Forums | MacLife

resedit · 2005-08-29 3:25 pm

res, do you understand anything that proper science and practitioners of science are talking about? Read Plato's philosophy because that's all you can give us in the way of 'proof.' Hank gave you a beautiful explanation concerning the mechanism of evolution and you dismiss it out of hand. And, Hank is a fellow believer as far as the existence of god is concerned.

The so called "proofs" are mere philosophy, no more scientific than science fiction.
Show how natural selection causes fish to frogs or dinosaurs to birds or land mammals to marine mammals, and then you have science. There are no such demonstrations.

We have seen natural selecting selecting from certain genes - the finches on the islands are an example of that, as is the peppered moth. But in fact no evolution occurred in either case (in fact no speciation even occurred - finches from the different islands will freely breed with each other with fertile offspring)

We can mimick that in the lab, hell - dog breeders and pigeon fanciers and farmers have been doing for decades. Yet no evolution occurs. In fact, in one of Darwins own experiments - he bred mongrels from four different fancy breeds (two make two kinds of mongrels) and then bred them together, and what he got was a rock dove. Neither speciation nor evolution had occurred, all that had occurred was selection of some existing traits over others.

That happens, no one denies that it does.
Sure, mutations by random chance also happen. Usually detrimental. We know it as genetic disease. DNA has built into a mechanism for reducing exactly that - for reducing what evolution requires for its mechanism to work.

In one book, I'll read that isolation of a population is what is required for evolution to take place, and it gives examples of the finches and tortoises and Iquanas on the galapagos islands.

Then when I look at Tuataras, it says their isolation is what kept them the same for 65 million years.

That's not science. That's making up what sounds good at the time to explain what can't be explained. That's worse than religion, that's INVENTING a religion - and then calling it science.

Hank Rearden · 2005-08-29 3:30 pm

resedit wrote:
Natural Selection only can choose from existing genes, it can create new genes - therefore, it can NOT be the mechanism by which evolution occurs, it not the potter that makes the pot, it only chooses the pot that has already been made.

It chooses from genes already made by other means.

Do you have ANY idea how many mutations occur naturally, generation-by-generation? I have heard a figure of about 1 mutation per 100,000 genes, on average, show up in the next generation. That is not that many mutations/gene, but considering the number of genes and number of individuals in a population, there are an awful lot of natural selective "experiments" going on at any given time.

This estimate seems not to far off, with a quickie internet search:
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:h1 … mp;start=3

http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~bethmont/mutdes.html

In other words, there is a lot of "wiggle room" for natural selection at any give time, in any given species, under any given circumstances.

So, for a real life example, let's think about the fruitfly.

A conservative estimate is for 13,601 genes in this insect
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer … t=Citation

Note that that is conservative, there are likely quite a few more. But, in order to remain conservative, and for ease of calculation, let's round down and assume only 10,000 genes per individual.

Let's carry on being conservative, and assume a mutation rate of 1 per 1,000,000 (instead of 1 per 100,000). This would mean that one individual in 100 would carry a mutation on a gene somewhere in its genome.

Now, let's estimate the number of Drosophila melanogaster in the world. Again, it would probably be conservative to guess 50 billion flies worldwide.

Even with all of these conservative numbers, it means that there are 500 million fruitflies out there, right now, with genetic experiments going on.

Remember, this was all super conservative. The real number is likely much, much higher.

resedit · 2005-08-29 3:42 pm

How of of those give the species a new feature, just as turning scales into feathers - and then into rows of primary and secondary feathers, along with adjusting the body from one meant for ground dwelling (completely wrong for flight) and into one suitable for flying - without making the animal less likely to survive in between those "transitions"?

resedit · 2005-08-29 3:56 pm

Here's an interesting read -

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio … netics.asp

For example, from 1800, plant breeders sought to increase the sugar content of the sugar beet. And they were very successful. Over some 75 years of selective breeding it was possible to increase the sugar content from 6% to 17%. But there the improvement stopped, and further selection did not increase the sugar content. Why? Because all of the genes for sugar production had been gathered into a single variety and no further increase was possible.

Indeed, that is why we now use genetic engineering to alter plants - selection doesn't do it, so we have to - now, whether we do it intelligently or not ... (the killer tomatoes will attack, just you wait)

Now to consider the third source of variation, mutation. Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process. Each living cell has intricate molecular machinery designed for accurately copying DNA, the genetic molecule. But as in other copying processes mistakes do occur, although not very often. Once in every 10,000�100,000 copies, a gene will contain a mistake. The cell has machinery for correcting these mistakes, but some mutations still slip through. What kinds of changes are produced by mutations? Some have no effect at all, or produce so small a change that they have no appreciable effect on the creature. But many mutations have a significant effect on their owners.

Geneticists began breeding the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, soon after the turn of the century, and since 1910 when the first mutation was reported, some 3,000 mutations have been identified.3 All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly�exactly as predicted by the creation model.

Is there, then, no such thing as a beneficial mutation? Yes, there is. A beneficial mutation is simply one that makes it possible for its possessors to contribute more offspring to future generations than do those creatures that lack the mutation.

Darwin called attention to wingless beetles on the island of Madeira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage, because creatures in flight are more likely to be blown into the sea. Mutations producing the loss of flight could be helpful. The sightless cave fish would be similar. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would replace the eye with scar-like tissue, reducing that vulnerability. In the world of light, having no eyes would be a terrible handicap, but is no disadvantage in a dark cave. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss of information and never gain.

resedit · 2005-08-29 4:20 pm

Another interesting article - on poison resistance

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio … poison.asp

Hank Rearden · 2005-08-29 4:22 pm

resedit wrote:
Show how natural selection causes fish to frogs or dinosaurs to birds or land mammals to marine mammals, and then you have science. There are no such demonstrations.

Historical science, while still hypothesis-driven, is different from lab science. For large animal and plant changes, large periods of time are needed, thus fossils and "fossil genes" are among the main ways of knowing.

As I've said before, is DSI.

resedit wrote:
We have seen natural selecting selecting from certain genes - the finches on the islands are an example of that, as is the peppered moth. But in fact no evolution occurred in either case (in fact no speciation even occurred - finches from the different islands will freely breed with each other with fertile offspring)

I've provided links, I think in this thread or else in another recent thread, of examples of speciation. I used inability to produce viable offspring, between incipient species as the definition. You reject that definition, so what can I do? If you want speciation, you've got it. If you want dinosaur to bird transitions (which would include multiple speciation events) in the lab, then I can't help you. That is all DSI.

resedit wrote:
Usually detrimental.

Actually, usually neutral, often detrimental, often enough beneficial.

resedit wrote:
In one book, I'll read that isolation of a population is what is required for evolution to take place, and it gives examples of the finches and tortoises and Iquanas on the galapagos islands.

Then when I look at Tuataras, it says their isolation is what kept them the same for 65 million years.

That's not science. That's making up what sounds good at the time to explain what can't be explained. That's worse than religion, that's INVENTING a religion - and then calling it science.

"Isolation" means that the isolated population can become a new species. It does not mean that the isolated population will continue to bud off into new species in its isolated island (or however it is isolated). Once it has been isolated and has changed to suit its new environment (or random genetic changes take it further away from its ancestral group) the ENTIRE ISOLATED POPULATION CHANGES AT THE SAME TIME.

See, here's the problem with your arguements. You are a smart guy, but you have not studied this enough to catch all the nuances of what you are saying. You are, as they say, just knowlegable enough to be dangerous.

Again, isolation can make a new species. But that new species then, as a single new population, moves along its own genetic trajectory from that point onward. Unless something happens to break that population into groups that are somehow isolated, there will be no speciation event.

Hank Rearden · 2005-08-29 4:28 pm

resedit wrote:
Here's an interesting read -http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp

OK, the thing is...there are physiological limits to what selection can do.

e.g.:
Gazelles on the African plains run really fast, and are built to do so because of the cheetahs that hunt them. Cheetahs, also, are built to be really fast. But, through all the years of co-evolution, we do not have cheetahs and gazelles that run at the speed of sound (though that would be really cool). Why? Because anatomical and physiological contraints force an upper limit on one or the other (probably both) animals.

Same with sugar beets, I would assume. They can go and make lots and lots of sugar, but at some point sugar making is going to have to take a back seat to other important physiological activities. And that point seems to have been reached by traditional selective breeding. The machinery of the beets' metabolism means that they are constrained to an upper limit.

resedit · 2005-08-29 4:36 pm

I've provided links, I think in this thread or else in another recent thread, of examples of speciation.

Oh I don't object to speciation, but I do find it interesting that many examples of evolution are not even that. speciation does not indicate evolution, it just indicates that two strains of common ancestry have difficulty reproducing with fertile offspring. Every blue moon though, supposed specated varieties do just that - I believe the wolphin is such a case.

Anyway - here's an interesting article that demonstrates that while in their journals, scientists talk about natural selection and evolution - but in practice, they sure as hell don't bank on it, and in fact are worried about loss of genetic information.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio … tatoes.asp

Hank Rearden · 2005-08-29 5:11 pm

resedit wrote:
Oh I don't object to speciation, but I do find it interesting that many examples of evolution are not even that.

Uh...yah. Not all evolution requires speciation. Evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a population over time. Sometimes that makes a new species, sometimes not.

resedit wrote:
speciation does not indicate evolution

confused

Really? Wow, you really ought to write a paper on that because it is a startling assertion.

Hank Rearden · 2005-08-29 5:18 pm

resedit wrote:
Anyway - here's an interesting article that demonstrates that while in their journals, scientists talk about natural selection and evolution - but in practice, they sure as hell don't bank on it, and in fact are worried about loss of genetic information.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio … tatoes.asp

OH BROTHER!

That is sooooo much confusing of terms and obfuscation. Not surprising, however.

Things might be bred out of a domestic crop over time, to be sure. Or, perhaps they were never "bred in" in the first place. Either could be by comission or by omission. But both are simply historical artifacts

But, the loss of genetic information that biologists are talking about here relates to the survival of ancestral crops and varieties. And it is a matter of extinction, not of loss during breeding.

They worry that if those particular crops, usually tended by traditional farmers and/or indigenous people, go extinct, then some of the useful genetic material that those crops carry, but that more "standard" crops do not, will be lost. It will reduce a natural source of genes that could be used for various purposes in standard crops.

In other words, the crop in the field in Idaho is not "losing information". It may never have had it, or it may have been removed. But, if you allow a variety in Bolivia to disappear, any useful genes in that variety that do not appear elsewhere will be lost.

resedit · 2005-08-29 5:24 pm

Hank Rearden wrote:
resedit wrote:
Oh I don't object to speciation, but I do find it interesting that many examples of evolution are not even that.
Uh...yah. Not all evolution requires speciation. Evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a population over time. Sometimes that makes a new species, sometimes not.

resedit wrote:
speciation does not indicate evolution

Really? Wow, you really ought to write a paper on that because it is a startling assertion.

Evolution as in "the theory of evolution" indicates signifigant change from one type of species to another.

Speciation is not signifigant change from one type of animal to another. The two species are still the same type of animal, usually classified in the same genus, certainly in the same family. Often they can reproduce together to produce fertile young, sometimes the chromosomes do double when they do so (it is this way with whiptail lizards, which when hybridized - result in all female young capable of reproduction w/o mating, but also capable of mating with males of non hybrid to produce yet another hybrid)

If fish speciate they are still fish. If wheat speciates it is still wheat. It doesn't because a crocus (or any other bulb)

There may be some changes in the genes, but they still perform the same primary purpose, or their purpose is gone. New purposes do not result from speciation, only signifigant result is an inability or lowered ability to reproduce with the rest of the population from which it came.

However, in the future, there may be the possibility that its offspring can reproduce with specimens from the other population and produce fertile young - like we saw with Beefalo.

resedit · 2005-08-29 5:42 pm

Hank Rearden wrote:
In other words, the crop in the field in Idaho is not "losing information". It may never have had it, or it may have been removed. But, if you allow a variety in Bolivia to disappear, any useful genes in that variety that do not appear elsewhere will be lost.

Yup - the species is losing information.
And no way for it to get new information to survive ... other than genetic engineering.

resedit · 2005-08-29 5:51 pm

Hank Rearden wrote:
Really? Wow, you really ought to write a paper on that because it is a startling assertion.

Hey wow - someone did.

A major point is the common practice of Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science to call all change in organisms �evolution.� This enables Teaching about Evolution to claim that evolution is happening today.

That's your basic point, right?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar … apter2.asp

Any mutations which enable an organism to leave more self-reproducing offspring will be passed on through the generations. This �differential reproduction� is called natural selection. In summary, evolutionists believe that the source of new genetic information is mutations sorted by natural selection�the neo-Darwinian theory.

Here's the problem

As the previous chapter showed, all scientists interpret facts according to their assumptions. From this premise of perfection followed by deterioration, it follows that mutations, as would be expected from copying errors, destroyed some of the original genetic information. Many evolutionists point to allegedly imperfect structures as �proof� of evolution, although this is really an argument against perfect design rather than for evolution. But many allegedly imperfect structures can also be interpreted as a deterioration of once-perfect structures, for example, eyes of blind creatures in caves. However, this fails to explain how sight could have arisen in the first place.

neodarwinism still requires that beneficial mutuations that build up to perfect structures happens by random chance. The opposite can be observed in the lab, but never what the neodarwinist requires for the theory to be verified.

For the new genetic information to be selected, it first has to be produced.
What we see is a deterioration of genetic information (that sometimes benefits the species, like the beetles losing their wings on a windy island), not the other way around (we don't see known wingless animals evolving wings, like they say dinosaurs did). This is also what shanon entropy would suggest. Information deteriorates as random changes are made, it does not produce new useful information.

Hank Rearden · 2005-08-29 6:59 pm

resedit wrote:
Hank Rearden wrote:
In other words, the crop in the field in Idaho is not "losing information". It may never have had it, or it may have been removed. But, if you allow a variety in Bolivia to disappear, any useful genes in that variety that do not appear elsewhere will be lost.
Yup - the species is losing information.
And no way for it to get new information to survive ... other than genetic engineering.

You are confusing (purposefully?) localized extinctions of populations with in-the-field genetic changes.

The crop in Idaho is not losing genes that it never had. The crop in Bolivia is not losing genes that it never had. But both may have genes that the other could "use". And if the crop in Bolivia is not cultivated, then any unique genes that it has could be lost.

Hank Rearden · 2005-08-29 7:11 pm

resedit wrote:
Evolution as in "the theory of evolution" indicates signifigant change from one type of species to another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_ … guation%29

Since the 19th century "evolution" is generally used in reference to biological evolution, the development of the different varieties of living things over generations.

resedit wrote:
Speciation is not signifigant change from one type of animal to another. The two species are still the same type of animal, usually classified in the same genus, certainly in the same family. Often they can reproduce together to produce fertile young, sometimes the chromosomes do double when they do so (it is this way with whiptail lizards, which when hybridized - result in all female young capable of reproduction w/o mating, but also capable of mating with males of non hybrid to produce yet another hybrid)

If fish speciate they are still fish. If wheat speciates it is still wheat. It doesn't because a crocus (or any other bulb)

There may be some changes in the genes, but they still perform the same primary purpose, or their purpose is gone. New purposes do not result from speciation, only signifigant result is an inability or lowered ability to reproduce with the rest of the population from which it came.

However, in the future, there may be the possibility that its offspring can reproduce with specimens from the other population and produce fertile young - like we saw with Beefalo.

Slippery, slidey...moving target...

Like I said, any big change takes a lot of little changes. But once something is on its own evolutionary trajectory, it can differentiate from its originating population over time. But for slow reproducers (anything multi-cellular, for the most part) you need lots of time.

However, we do have bacteria, viruses, and protists which DO show amazing differences very, very quickly...and perfectly exemplify what I'm talking about.

Look, if you're waiting for someone in some lab to makea dogcow, then you'll be waiting for a long time. But, you can see similar occurances with viruses, etc. In fact, you see something pretty darn close to exactly what I'm talking about every flu season, or with SARS, or with AIDS, etc.

Creationist AD 1859 wrote:
Nice theory, but really, we don't see any changes in natural populations

Creationist AD ~1900 wrote:
Nice theory, but really, we don't see any changes in natural populations worth speaking about

Creationist AD ~1980 wrote:
Nice theory, but really, but those changes in natural populations don't do anything imporant

Creationist AD ~1990 wrote:
Those changes in natural populations are imporant adaptations, but there are no new species

Creationist AD ~2005 wrote:
Those changes in natural populations may result in new species, but they're not that much different from the old species

And, we're all on the edges of our seats...what will they think of next?

resedit · 2005-08-29 8:39 pm

Hank Rearden wrote:
resedit wrote:
Hank Rearden wrote:
In other words, the crop in the field in Idaho is not "losing information". It may never have had it, or it may have been removed. But, if you allow a variety in Bolivia to disappear, any useful genes in that variety that do not appear elsewhere will be lost.
Yup - the species is losing information.
And no way for it to get new information to survive ... other than genetic engineering.
You are confusing (purposefully?) localized extinctions of populations with in-the-field genetic changes.

The crop in Idaho is not losing genes that it never had. The crop in Bolivia is not losing genes that it never had. But both may have genes that the other could "use". And if the crop in Bolivia is not cultivated, then any unique genes that it has could be lost.

The crop in Idaho is not gaining genes that it never had either - and they know that it won't.
Should a disease come through, survival of the fittest ain't going to help that crop in Idaho develop new resistant genes - either it has them, or it doesn't.

resedit · 2005-08-29 8:43 pm

Hank Rearden wrote:
Creationist AD 1859 wrote:
Nice theory, but really, we don't see any changes in natural populations
Creationist AD ~1900 wrote:
Nice theory, but really, we don't see any changes in natural populations worth speaking about
Creationist AD ~1980 wrote:
Nice theory, but really, but those changes in natural populations don't do anything imporant
Creationist AD ~1990 wrote:
Those changes in natural populations are imporant adaptations, but there are no new species
Creationist AD ~2005 wrote:
Those changes in natural populations may result in new species, but they're not that much different from the old species
And, we're all on the edges of our seats...what will they think of next?

Strawman.
I've never known an ID scientist who denies speciation occurs.
Sure, I've heard some pastors say it - but I've got creationist books from the 70's written by scientists that say it occurs, but don't see the signifigance of it, other than group A may make group B and C that don't do the dirty with each other anymore.

resedit · 2005-08-29 8:59 pm

Slippery, slidey...moving target...

Like I said, any big change takes a lot of little changes. But once something is on its own evolutionary trajectory, it can differentiate from its originating population over time. But for slow reproducers (anything multi-cellular, for the most part) you need lots of time.

You also need a mechanism by which new information can be obtained.
Gene splicing is how we add new information to a species now, but of course that is really only new to the species it is being spliced into - and of course, it is an act of design and not random.

However, we do have bacteria, viruses, and protists which DO show amazing differences very, very quickly...and perfectly exemplify what I'm talking about.

Differences in bacteria do not result in new information, but a loss of information.
The "adaptations" that we see in bacteria make the strain more vulnerable in the environment in which the defective gene is no longer beneficial. IE the defective gene that regulates that thing they make to deal with natural amounts of penicillin - when it becomes defective and over produces, it wastes resources and thus they reproduce less in "the wild" then strains w/o the defect. But in todays doctor happy world, that defect is what keeps them alive.

Just like the Asian Elephant - a defective gene that causes them to not grow tusks, it is advantageous to them presently because of poachers - but without poachers killing those with tusks, it definitely is not an advantage to have that defective gene - as it is harder to get food and fight for a mate.

Look, if you're waiting for someone in some lab to makea dogcow, then you'll be waiting for a long time. But, you can see similar occurances with viruses, etc. In fact, you see something pretty darn close to exactly what I'm talking about every flu season, or with SARS, or with AIDS, etc.

I don't know about virus mutations, but I suspect it is along the same lines as bacterial mutations - it isn't new information, but rather, corruption of existing information.

Since a virus uses a cell of something living to reproduce, I suppose it is possible that they get new information from time to time that way.

Hank Rearden · 2005-08-29 10:43 pm

resedit wrote:
You also need a mechanism by which new information can be obtained.

I already told you. Duplication of a gene within a genome, followed by mutation of the original or the copy.

see, for example:
Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey
by Jianzhi Zhang, Ya-ping Zhang &�Helene F. Rosenberg
Nature Genetics �30, 411 - 415 (2002)

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage. … ng852.html

And other methods in other creatures. See below.

resedit wrote:
Differences in bacteria do not result in new information, but a loss of information.

Bologna. Plasmids.

resedit wrote:
I don't know about virus mutations, but I suspect it is along the same lines as bacterial mutations - it isn't new information, but rather, corruption of existing information.

Bologna. Recombination.

As for "no new information" see:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer … t=Abstract

Evolution of novel genes
by M. Long
Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2001 Dec;11(6):673-80

Much progress in understanding the evolution of new genes has been accomplished in the past few years. Molecular mechanisms such as illegitimate recombination and LINE element mediated 3' transduction underlying exon shuffling, a major process for generating new genes, are better understood. The identification of young genes in invertebrates and vertebrates has revealed a significant role of adaptive evolution acting on initially rudimentary gene structures created as if by evolutionary tinkers. New genes in humans and our primate relatives add a new component to the understanding of genetic divergence between humans and non-humans.

resedit · 2005-08-30 12:24 am

So what do these new genes they have observed do?
What new features do the information in them code for, that weren't previously coded for?

jerwin · 2005-08-30 1:25 am

At last, a formula for computing entropy!

Shannon entropy (Sn) values were calculated as a measure of genetic complexity. They incorporate the number of sequence variants, the frequency of each variant, and the total number of variants analyzed

where N = total number of sequences and pi = frequency of each sequence. Sn values can range from 0 (when 1 variant is present) to 1 (where each variant occurs once).

source

At long last. It all makes sense. Hank, look at each species as a Platonic form (with an entropy of zero). As these forms are placed in a mundane, almost sinful context, they diverge from this ideal-- scientists under the sway of satan call this genetic diversity-- and lose some of the perfection that would convince a human to know of the glories of god. In other words, the signal is being obscured by the thermal noise of hell.

Last edited by jerwin (2005-08-30 1:39 am)

resedit · 2005-08-30 2:14 am

What does that formula have to do with new information being added?
That formula is used with existing information, which we do have - it does not say that new information can appear by random chance. Shanon (information) entropy says the opposite.

Metacell · 2005-08-30 2:16 am

This thread is like Alice debating the Mad Hatter.

Hank Rearden · 2005-08-30 10:22 am

resedit wrote:
So what do these new genes they have observed do?
What new features do the information in them code for, that weren't previously coded for?

If you read the Monkey paper, and admittedly it is a bit technical...but it's not over-the-top, you will find that RNase1 degrades RNA at pH 7.4. RNase1B, on the other hand, degrades RNA at pH 6.3. At that lower pH, RNase1 is pretty much inactive. Note that pH is a logarithmic scale, so a shift of 1 is actually a 10x difference in acidity.

So, like I was saying above, RNase1 had a copy made of itself in the genome. Then that copy mutated over time (the bearer of 2 genes not affected by the mutation of one) to do the same catalytic job as its mother gene, but at a much lower pH.

This ability allowed the diet shift of these monkeys form fruit and insects to leaves. Leaves require fermentation in the forgut, the other diet doesn't. Thus, to thrive on leaves, different gut conditions (and different enzymes) are needed.

Hank Rearden · 2005-08-30 10:33 am

jerwin wrote:
At last, a formula for computing entropy!

Heh! Now I understand...

Anyhow, this little ditty is interesting. From a book review of Yockey, H. P. 1992. Information Theory and Molecular Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articl … _2004.asp.

With regard to that last point, Yockey's chapter 12 should be required reading for every creationist. The Maxwell-Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy is a measure of the �orderliness' of energy in a system which is addressed by the second law of thermodynamics. The amount of information in a DNA molecule, on the other hand, is measured by the Shannon or Kolmogorov-Chaitin algorithmic entropy, and as evolution proceeds and organisms become more complex, not more orderly, the Shannon entropy increases. In addition the Shannon entropy and Maxwell-Boltzman-Gibbs entropy are based on probability spaces that are not isomorphic to each other. Hence they have nothing to do with each other and "thermodynamics has nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution." (p. 313).

So, Shannon entropy INCREASES with complexity. Creationists are always concerned with evolutionary theory and a decrease in enthropy. Thus, information content/complexity shouldn't be a problem for them.

Forums | MacLife

#176 2005-08-29 3:25 pm

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.

#177 2005-08-29 3:30 pm

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.

resedit wrote:

#178 2005-08-29 3:42 pm

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.

#179 2005-08-29 3:56 pm

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.

#180 2005-08-29 4:20 pm

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.

#181 2005-08-29 4:22 pm

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.

resedit wrote:

resedit wrote:

resedit wrote:

resedit wrote:

#182 2005-08-29 4:28 pm

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.

resedit wrote:

#183 2005-08-29 4:36 pm

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.

#184 2005-08-29 5:11 pm

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.

resedit wrote:

resedit wrote:

#185 2005-08-29 5:18 pm

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.

resedit wrote:

#186 2005-08-29 5:24 pm

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.

Hank Rearden wrote:

resedit wrote:

resedit wrote:

#187 2005-08-29 5:42 pm

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.

Hank Rearden wrote:

#188 2005-08-29 5:51 pm

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.

Hank Rearden wrote:

#189 2005-08-29 6:59 pm

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.

resedit wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

#190 2005-08-29 7:11 pm

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.

resedit wrote:

resedit wrote:

Creationist AD 1859 wrote:

Creationist AD ~1900 wrote:

Creationist AD ~1980 wrote:

Creationist AD ~1990 wrote:

Creationist AD ~2005 wrote:

#191 2005-08-29 8:39 pm

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.

Hank Rearden wrote:

resedit wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

#192 2005-08-29 8:43 pm

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.

Hank Rearden wrote:

Creationist AD 1859 wrote:

Creationist AD ~1900 wrote:

Creationist AD ~1980 wrote:

Creationist AD ~1990 wrote:

Creationist AD ~2005 wrote:

#193 2005-08-29 8:59 pm

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.

#194 2005-08-29 10:43 pm

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.

resedit wrote:

resedit wrote:

resedit wrote:

#195 2005-08-30 12:24 am

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.

#196 2005-08-30 1:25 am

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.

#197 2005-08-30 2:14 am

Re: Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Darwinism. Etc.