Jump to content


Photo

Increase In Information By Mutations?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
41 replies to this topic

#21 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:10 AM


I went on line to see if I could view some actual electron microscope images of genetic code. I must confess I could n't extract any information to build whatever from what I saw. Correct me if I am wrong but, I thought DNA was chemical as well as contained information--information on how to build an organism. If so, what reads the code to direct the building of the organism? I assumed that life read the code?

Like you said, every time we read write etc... we are using code driven my an intelligent force (us). Shannon argues that a disturbed signal contains more informatio. Dembski further clarifies how to detect intelligent design by the level of organization (distubance)something has--as opposed to natural forces of erosion caused by wind, rain, sunlight etc. Therefore, if we were crossing a desert and viewed a rectangular building say a hundred stories tall in front of us then our mind would supect intelligence had caused the building to be there. I noticed that squares, rectangles, and semi circles, are rarely found naturally occuring.


Ribosomes read the code and the protein formed undergoes it's assigned task/a

The problem with the above argument is that a transitional is supposed to be the bridge that allows new information to be transmitted to and create the new species. we are not reproductively copatible with apes.

again I think it suspicious that so many common ancestors are absent.

Returning to my op, the evolution mechanism of mutation and naturalm selection suffers from a credibility problem--whether it is capable of originating information IN not only one but several systems at he same time. .

Take the would need to be be numerous precise micro streams of change going on concurrently (for phenotype change) i.e bone consruction change (bird bones are hollow), respiration systemchanges, joint changes, muscle change, vision sytems changes, long range navigation sytems--even the ability to fly in formation which improves flying efficiency. Doubtless there are other system not mentioned. The mutations to produce all these changes would need to be takingm place at nearly the same time and still keep the animal viable in the present otherwise we would never get a bird. This is an incredible demand on random mutation and consquent natural selection.

What is, again, conspicuously absent are transitionals which would have to be fit enough to reproduce--presenting the question of why in so many species today transitionals are absent.


Indeed

It would if everything in our DNA was functional and every mutation made a difference. As it stands however mutations usually have no noticable difference (even when deleting millions of "letters" from an animal's genetic "code" to see what will happen). Creationists assume that because, according to their worldview, life was designed the way we would design a clock that it's designed the way we design a clock - where everything has it's place and purpose and if you remove one gear or cog the whole thing comes grinding to a halt. This is why for decades they promoted the lie that all mutations cause harm.

If they'd started out actually looking at nature instead of making assumptions based on their ideology they never would've reached such a foolish conclusion. There are something like 150 genetic mutations per person per generation average (more as you age). An older man can pass a thousand or more mutations to their kids. They do not pass a thousand birth defects to their kids.


I believe currently scientists have found that at least 80% of DNA has function, despite that the amount of coding DNA is less than a fifth of this, ( can't remember the % off the top of my head ). Therefore evolutionists cannot hide behind the junk DNA excuse any more, I am sure with more study more functions will be found coming closer to 100% functionality as predicted by the creationist model.

Who here has stated that ALL mutations are harmful? Or is this your own strawman? The fact is that many mutations, and most that cause a functional difference are in fact detrimental, all genetic diseases are detrimental mutations, there are even seemingly benign mutations that result in a modified active site so the affinity of the.active site is lessened. Whilst such would be detrimental it wouldn't be detected.

Really? In my experience they don't like to talk about "information" because creationists insist no mutation counts as "information" and refuse to define "information".


Really.... And where has this happened? Or is this yet another strawman?

Genetic mutations and natural selection are natural forces too. Species are not eroded by the wind or rain. It's just ignoring some natural forces and embracing others.


And? How does embracing a more attuned active site for a specific protein lead to large scale structural change? No assumptions allowed.

The reason this is not a problem is that most mutations are neutral, they don't result in any significant change. Those that do are relatively rare, so every individual is not a random freak in 20 different ways, ie unsurvivable. Furthermore many traits can evolve simultaneously because of gene pools, think of natural selection like making spaghetti and using a strainer to separate useful mutations (noodles) from harmful ones (water). It's just a mechanism that continually removes harmful genetic variations and allows useful ones to accumulate freely.


How do traits "evolve" simultaneously, I saw no scientific Evidence whatsoever... Of evolution is held up on assumptions and analogies how can it be claimed to be scientific?

How is a trait selected for.when multiple mutations are required for the new system? Genetic drift would neuter the benign traits ergo without having all the mutations required for function happen at once there would be no selection and the initial trait would be lost before the next complementary one comes about.

Code is analogous to language. When you say "cat," you are using code which references all the information your hearer has about cats.

Pure information is a difficult thing to describe, at least in part be cause description requires language, aka "code." Here's a feeble attempt from me, a layman, based on my own understanding:

Imagine a cube of pure carbon, floating in interstellar space. That cube contains information about itself. It contains the information about how big it is, how dense it is, even the precise position of every single one of its atoms at any given time. Nobody needs to see or measure that cube in any way, ever, for that information to exist. The information is part of the cube, and cnnot be removed from the cube without destroying the cube.

Now, if you want to describe the cube to someone else, you have to use code. The cube is the size and density that it is, and will continue to be that size and density regardless of whether or not it is described. When you examine the cube and measure it, you are, in essence, extracting a copy of that information, in code form. You can now say "it is a 1-cm cube of carbon with a mass of 2.2 grams," which is code for the information that the cube contains. The cube would have been exactly what it is if you had never encountered it, and that information would have remained, uncoded, for as long as the cube existed.

Even the word "cube" is code. It's not a cube, it's a description of a cube.

-----------------

As to your "mutated code" example, it has no real bearing on information encoded in DNA. As aelyn noted, DNA uses a 4-molecule "language," which, in turn, "tells" a cell which proteins to build, and how. The mutations that happen in DNA are primarily of two types: substitution and duplication.

here's a primitive allegory:

CAT is a three-letter string. When replicated, it might be rendered as CAP (substitution) or CATCAT (duplication). Once duplicated, the CATCAT string will continue to be passed on, and will itself be subject to the possibility of substitution or duplication. So we might see this, over many generations (each line representing a generation) :

CAT
CAT
CAT
CAT
CAT
CAT
CATCAT
CATCAT
CATCAT
CATCAT
CATCAT
CATCAT
CATCAP
CATCAP
CATCAP

If each three-letter sequence is regarded as instructions for making something, then it becomes clear that CATCAP contains more information about making things than the original CAT did. Now we can make a cat, a cap, and even a cat's cap. :)/>/>


Looks great on paper, ever been tested in reality?

#22 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:01 AM

Duplication isn't new information. It is just doubling existing data.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#23 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 16 January 2013 - 05:31 PM

We need to remember that we are intelligent beings. It is difficult to imagine information utilization without intelligence and consciousness. For example,reading a book requires both learning (to know what information the code represents) and intelligence to synthesise new information from old. A "reader" requires intelligence for apobetics (Gitt).

#24 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:07 AM

Exactly, though whilst a Computer processes information, it itself is a machine designed from intelligence, meaning that there really is no way to avoid intelligence when dealing with information. Unless one wishes to take the blind faith option and believe, ( despite what we know from reality), that somehow information preceded intelligence.

#25 minecraftjosh

minecraftjosh

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Age: 13
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taif, Saudi Arabia

Posted 18 January 2013 - 05:16 PM

Exactly, though whilst a Computer processes information, it itself is a machine designed from intelligence, meaning that there really is no way to avoid intelligence when dealing with information. Unless one wishes to take the blind faith option and believe, ( despite what we know from reality), that somehow information preceded intelligence.


True. Besides, even if they could prove information preceded intelligence they still had to account for how big DNA is. You dont get billions of tiny bits of information grouped up by mere chance. has to be a designer, unless the atheist finds a way for nature to randomly chunk together huge bits of code.

also, it doesnt matter if genetic information can be increased. its still copies/modified copies of the original. How do scientists go from that to claiming that the eye had that huge evolution?

#26 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 19 January 2013 - 07:18 AM


True. Besides, even if they could prove information preceded intelligence they still had to account for how big DNA is. You dont get billions of tiny bits of information grouped up by mere chance. has to be a designer, unless the atheist finds a way for nature to randomly chunk together huge bits of code.

also, it doesnt matter if genetic information can be increased. its still copies/modified copies of the original. How do scientists go from that to claiming that the eye had that huge evolution?


Actually atheists do claim that mutation / genetic errors can result in an increase in genome size, they then add "millions of years" into the equation.

Information can only come from intelligence based on what information is by definition. Claiming the opposite would be akin to stating that squares don't have edges.



#27 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 19 January 2013 - 12:11 PM

Actually atheists do claim that mutation / genetic errors can result in an increase in genome size, they then add "millions of years" into the equation.

That would first only increase or change the data.

Can information come up by coincidence ? I'd say yes. although that's highly unlikely. Even if that is possible, the problem for Evolution remains in the fact that selection is discriminatory against bad data. So, if you'd need 10.000 changes to come up with something new and survivable, the lack of survivability inbetween becomes a problem to them.


Information can only come from intelligence based on what information is by definition. Claiming the opposite would be akin to stating that squares don't have edges.

That's the tricky part. and relates to the definition of information.

#28 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 19 January 2013 - 02:22 PM


That would first only increase or change the data.

Can information come up by coincidence ? I'd say yes. although that's highly unlikely. Even if that is possible, the problem for Evolution remains in the fact that selection is discriminatory against bad data. So, if you'd need 10.000 changes to come up with something new and survivable, the lack of survivability inbetween becomes a problem to them.


That's the tricky part. and relates to the definition of information.


Information doesn't come about via coincidence, since in order to perceive and thus make use of the information this requires intelligence hence how you cannot have information without intelligence, like how you cannot have a square without edges.

Relating to the cell, cellular systems of information are not limited to just DNA, that is the evolutionist dumbing the concept down in order to make it seen more believable. For example the ability of tRNA to bond to the required nucleotide requires inherent knowledge or information PRIOR to it's ability to perform it's function properly with the information in hand.

Another example would be the cascade signal systems used by each cell to adapt to changes in it's environment or changes within itself.

This requires:

Knowledge of the problem, ( eg- build more to ribosomes)
Knowledge of the effect which will fix.the problem
Knowledge of which gene sequence will supply the required effect
Knowledge of the signal systems which exist to turn the gene on and off


From this there are only two possibilities, either there was a designer that created these systems with his own intelligence, or that cells are sentient.... There is literally no other coherent explanation.



#29 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 19 January 2013 - 04:05 PM

Can a data set come about by a series of coincidences? I think yes. Assume that a data set has 10 letter digits

1234567890

Then it can randomly get a sequence like:

duebcyhskf

Correct?

#30 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 19 January 2013 - 06:47 PM


Can a data set come about by a series of coincidences? I think yes. Assume that a data set has 10 letter digits

1234567890

Then it can randomly get a sequence like:

duebcyhskf

Correct?


If you use the second sample then literally anything can be considered a "data set", however please keep in mind that information requires relevance and the necessity of being informative.

duebcyhskf ,an only be information if it has some form of relevance and has the ability to be informative. How do we assess something to be informative? With our intelligence, ergo intelligence or knowledge is required in the comprehension of the information. Which leads back to what I was saying.

An example, you can talk to me in German however since I have no previous knowledge of the German language your words will contain no information for me... Despite the fact that to someone who has the knowledge of comprehension the words will be quite informative. Thus as I said there needs to be PRIOR knowledge of the information behind the systems in the cell, this cannot be explained by a blind naturalistic mechanism.


However it sounds as if you are pro-evolution, despite what your profile states

#31 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 20 January 2013 - 02:57 AM

If you use the second sample then literally anything can be considered a "data set", however please keep in mind that information requires relevance and the necessity of being informative. duebcyhskf ,an only be information if it has some form of relevance and has the ability to be informative. How do we assess something to be informative? With our intelligence, ergo intelligence or knowledge is required in the comprehension of the information. Which leads back to what I was saying. ....

That's correct "duebcyhskf" is just a random dataset with each letter digit determined by a random process. It doesn't have any meaning as such, just each digits has some value (letter).

On the other hand a directed sentence of the same lenght "I am here." has got a concrete meaning. It is information.
I have written this sentence on purpose now. So it was made by an intelligent agent. Could it also have arisen by a random process?

#32 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 January 2013 - 05:17 AM


That's correct "duebcyhskf" is just a random dataset with each letter digit determined by a random process. It doesn't have any meaning as such, just each digits has some value (letter).

On the other hand a directed sentence of the same lenght "I am here." has got a concrete meaning. It is information.
I have written this sentence on purpose now. So it was made by an intelligent agent. Could it also have arisen by a random process?



There have been no observation that I have seen or heard of that can support the claim that natural processes can create meaningful information. Of course evolutionists like to postulate and make unsupported claims however such is not real science, it's merely guessing.

Perhaps gather a bunch of matchsticks and throw them in the air and see if they correctly align to create the sentence you made, with no matchstick out of place. Another test would be to comb the beaches looking for where the waves have written E=MC2 in the sand. I can assure you such a search is futile.

There was a random mutation generator using letters. You type a sentence in and click mutate and mutations inserted letters / space and deleted letters / spaces. You could set it to 10 mutations per click, after ten mutations the sentence was legible, after a hundred it was gibberish. This points out that in order to have meaningful information you need a whole lot of "correct" mutations with no detrimental ones. Such a thing is impossible due to the random nature of mutation. However I can already hear the zealots claim "natural selection". Firstly this us an evolutionists assumption, additionally selection only occurs when there is a selection gradient. Meaning that until all the correct mutations are in place there can be no increased fitness for selection, however in order to get this the incorrect mutations need to be removed, thus leading to a chicken and the egg conundrum. How can "natural selection" weed out thread mutations BEFORE there is a fitness benefit? Such a thing defies the evolutionists own rules of evolution.

#33 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 20 January 2013 - 06:31 AM

"i am there." can be generated by the same process as "duebcyhskf". But that's about it. As soon as more complexity is to be added some hurdles arise. We need to examine what does hurdles are and what their nature is.

#34 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 January 2013 - 08:15 AM

I already explained the problem. for the naturalist the randomness of mutation can only be countered with selection, however selection only occurs AFTER a fitness benefit has been created, however in order to get the fitness benefit the mutations need selection to remove the bad ones, leading to the chicken and the egg conundrum, which came first?

If only evolutionist didn't automatically assume natural selection and actually LOOK at the details, this problem would have been spotted long ago. It's a bit sad, for all the bluster about being logical such an elementary flaw has been looked over.


Additionally the formation of "I am there" is just as improbable as any other information bearing code, however this is forgetting about what I was saying about prior knowledge / intelligence being required.

Also you didn't answer my question about your fondness for evolutionary explanations despite your profile.

#35 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 20 January 2013 - 11:59 AM

.... Additionally the formation of "I am there" is just as improbable as any other information bearing code, however this is forgetting about what I was saying about prior knowledge / intelligence being required. Also you didn't answer my question about your fondness for evolutionary explanations despite your profile.


It is just as improbable or probable as any other combination.using the process that I described. "i am there." is just as probable "duebcyhskf"

#36 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 January 2013 - 03:25 PM


If you use the second sample then literally anything can be considered a "data set", however please keep in mind that information requires relevance and the necessity of being informative.

duebcyhskf ,an only be information if it has some form of relevance and has the ability to be informative. How do we assess something to be informative? With our intelligence, ergo intelligence or knowledge is requires in the comprehension of the information. Which leads back to what I was saying.

An example, you can talk to me in German however since I have no previous knowledge of the German language your words will contain no information for me... Despite the fact that to someone who has the knowledge of comprehension the words will be quite informative. Thus as I said there needs to be PRIOR knowledge of the information behind the systems in the cell, this cannot be explained by a blind naturalistic mechanism.


However it sounds as if you are pro-evolution, despite what your profile states


Read the above, the real problem is not whether some rendition of code can be formed but whether it is informative. I demonstrated that there needs to be prior knowledge of the information and it's purpose, ( as per the cell example). Such prior knowledge defies evolutionary claims that evolution doesn't think ahead or plan anything. Ergo evolution fails due to it's own inherent limitations to account for the prior knowledge

Now I will ask again, why are you pursuing the evolutionist perspective when your own profile class creationist? Looks suss that I have queried this a few times with no response.

#37 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 20 January 2013 - 11:58 PM

Read the above, the real problem is not whether some rendition of code can be formed but whether it is informative. I demonstrated that there needs to be prior knowledge of the information and it's purpose, ( as per the cell example). Such prior knowledge defies evolutionary claims that evolution doesn't think ahead or plan anything. Ergo evolution fails due to it's own inherent limitations to account for the prior knowledge Now I will ask again, why are you pursuing the evolutionist perspective when your own profile class creationist? Looks suss that I have queried this a few times with no response.

I am not pursuing an "evolutionist perspective". I just follow up the issue without bias. And there the data combinations are possible. They however lack the complexity and have no path to assemble. I think the real hurdle to Evolution lies there.

#38 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 21 January 2013 - 01:35 AM


I am not pursuing an "evolutionist perspective". I just follow up the issue without bias. And there the data combinations are possible. They however lack the complexity and have no path to assemble. I think the real hurdle to Evolution lies there.


Ergo the ability to be informative..

#39 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 22 January 2013 - 12:02 PM

Many books (code) sit on shelves for years . Inf ormation, it would seem, needs to be "read" (life) .by something that can do . Information (code) exists in a dead plant or animal. .We can see it with a Microscope. This leads me to the conclusion that intelligence is needed to process code.

We are intelligent but we can't code DNA. If we could, we could stoor all the code in all the books in the world in a space smaller than the head of a straight pin, What good is code without life intelligence).

Thus the question; Which came first-- code or belligerence?


  • Salsa and MarkForbes like this

#40 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:38 PM

There is another point. It's not just done by rolling the dice until you get a certain combination. There are other hurdles, too. The thread title also reads "increase in information". That means adding additional information to existing information. Something like adding a sonar sense to a whale.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users