not. I’m wondering why you don’t just use terminology that’s used in information theory.

 

[rossum]

It is important to note the neutral theory is controversial.

Much less so than it used to be. There is agreement that both neutral drift and natural selection happen - both have been observed. There is some debate still about how much of each is happening in different situations.

Whatever the state of the controversy it remains a fact that there are neutral mutations and that PEPCIS was being lied to by the source that told him such things did not exist.

rossum

 

[PEPCIS]

I am afraid I must have missed your definition, which post in this thread had it?

I’ll repeat it here for your edification. Information is abstract; it conveys meaning; it has purpose; it is aperiodic.

rossum:

Shannon information (H) is defined as http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/equations/Entropy/NumberedEquation1.gif.

That is NOT a definition. That is a formula for the measurment of the MEDIUM.

First off, DNA is anything but random.

rossum:

Parts are, others are not. If you assert that it is all non-random then you will have to produce evidence.

Fair enough, as long as you don’t try to assert that any part is random. You would have to produce evidence that DNA is random.

That portion of DNA may have some other purpose other than what you can surmise.

rossum:

And it may not have any purpose at all. In the absence of evidence science reverts to its standard default of “we do not know”.

No, in the absence of evidence, science reverts to its standard default of “we default to what we WANT to believe.” In the case of evolution theory, evolutionists default to the position that DNA is not so special, and is a result of random forces acting in natural selection - therefore there is bound to be random results!

In the case of Intelligent Design theory, ID’ers default to the position that since DNA is made by an intelligence, that it is special, and that each constituent part is placed there for a purpose. Any mutations may, or may not be identifiable unless we have the original master plan.

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

rossum:

I will need to see scientific proof of that please.

PEPCIS:

Actually, you’ll need to see scientific proof that it does not.

rossum:

No, you are the one making the claim that “Information does not arise spontaneously, but is a product of an abstract mind.”

Actually, my “claim” is a response to your claim that information arises spontaneously as the result of random forces operating within natural selection. That is why I challenged you, in the hopes that you could show me scientific evidence that information arises spontaneously, without the aid of an intelligent being.

rossum:

Both Shannon information and Kolmogorov information can arise through evolutionary processes. I have shown it with an example.

Give me a break. As Barbarian showed, evolutionists can take a cloud and claim that it contains information, merely because you can put an equation around it. That’s not science.

rossum:

Even in the encyclopedia example a random mutation can increase the accuracy of an approximation of pi.

Yes, it COULD, MIGHT, POSSIBLY. But it most likely would result in a decrease in the accuracy of the approximation of pi. I say it “COULD, MIGHT, POSSIBLY” because the chances are so rare that you don’t even have to compute it. I say that “most likely would result in a decrease in the accuracy of the approximation of pi” because the ONLY way that it might increase the accuracy is if it falls at the last digit, and does not add ANY OTHER DIGITS to any other place in the infinite places that pi would occur. With infinite chances to screw up, chance are it will screw up.

The problem with your approach to information is that you continue to fail to appreciate the difference in measuring the MEDIUM, and understanding that a measurement of information (by Shannon methods) being larger is not amenable to reason and logic. That’s because one statement might use fewer letters to make a statement, but contain more information than the other statement with more letters.

For example, I could make the following two statements:

I am wearing a blue jacket.
I am wearing a blue dinner jacket.

The second has more letters, so Shannon computations would render it as containing more information.

But I could make the following two statements:

I own a yellow vehicle.
I own a yellow car.

The second has fewer letters, so Shannon computations would render it as containing less information, but our reason and logic and intuition steps in to counter the results, because it is painfully obvious that the second statement actually renders MORE INFORMATION than the first.

rossum:

Even one counter example invalidates your claim of impossibility.

Not quite. The example must meet with scientific criteria and plausibility. The odds of obtaining a mutation of 3.14159 at numeral position “4” is just as likely as obtaining a “2” at the position for numeral “3”. If you were to try and get a “2” at the 6th position after the period, than you must compute the odds, especially since you claim that the object is to make pi contain more accurate information.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Whatever the state of the controversy it remains a fact that there are neutral mutations and that PEPCIS was being lied to by the source that told him such things did not exist.

No one wants to admit that people he trusted, lied to him. But that’s what happened here. I’m more concerned that he will not accept that the one definition of “information” that actually works, is even a definition.

 

[grannymh]

The creationist site you got that from was lying to you. They told you an untruth. rossum

Question: Are there any creationist sites which are reputable, i.e., tell the truth?

 

[atheist1]

What are the philosophical implications of the Theory of Evolution? Joseph Seifert explains why the Theory of Evolution is a poor explanation to the origin of man and of all living creatures.

Maybe, but it beats the great sky fairy magically creating the cosmos.