Links Missing or non-existing?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Have you suddenly become very grumpy lately?

 

Please. You could explain your position instead of grumpily stating "these statements are false" and leaving without explanation.

[Mr Skeptic]

Please. You could explain your position instead of grumpily stating "these statements are false" and leaving without explanation.

 

I already did, previously. Read the post immediately above that one, and you will see what I was responding to. Re the goal that Edtharan claimed vs the statements he actually made.

[mooeypoo]

What, now you don't know the difference between math and science?

Obviously I am not in total agreement with you, while knowing the differences between math and science. I was hoping I could get an explanation from you so I am either convinced or so I know what to refute.

[liarliarpof]

This 'Show Me The Money!!' ploy by Intelligent Design promoters is already tiresome and haggard. If you are genuinely interested in the science of it, check out 'Molecular Phylogeny'- The long sought TESTABLE Theory of Evolution, now at hand.

[Moontanman]

Blood_pardon, what would you expect to see as a transitional fossil species? Exactly what would a transitional fossil or transitional species look like. I think it's fair to ask what you would see as evidence of a transitional species.

[StrontiDog]

There are 3 possibillitys concerning our existance.

#1 either we evolved from a lower life form or

#2 we were seeded here by a superintelegenc from other planet or

#3 We were created,

Nobody I mean Noone can say for shure but only speculate

 

Actually, there are a few things we're sure about.

 

First of all, it's a mistake to ever say 'lower life form'. From an evolutionary standpoint, it's just a different life form. Everybody talks about the monkeys, well...forget the monkeys. If you go back far enough, we share a common ancestor with every mammal that exists. The same single ancestor species evolved into wombats and sperm whales and kangaroos and mice and humans.

 

That ancestor species may well be considered more complex--for those who try to determine these things--than some of its descendents. Wouldn't that make it a 'higher' life form?

 

And no, folks using the tool of science cannot say that some magical being didn't wave its appendages and pop the entire universe into existence, as is. But if it did, it took the time and effort to make it look like these things came about over a really long period of time and using nothing but natural and explainable phenomena.

 

Why would it do such a thing? You're going to have to ask the magical being about that, it doesn't talk to me.

 

If we were 'seeded' by some less-than-godlike creature, it must have done so really early, because we sure look like we evolved along with the rest of the flora and fauna on the planet. (With a few exceptions living around volcanic vents and such.)

 

 

The point is, the natural phenomenon called evolution is happening now, we're sure of that. We've seen it happen and have come a long way toward explaining how. And it doesn't have a 'direction.'

 

Bill Wolfe

[Fake Dr. Sullivan]

Actually, there are a few things we're sure about.

 

First of all, it's a mistake to ever say 'lower life form'. From an evolutionary standpoint, it's just a different life form. Everybody talks about the monkeys, well...forget the monkeys. If you go back far enough, we share a common ancestor with every mammal that exists. The same single ancestor species evolved into wombats and sperm whales and kangaroos and mice and humans.

 

That ancestor species may well be considered more complex--for those who try to determine these things--than some of its descendents. Wouldn't that make it a 'higher' life form?

 

And no, folks using the tool of science cannot say that some magical being didn't wave its appendages and pop the entire universe into existence, as is. But if it did, it took the time and effort to make it look like these things came about over a really long period of time and using nothing but natural and explainable phenomena.

 

Why would it do such a thing? You're going to have to ask the magical being about that, it doesn't talk to me.

 

If we were 'seeded' by some less-than-godlike creature, it must have done so really early, because we sure look like we evolved along with the rest of the flora and fauna on the planet. (With a few exceptions living around volcanic vents and such.)

 

 

The point is, the natural phenomenon called evolution is happening now, we're sure of that. We've seen it happen and have come a long way toward explaining how. And it doesn't have a 'direction.'

 

Bill Wolfe

 

The DNA theory actually is a solid refutation of Evolution. We see no increases of information that allow a single celled organism to become a different kind of organism. After having studied Information theory, I have become aware of that, and if you'd like may actually be able to refer to you some information that is of value.

[insane_alien]

The DNA theory actually is a solid refutation of Evolution. We see no increases of information that allow a single celled organism to become a different kind of organism.

 

actually, this is seen all the time.

 

After having studied Information theory, I have become aware of that, and if you'd like may actually be able to refer to you some information that is of value.

 

oh really. i'm sure that with your studies of information theory you have come across stochastic optimisation right?

 

you know where there is an entropy source(a random number generator for a computer, mutations for an organism) that allows you to get information about the function, namely the maximum/minimum/zero or whatever you are looking for.

 

same thing applies to evolution. if you cannot see this then i don't believe you have studied information theory at all. or if you have then you certainly didn't understand it.

[Fake Dr. Sullivan]

actually, this is seen all the time.

 

I've been in Biology for over a decade and I haven't seen one. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

 

 

oh really. i'm sure that with your studies of information theory you have come across stochastic optimisation right?

 

you know where there is an entropy source(a random number generator for a computer, mutations for an organism) that allows you to get information about the function, namely the maximum/minimum/zero or whatever you are looking for.

 

same thing applies to evolution. if you cannot see this then i don't believe you have studied information theory at all. or if you have then you certainly didn't understand it.

 

Well, I've studied what Dawkins or Xia have to say on this......but I highly disagree with their studies. Their counterparts do not supply real models, and their vague hypotheses lack sufficient detail and relevance to real chemistry and biology to permit serious discussion or testable experiments. Your dilemma is false. Just because I don't agree with what you "see" doesn't mean I haven't studied information theory.

[insane_alien]

you do know evolution has been observed in the lab right?

[Fake Dr. Sullivan]

you do know evolution has been observed in the lab right?

 

Of course all the time

 

There has never been an increase of DNA information observed in a lab. We have seen Speciation occur. We see Variation occur. And we see Natural Selection occur. But never Evolution.

[insane_alien]

you seem to have a wrong definition for evolution.

 

evolution is a change in the allele frequency over time. it doesn't require an increase of information(although that can and does happen)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Of course all the time

 

There has never been an increase of DNA information observed in a lab. We have seen Speciation occur. We see Variation occur. And we see Natural Selection occur. But never Evolution.

 

I attended a lecture just a few weeks ago on observed speciation in mosquitoes, from a team at the University of Texas at Austin.

 

A graduate student took a trek through part of Africa, capturing mosquito samples every few dozen miles. These mosquitoes were all part of one particular species, but of course there were mutations between particular mosquitoes. Specifically, some mosquitoes had part of their DNA "inverted" -- it was in the chromosome backwards. It was a common mutation.

 

Next, they observed the mosquitoes mating between each other. Somehow, that mutation expressed something that the mosquitoes could notice: the vast majority of the time, those with the inversion mated with each other and not other mosquitoes. Now, a few mated with other mosquitoes, but most didn't.

 

What will this lead to? In perhaps just a few hundred more generations, those mosquitoes won't be mating with the other groups at all. They'll only mate with ones sharing their own mutations -- and the group will have developed its own specific mutations and characteristics as well. As we watch, they're becoming a new species.

 

Now, this isn't published yet: when I attended the lecture, the data was just a few weeks old. As for interesting published material, try this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

 

Bacteria suddenly evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, an ability they did not have at all before. A new ability developed in the lab, under our noses.

[Fake Dr. Sullivan]

I attended a lecture just a few weeks ago on observed speciation in mosquitoes, from a team at the University of Texas at Austin.

 

A graduate student took a trek through part of Africa, capturing mosquito samples every few dozen miles. These mosquitoes were all part of one particular species, but of course there were mutations between particular mosquitoes. Specifically, some mosquitoes had part of their DNA "inverted" -- it was in the chromosome backwards. It was a common mutation.

 

Next, they observed the mosquitoes mating between each other. Somehow, that mutation expressed something that the mosquitoes could notice: the vast majority of the time, those with the inversion mated with each other and not other mosquitoes. Now, a few mated with other mosquitoes, but most didn't.

 

What will this lead to? In perhaps just a few hundred more generations, those mosquitoes won't be mating with the other groups at all. They'll only mate with ones sharing their own mutations -- and the group will have developed its own specific mutations and characteristics as well. As we watch, they're becoming a new species.

 

Now, this isn't published yet: when I attended the lecture, the data was just a few weeks old. As for interesting published material, try this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

 

Bacteria suddenly evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, an ability they did not have at all before. A new ability developed in the lab, under our noses.

 

This is old hat though, the bacteria evolving the ability to metabolize citrate goes back to Richard Lenski. The citric acid, TCA or Krebs cycle generate and utililze citrate in its normal oxidative metabolism of glucose and other carbohydrates. So no new ability has developed at all.

 

Secondly, not doubting speciation occurs, it does.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

you seem to have a wrong definition for evolution.

 

evolution is a change in the allele frequency over time. it doesn't require an increase of information(although that can and does happen)

 

Gee, if thats all it is, then Creation Science and Evolution agree. That doesn't make a lot of sense. Where did you get this definition?

 

What you've provided is a definition of Variation, not Evolution. This is a common equivocation.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I attended a lecture just a few weeks ago on observed speciation in mosquitoes, from a team at the University of Texas at Austin.

 

A graduate student took a trek through part of Africa, capturing mosquito samples every few dozen miles. These mosquitoes were all part of one particular species, but of course there were mutations between particular mosquitoes. Specifically, some mosquitoes had part of their DNA "inverted" -- it was in the chromosome backwards. It was a common mutation.

 

Next, they observed the mosquitoes mating between each other. Somehow, that mutation expressed something that the mosquitoes could notice: the vast majority of the time, those with the inversion mated with each other and not other mosquitoes. Now, a few mated with other mosquitoes, but most didn't.

 

What will this lead to? In perhaps just a few hundred more generations, those mosquitoes won't be mating with the other groups at all. They'll only mate with ones sharing their own mutations -- and the group will have developed its own specific mutations and characteristics as well. As we watch, they're becoming a new species.

 

Now, this isn't published yet: when I attended the lecture, the data was just a few weeks old. As for interesting published material, try this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

 

Bacteria suddenly evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, an ability they did not have at all before. A new ability developed in the lab, under our noses.

 

Before I forget, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic circumstances with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. There is a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell. The suite of genes is normally activated undera naerobic conditions.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Fake Dr. Sullivan
Consecutive posts merged.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This is old hat though, the bacteria evolving the ability to metabolize citrate goes back to Richard Lenski. The citric acid, TCA or Krebs cycle generate and utililze citrate in its normal oxidative metabolism of glucose and other carbohydrates. So no new ability has developed at all.

So why did the bacteria not exhibit the ability at all before the change occurred? Let's quote the original paper by Lenski:

 

The inability to use citrate as an energy source under oxic conditions has long been a defining characteristic of E. coli as a species (35, 36). Nevertheless, E. coli is not wholly indifferent to citrate. It uses a ferric dicitrate transport system for iron acquisition, although citrate does not enter the cell in this process (37, 38). It also has a complete tricarboxylic acid cycle, and can thus metabolize citrate internally during aerobic growth on other substrates (39). E. coli is able to ferment citrate under anoxic conditions if a cosubstrate is available for reducing power (40). The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions (41–43). Indeed, atypical E. coli that grow aerobically on citrate (Cit+) have been isolated from agricultural and clinical settings, and were found to harbor plasmids, presumably acquired from other species, that encode citrate transporters (44, 45).

 

You can see that while citrate could be used internally, the cells had not been able to use outside citrate as an energy source before.

 

Also note:

E. coli cells cannot grow on citrate under oxic conditions, and that inability has long been viewed as a defining characteristic of this important, diverse, and widespread species. In a long-term experiment, we propagated 12 populations of E. coli, all founded from the same ancestral strain, in a medium containing glucose, which is the limiting resource, and abundant citrate. For more than 30,000 generations, none of them evolved the capacity to use the citrate, although billions of mutations occurred in each population, such that any typical base pair mutation would have been tested many times in each one. It is clearly very difficult for E. coli to evolve this function. In fact, the mutation rate of the ancestral strain from Cit− to Cit+ is immeasurably low; even the upper bound is 3.6 × 10⁻¹³ per cell generation, which is three orders of magnitude below the typical base pair mutation rate. Nevertheless, one population eventually evolved the Cit+ function, whereas all of the others remain Cit− after more than 40,000 generations.

 

This was not just the cell having a small mutation and suddenly using its existing mechanisms to metabolize outside citrate. It was a complex development.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full

[Fake Dr. Sullivan]

So why did the bacteria not exhibit the ability at all before the change occurred? Let's quote the original paper by Lenski:

 

 

 

You can see that while citrate could be used internally, the cells had not been able to use outside citrate as an energy source before.

 

Also note:

 

 

This was not just the cell having a small mutation and suddenly using its existing mechanisms to metabolize outside citrate. It was a complex development.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full

 

Mutations jammed the regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produced citrate transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacterium’s environment (that is, it is permanently switched on). This can be likened to having a light that switches on when the sun goes down—a sensor detects the lack of light and turns the light on. A fault in the sensor could result in the light being on all the time. That is the sort of change we are talking about.

[Sisyphus]

Sullivan, since your disagreement seems to come down to whether there is ever an increase in "information," it might save some time if you tell us how you are using the term. Specifically, how do you respond to the talkorigins page addressing this argument:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

[Fake Dr. Sullivan]

Sullivan, since your disagreement seems to come down to whether there is ever an increase in "information," it might save some time if you tell us how you are using the term. Specifically, how do you respond to the talkorigins page addressing this argument:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

 

The first point is a bunch of jibber jabber. Just asserting that he's right without evidence. I also don't know any serious Creation Scientist who affirms the mutations are random noise, but rather they are destruction of information. Also the point that Evolution can not increase information is misleading. Thats the whole thing we're trying to prove. Evolution has not shown an increase in information, and information theory has determined that its impossible for increases of information to occur would be a better way of stating the argument. Essentially Talk Origins argument is a strawman, however, we'll proceed.

 

no. 2 refers to gene duplication. Thats just photocopying information. If you ever take a Biology course, and you have a paper on Evolution due, you should ask your professor whether or not turning it into him twice will earn you extra credit.

 

no. 3 refers to Shannon theory, which leaves out a lot of stuff later figured out by Dr. Gitt. It also infers the horrible idea that information can be obtained from the environment.....however thats supposed to happen. Dawkins had the same problem in his explanation on information theory. Nothing new we haven't addressed.

 

no. 4 selection and mutation have never been observed to increase information. Nice assertion, but no evidence to back it up.

[Sisyphus]

The first point is a bunch of jibber jabber. Just asserting that he's right without evidence. I also don't know any serious Creation Scientist who affirms the mutations are random noise, but rather they are destruction of information. Also the point that Evolution can not increase information is misleading. Thats the whole thing we're trying to prove. Evolution has not shown an increase in information, and information theory has determined that its impossible for increases of information to occur would be a better way of stating the argument. Essentially Talk Origins argument is a strawman, however, we'll proceed.

 

It doesn't sound like jibber jabber to me. In fact, it seems downright illustrated by the fact that you haven't answered the question of how you're defining "information" in the context of evolution. It even offers four potential definitions, with cited examples of each.

 

no. 2 refers to gene duplication. Thats just photocopying information. If you ever take a Biology course, and you have a paper on Evolution due, you should ask your professor whether or not turning it into him twice will earn you extra credit.

 

That's not an apt analogy, though. More like copying the paper, and letting each be altered independently. Obviously you've increased the total amount of information.

 

no. 3 refers to Shannon theory, which leaves out a lot of stuff later figured out by Dr. Gitt. It also infers the horrible idea that information can be obtained from the environment.....however thats supposed to happen. Dawkins had the same problem in his explanation on information theory. Nothing new we haven't addressed.

 

Do explain. "How it's supposed to happen" is the simply random mutation filtered by natural selection, surely. And not that I'm familiar with Dr. Gitt's work, but from a cursory search it seems the consensus is that he's a quack. Not that that in itself proves him wrong, but it does make an unexplained argument from authority even less convincing.

 

no. 4 selection and mutation have never been observed to increase information. Nice assertion, but no evidence to back it up.

 

The claim is referenced. How is there no evidence to back it up?

[Fake Dr. Sullivan]

It doesn't sound like jibber jabber to me. In fact, it seems downright illustrated by the fact that you haven't answered the question of how you're defining "information" in the context of evolution. It even offers four potential definitions, with cited examples of each.

 

Remember I've already demonstrated that this is a strawman argument.

 

That's not an apt analogy, though. More like copying the paper, and letting each be altered independently. Obviously you've increased the total amount of information.

Its illogical to assume this happens without a mechanism to do it. If you're to infer that mutations are occurring, the observed cases we have always infer a destruction of the information content. Not to mention, there would still only be already existing information being altered in your example above, so no new information or function being added. Just mutations leading to a decrease in information content as usual, because mutations lead to disease. Otherwise gene duplication is simply duplicating genes. Not that much to it.

 

 

 

Do explain. "How it's supposed to happen" is the simply random mutation filtered by natural selection, surely. And not that I'm familiar with Dr. Gitt's work, but from a cursory search it seems the consensus is that he's a quack. Not that that in itself proves him wrong, but it does make an unexplained argument from authority even less convincing.

 

Really a quack? He at least gets it right that information is stored within genes, and not from some random outside source within the environment. You're making it sound like natural selection is now a creative process. Where did this creative process come from all of a sudden? Nothing about natural selection makes it a creative process. Its a destructive process, and nothing else. This we have tested time and time again in the lab as well as in field research.

 

 

The claim is referenced. How is there no evidence to back it up?

No examples of how it happens are given.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Fake Dr. Sullivan

[Sisyphus]

So you're not going to answer the question? Please define "information," as you are using it. Otherwise your primary claim is literally meaningless.

 

re: duplication, if you accept that information can be copied, and that the copies can be altered independently, then you have already accepted that the total amount of information can increase. Pick 4 random letters. ABCD. Copy them. ABCDABCD. Allow them to freely "mutate." EFGHIJKL. How is EFGHIJKL not more information than ABCD? But then, maybe I'm misinterpreting, since you haven't yet actually said what you mean by "information."

[Fake Dr. Sullivan]

So you're not going to answer the question? Please define "information," as you are using it. Otherwise your primary claim is literally meaningless.

 

re: duplication, if you accept that information can be copied, and that the copies can be altered independently, then you have already accepted that the total amount of information can increase. Pick 4 random letters. ABCD. Copy them. ABCDABCD. Allow them to freely "mutate." EFGHIJKL. How is EFGHIJKL not more information than ABCD? But then, maybe I'm misinterpreting, since you haven't yet actually said what you mean by "information."

 

Gitt's Theorem 9 states "Only that which contains semantics is information." By restricting information to a statistical level you fall into the trap of Shannon's Theory. Shannon's information is not a measure of information but a measure of the minimum number of characters/units needed to represent a sequence regardless of whether the sequence is meaningful or not. If the two sequences presented were composed randomly it is unlikely that they would contain any information at all. Also different organisms are affected in different ways too.

 

Basically on your example, it would help to know what the meaning was from a Syntax level, Apobetics level, a pragmatics level and a semantics level.

 

The second point to address is thats not what happens in mutations. When genes are altered the function goes from "This truck is red" becomes "This truck is bed" which is meaningless......or neutral changes in information. We also observe changes in DNA that can lead to negative consequences, which alters the DNA and leads to genetic mutations and eventually diseases within the genome and losses of information. Beneficial mutations would be the equivalent normality of a neutrality of change within the DNA.

[Sisyphus]

It isn't random, though. It's random mutation, filtered by natural selection. By necessity, what is "meaningful," i.e. what leads to an increase in fitness, is what remains. Ergo, more "meaningful information" than you started with.

 

And again, an otherwise unsupported argument from authority is never a valid argument, let alone when the authority has as little credibility as the one you cite.

[Fake Dr. Sullivan]

It isn't random, though. It's random mutation, filtered by natural selection. By necessity, what is "meaningful," i.e. what leads to an increase in fitness, is what remains. Ergo, more "meaningful information" than you started with.

 

And again, an otherwise unsupported argument from authority is never a valid argument, let alone when the authority has as little credibility as the one you cite.

 

I understand what Evolution is. The rest of your statement is an attempt at circular reasoning. There is no increase in fitness. Thats the point I'm driving at, we don't observe that. Natural Selection is a conservative process that leads to extinction of species, not a more "meaningful information" driven by an increase in information. This doesn't solve your dilemma because you don't get lost information back. Its not a refined species as you'd like to think, its information that needs to be there for the organism to function properly. It leads to deformities and diseases within an organism's structure.

 

Dr. Werner Gitt is a very credible source. He was the director of the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology and is the head of the Department of Information Technology.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Fake Dr. Sullivan

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

An engineer is a credible source on evolutionary theory? Interesting.