Population Bottleneck

[rom]

Meaning is not objectively measurable because it depends on the knowledge of the reader.

Agreed. That is why I wonder why you insist on using a mathematical measure in judging the gain or increase in genetic information. That is sometimes best judged by common sense. For example, when you look at the organisms that appeared at various epochs in geological history, would you not agree that in general there has been an increase in biological complexity and diversity in various organisms? Is not the bony fish more complex than a worm, and the flowering plants richer in diversity and genetic information than plain weeds? Do you need to have a Shannon or FSC number for each one? All we want to find out is whether this increase in biological complexity is due to evolution or not. I required that any evidence for super-evolution should demonstrate, not merely the appearance of a new species, but also one that exhibits a gain in genetic information. Without it, then we do not have a good evidence for super-evolution.

That makes meaning subjective and science avoids subjective measures wherever it can.

Meaning is not completely subjective. The “meaning” or “information” of a genetic code is objective in the sense that it is already fixed by nature. it is there in the genes. We are learning it and discovering it, but it is already objectively there. However, our grasp or understanding of this meaning, is subjective and depends on our training.

Science might limit its interest to what is measurable, not to the ontological significance of what is being measured. For example, science might only be interested in measuring the acceleration and velocity of a falling body, regardless of whether the falling body is a baby or not. But we are people, and our interests go beyond what science can measure. So we use reason, common sense and judgment for things that science does not measure. While science can measure the size and complexity of nucleotide sequences, we use reason and common sense in judging the complexity of genetic information.

Evolution is a process which copies information from the environment into the genomes of organisms living in that environment.

Can you please define “environment” for me and what kind of “genetic information” can be copied from it? And how does evolution copy genetic information from the environment into the genomes of organisms living in that environment?

 

[rossum]

That is why I wonder why you insist on using a mathematical measure in judging the gain or increase in genetic information.

I use the mathematical measure because it is objective. If the measure is not objective then it is difficult to draw conclusions. If two scientists disagree, then you need an objective measure to decide who is correct.

The “meaning” or “information” of a genetic code is objective in the sense that it is already fixed by nature.

Genomes are not fixed. They vary from generation to generation. Mutations are happening all the time.

Can you please define “environment” for me and what kind of “genetic information” can be copied from it? And how does evolution copy genetic information from the environment into the genomes of organisms living in that environment?

The environment is the surroundings within which a population lives. It includes the geographical surroundings, the other organisms living there, temperature, oxygen content and anything else which affects the organisms in the population.

The environment does not just contain genetic information, it contains information in many forms. For example, “there is less available oxygen at high altitude than at low altitude” or “white things are difficult to see against a snowy or icy background” are both non-genetic information in an environment.

That non-genetic information is copied into the genomes of organisms living at high altitude, which are more efficient at oxygen takeup than organisms living at sea level. Animals living above the snow line on mountains tend to have white fur as well. Polar bears have the white fur for camouflage, but not the efficient oxygen takeup because they do not life at altitude.

Random mutations make random changes to genomes: oxygen takeup may get more efficient or less efficient, fur may get darker or lighter. Natural selection selects the changes which best match the environment. White fur is selected in snowy environments. Better oxygen takeup is selected at high altitude. Natural selection selects the genomes which contain genetic information that best matches the information in the environment. Over time information is copied from the environment into genomes. Continuing with the snow example, in some environments there is information: “snow falls in winter and melts in summer”. Animals living in that environment often have white winter fur which changes to dark summer fur as the seasons change.

Random mutations give a range of options to select from. Natural selection picks the best match to the current environment from the range of options provided. For example, humans living in Tibet, the Andes and Ethiopia are adapted to living at high altitude and are more efficient than average at oxygen takeup. Because those adaptations are the result of random mutations, the three geographically separated groups all have different adaptations to the same environmental problem, see High-altitude adaptation in humans.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Random mutations give a range of options to select from. Natural selection picks the best match to the current environment from the range of options provided. For example, humans living in Tibet, the Andes and Ethiopia are adapted to living at high altitude and are more efficient than average at oxygen takeup. Because those adaptations are the result of random mutations, the three geographically separated groups all have different adaptations to the same environmental problem, see High-altitude adaptation in humans.

Yes. Built in capability to adapt.

 

[Techno2000]

rossum:

Random mutations give a range of options to select from. Natural selection picks the best match to the current environment from the range of options provided. For example, humans living in Tibet, the Andes and Ethiopia are adapted to living at high altitude and are more efficient than average at oxygen takeup. Because those adaptations are the result of random mutations, the three geographically separated groups all have different adaptations to the same environmental problem, see High-altitude adaptation in humans.

Yes. Built in capability to adapt.

And…that’s a far cry to actually morphing into a completely new creature, which rossum is trying to extrapolate.

 

[edwest]

The creation of novel organs cannot be explained. Arms to wings? Not very useful if only partly developed, meaning no bats, for example.

 

[PickyPicky]

Bats wings are on their fingers, not their arms, aren’t they? Webbing joining the fingers. Easy to see why that could be useful half-formed.

 

[edwest]

Actually, no.

How Bats Work

Bat wings have given bats the nickname of 'flying mice.' Look at bat wings to see bats compared to humans and birds and learn how bat wings work.

animals.howstuffworks.com

 

[Techno2000]

The creation of novel organs cannot be explained. Arms to wings? Not very useful if only partly developed, meaning no bats, for example.

Plus, they probably crashed into quite a few trees while trying to get their sonar to work at night.

 

[edwest]

Sure, the “blind watchmaker” can invent anything without intending to do it. Sheesh.

 

[rossum]

And…that’s a far cry to actually morphing into a completely new creature, which rossum is trying to extrapolate.

You seem not understand evolution. Your “completely” new is wrong. Most of the DNA of the new organism is inherited from its ancestors, only some of it is new. For example, we inherited our eyes from our ancestors, who had effectively identical eyes. Have a close look at a chimp’s eyes if you don’t believe me. They inherited their eyes from our common ancestor.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The creation of novel organs cannot be explained. Arms to wings? Not very useful if only partly developed, meaning no bats, for example.

Gliding can be useful. For example: Flying squirrel.

Google Colugo for another example of a mammalian glider.

rossum

 

[Aquinas11]

You seem not understand evolution

You discussed adaptation, not evolution.

Adaptation = species A remains same species A but features change in response to environment (eg. human skin in Europe develops less melanin than African humans since less sun in Europe so less melanin means absorbs more Vitamin D to account for less Sun)

Evolution = species A changing into Species B, still no evidence of this since 100% reliant on fossils. In year 2500, if someone found 2019
fossil of Great Dane, fossil of Labrador and fossil of Chihuahua, they’d employ this logic to wrongly conclude Chihuahuas evolved into Great Danes

 

[edwest]

Yes, I’ve seen them. No connection to bat wings.

 

[buffalo]

You seem not understand evolution. Your “completely” new is wrong. Most of the DNA of the new organism is inherited from its ancestors, only some of it is new. For example, we inherited our eyes from our ancestors, who had effectively identical eyes. Have a close look at a chimp’s eyes if you don’t believe me. They inherited their eyes from our common ancestor.

More support for ID. Life has been front loaded. We see many features that have “evolved” over and over. When one sees that we immediately see purpose and blind unguided chance is not a good explanation. Common design front loaded is a much better explanation.

 

[edwest]

Yes, it is the better explanation.

 

[Techno2000]

For example, we inherited our eyes from our ancestors, who had effectively identical eyes. Have a close look at a chimp’s eyes if you don’t believe me. They inherited their eyes from our common ancestor.

God creates things that are similar, but different , like fingerprints, is that so difficult to understand ?

 

[rom]

I use the mathematical measure because it is objective. If the measure is not objective then it is difficult to draw conclusions. If two scientists disagree, then you need an objective measure to decide who is correct.

I actually do the same thing. I use mathematical measure whenever possible. Unfortunately, although nucleotide sequences can be measured, the genetic information they contain is not susceptible to the same kind of measurement. Fortunately, however, you do not need to measure exactly how much new genetic information is gained to prove evolution. It is enough to show that new genetic information is gained. For example, if new legs appeared in a worm or any organism that never had legs before, then we know that new genetic information is gained. We don’t need Shannon or FSC measure to figure it out. On the other hand, if a new pair of wings suddenly appears in an organism that already has wings, such as the fruit fly Drosophila, then we can’t say that new genetic information is gained because the fruit fly already has that information. The fruit fly genome already has the genetic information for making wings, and a Hox gene probably just triggered the production of an extra pair of wings.

The bad news for evolutionists is that no evidence of new genetic information is being detected in all the evidences that they have so far gathered. In most cases it was even an information loss rather than an information gain that was responsible for the small changes noticed in the phenotype. Also, when a mutation results in a big change, it usually ends up being harmful rather than beneficial to the organism, so it is not favored by natural selection. Thus, the big mutations, besides being rare, do not end up being able to serve as evidence for evolution. Over all there is NO valid evidence for super-evolution because none reflects a gain in genetic information.

Genomes are not fixed. They vary from generation to generation. Mutations are happening all the time.

When I said that the genetic code is “fixed by nature,” I mean it is determined by nature. I do not mean to say that it was made immutable by nature. I am well aware that mutations do happen and that the information contained in a genome could change in time. But this does not mean that the genetic information in the genome is not objective. Its complexity is not susceptible to direct measurement, yes. But the genetic information, – or the instructions for protein synthesis, – are objectively there. In fact, geneticists and molecular biologists spend their time trying to decipher the biological “meaning” contained in the DNA and RNA sequences.

 

[rom]

The environment is the surroundings within which a population lives.

Thank you for your post. I quoted only the first line, but I read the rest of your long post. Below is my reaction/opinion about it.

Scientists once thought that acquired changes in the phenotype due to adaptation cannot be passed on to the offspring. But now they are getting new evidence that at least some of these changes can be passed on to the descendants. To explain this, they postulate the existence of genetic and non-genetic information in the environment that can be copied into the genomes of organisms living in that environment. However, rather than assuming the existence of non-genetic information in the environment (of which we have no empirical evidence anyway), I think it is simpler to assume that the existing genomes inside each organism also have a built-in ability to mutate in response to environmental changes.

Natural selection selects the genomes which contain genetic information that best matches the information in the environment. Over time information is copied from the environment into genomes.

Your description of natural selection is beginning to sound like a description of an Intelligent Designer. It knows the genomes of various organisms and knows how to match them with the information in the environment! Is natural selection nothing but the Intelligent Designer in disguise? Also, you did not describe how an external information gets copied into genomes. You simply used the magic mantra “over time.”

 

[rossum]

Life has been front loaded.

No it has not. We have completely sequenced the cold virus. Any and all front loading has to be in that DNA sequence. Given that we can see all the claimed ‘front loading’ then a 100% effective cold vaccine can be produced, one that avoids all the front loading.

Why haven’t the Discovery Institute or ICR produced just such a vaccine and made themselves millions?

If front loading were correct, then any fully sequenced disease could be cured, since we could design a vaccine that avoided all the front loading that is present. That has not happened.

rossum

 

[rossum]

God creates things that are similar, but different , like fingerprints, is that so difficult to understand ?

Evolution creates things that are similar, but different , like fingerprints, is that so difficult to understand?

rossum