Evolution and Information Theory

[Fake Dr. Sullivan]

Its important to notate that Evolution requires an increase in the amount of information of a genome, and we simply do not see that anywhere.

 

I'll give you an example that is commonly used for Evolution and is not truely Evolution. Antibacterial resistance. When bacteria becomes immune to penicillin, it doesn't become something new for one, it simply produces a lot of penicilllinase. After the massive amounts of producing the penicillinase, it will become immune to the penicillin, however, when put back into the wild, the bacteria will die off, as it is not fit to survive. The same would be said of the rabies virus if your example were to actually occur.

[Sisyphus]

Its important to notate that Evolution requires an increase in the amount of information of a genome, and we simply do not see that anywhere.

 

Neither of those statements is accurate.

[Fake Dr. Sullivan]

Neither of those statements is accurate.

 

 

Where then do you suppose is my statement inaccurate?

 

I've been approached with objections to that statement within my field of study from many different angles and still come to that same conclusion after a further review of the evidence. It has convinced several of my colleagues to undermine their view of Evolution and become Creation Scientists instead.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Neither of those statements is accurate.

 

One thing I notice Evolution advocates like to do is question whether a Creation Scientist is a scientist. So....maybe I should turn the tables here. Are you a Scientist Sisyphus?

[Mr Skeptic]

I've yet to see any creationist who can explain why the retroviral DNA embedded in our DNA looks like the retroviral DNA embedded in other primates' DNA.

[Fake Dr. Sullivan]

I've yet to see any creationist who can explain why the retroviral DNA embedded in our DNA looks like the retroviral DNA embedded in other primates' DNA.

 

The immediate conclusion is to assume we're related right? Homology doesn't prove common ancestry. If I were to walk down the straight and say, "Wow...that pig looks just like you" (God willing would hope that not to be the case), that wouldn't prove you were related to the pig.

 

We have other problems morphologically with apes being similar to us, our DNA structure is only 93% related, which when looking at information theory, thats a significant difference and the fact that the learning curves of apes is significantly lower than that of a parrot.

 

Beyond this, to get back to your question, since the alleged junk dna argument is evaporating in front of us since the similar sequences are being found to have purposes, this has become a nonissue for Creation Science.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Fake Dr. Sullivan

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This has been split to its own thread for sanity.

[Mr Skeptic]

Beyond this, to get back to your question, since the alleged junk dna argument is evaporating in front of us since the similar sequences are being found to have purposes, this has become a nonissue for Creation Science.

 

Agreed; the DNA in question is definitely not junk. It is retroviral, and the researchers revived a virus constructed from it. How is it a non-issue though?

[foodchain]

I would think information theory in context of biological stuff is at best extraneous. I mean an amoeba has a huge genome, and then again is this a question of a single gene, or at some other level like epigenetic. You also have to factor in egg laying mammals or Monotremata, the discoveries made in evo devo are also surprising. Why do amphibians have the amount of gene stuff that reptiles don’t, or why the need for a lungfish, or dinosaurs, or in all reality why the need for evolution period if its all just the work of some intelligent creator. You instantly fall into stuff that can’t be probed by science is all, and we end up with global warming being tied quantitatively to declines in pirate populations.

[Jack Sullivan]

The OP has been perpetrated by a fraud. That is my picture and my persona. I'm a professor at the University of Idaho in evolutionary biology and have alerted the University attorney that the person posting as "Dr. Sullivan" has engaged in illegal use of an image owned by UofI.

 

There is no better example of both the intellectual and ethical bankruptcy of the creation "science" movement. Pathetic.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If so, could you please respond directly to the email I sent to your University of Idaho address? I can see that you are who you say you are, and I'd like to help in any way possible. We do not promote fraud here.

 

We can discuss what measures should be taken and any other details via email.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Cap'n Refsmmat
verified

[Moontanman]

It smelled like a week old fish from the beginning to me, lol

[Jack Sullivan]

I replied to that e-mail yesterday. It speaks well of this site that it's self-policing. Tnx.

[Pangloss]

Sorry you had to get into this, but we appreciate you coming by to take care of it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I replied to that e-mail yesterday. It speaks well of this site that it's self-policing. Tnx.

 

I'm sorry; I don't seem to have received the mail. Could you please resend it?

 

I do hope I didn't break the mail system. I tinkered with it a bit yesterday and perhaps something went wrong...

[Genecks]

This has been split to its own thread for sanity.

 

What thread was this broken-off from?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This one.

[Genecks]

I thought so. Interesting.

[toastywombel]

I got the email from Jack Sullivan, if you haven't already received it.

[pioneer]

Say there was a pandemic, where some virus was inserted into the DNA of a scattering of humans world wide. This would not be useful evidence to show that they all had a common ancestor, since the insertion could occur in months and not require millions of years of breeding. This common feature, if equated to evolution, would imply viral information is one of the many tools of evolution. It is good way to lengthen the DNA for future junk gene features and/or as clay for future changes. Every flu season some humans get more DNA information (times millions years).

 

Say we had a viral pandemic, like AIDS, which started with the monkeys and drifted to humans. Eventually both critters built up an immunity. This does not have to mean humans and apes swung from the same tree, except maybe on a particular day. I am not saying we don't have a common ancestor. This is not smoking gun proof since alternate scenarios are all around us.

[foodchain]

Say there was a pandemic, where some virus was inserted into the DNA of a scattering of humans world wide. This would not be useful evidence to show that they all had a common ancestor, since the insertion could occur in months and not require millions of years of breeding. This common feature, if equated to evolution, would imply viral information is one of the many tools of evolution. It is good way to lengthen the DNA for future junk gene features and/or as clay for future changes. Every flu season some humans get more DNA information (times millions years).

 

Say we had a viral pandemic, like AIDS, which started with the monkeys and drifted to humans. Eventually both critters built up an immunity. This does not have to mean humans and apes swung from the same tree, except maybe on a particular day. I am not saying we don't have a common ancestor. This is not smoking gun proof since alternate scenarios are all around us.

 

Viruses can also mutate.

 

I am not trying to knock info theory, just that maybe biology currently has a working scientific framework, that can be used to further understanding. I mean if we look at it in a pragmatic way is all.

 

Lets take each organism as a bit of noise then, thats a lot of noise right, so how would you try to determine then something empirical, physical and or real, or scientifically valid about life giving all organisms through time and everything used in the science of evolutionary theory like fossils or molecular avenues.

 

Maybe current science in biology is working, and I don't see the need to wrap it in extraneous extra layers of abstraction. I have already seen all the stuff you can prove with math, and then there is reality and that whole conundrum that is talked about in many circles. I think it would be safe to assume that in time current physical models of things like gravity will change, using differing or various equations not used now, but in the end you still have to realize that the math is a layer of abstraction, and you have to empirically or lab experiment verify things. Else I would think modern books would say string theory is the scientific truth of things. To me and the reason I really like the field is biology is dogmatically empirical to the best extent it can be, from ecology down to molecules, its all been beaten to death in real world lab experiments and is not simply based on equations and philosophy behind them. I think such behavior is the hallmark of good science, and currently evolution has a mountain of such science as support. Even after how many years of basic denial, and or hatred really towards it from a variety of people and groups, even within science.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I got the email from Jack Sullivan, if you haven't already received it.

 

Ah, so that was you. Well, it's not really important unless there were specific requests ("remove his posts or I sue").

[Mr Skeptic]

Well it probably wouldn't hurt to put (impersonator) after the name instead of just (banned)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

In the best traditions of Fake Steve Jobs, we now have Fake Dr. Sullivan. That should clear things up.

[StrontiDog]

Let's face it. . .

 

Information Theory, like a lot of other Creationist 'Science', is just a bugaboo to try and fool the nonscience-oriented public that Evolution is a political issue that is not well understood or well documented.

 

And it works, I have many Creationist friends. They are good people who don't have the time to (or want to spend the time to) sort through all the crap, including the real disagreement amongst the scientific community, so they just vote with their feelings, their beliefs, and their preconceptions.

 

The same thing is happening with climate change. Which is silly, at best. Best argument I've heard for that one is. . .

 

If global warming weren't real, we'd still be in the FIRST ice age. What have we had. . .ten, that we know of? It's real, it's happening. Get a life.

 

The whole point of the whole Creationist movement is to confuse the issue. . .and it works. Good job, by the way. Even thinking people of faith are torn. I assume that was the point.

 

But this place, Dr. Sullivan, is the wrong demographic. Peddle your wares on the Christian Science Monitor Blogs. You'll get tons of folks telling you that you're saving the world for the American Way. As if that was any better than any other.

 

I've been reading your stuff since before you put the "The Fake' before your screen name. You're better than most. You actually know some science, and therefore, we're trying to actually answer your assertions.

 

I don't see you making much headway, though, do you?

 

Bill Wolfe

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Well, it certainly helps that we found the real Dr. Sullivan. Fake Dr. Sullivan is indeed a liar trying to manipulate people into believing their is disagreement in the scientific world. I have banned him from posting, and changed his name, for that reason.

 

Perhaps I should go looking around to see if he's trying the same tactic on other forums, and warn the moderators if he is. I don't like this strategy at all. If you have to resort to lying and cheating to make your point -- and fail, at that -- is your point really worth making?