Creation vs. Evolution

[Jose Fly]

Those who expected it were perhaps the ones who realized scientists such as J. Woodmorappe were correct.

No, I don't think any geneticist who published on pseudogenes ever even mentioned Woodmorappe.

Once again, your sleazy attempts to try and give creationists credit for the work of others is noted.

We should expect to find purpose...functionality and design.

So the function of exon regions of these pseudogenes that still don't code for proteins is......? And exactly what is the function of exons that code for amino acids, but don't go on to form proteins (e.g., due to a stop codon) and the amino acids are just re-digested by the cell?

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, you have found function, but only assumed purpose and design.

There are tens of thousands of pseudogenes in the human genome. A very small number (fewer than 100) have had their regulatory regions co-opted to regulate other genes, while the protein-coding regions remain non-functional.

Basically, 6days is citing the fact that a couple of needles have been found in a haystack as proof that all haystacks are entirely composed of needles.

 

[Yorzhik]

Except that Shannon applies to information transmitted via an actual transmission system where noise and errors are to be expected during transmission.

LOL. That's why you are so fun to talk with. Tell a molecular biologist that DNA doesn't use an actual transmission system :darwinsm:

When errors do occur then the information can be re-sent and the information fidelity is thus maintained.
Genetic transcription however is without a transmission system and is typically flawless, but when an error/change does occur it simply remains uncorrected, there is no correction process, no Shannon.

Really? No correction process? You're just too much. If there actually were a correction process, would you even be the tiniest bit swayed that perhaps your rock-solid confidence in common descent might not be quite as sure as you think?

Beyond that... there need not be a correction process in place for Shannon to apply.

Pontificating about Shannon in genetic transcription is imo a rather obvious disingenuous misapplication designed only to obfuscate not to clarify or show anything, iow it's all just smoke and mirrors.

I may be wrong that all you have is bovine scatterings Yorzhik if perhaps all you do have is the king's new clothes, i.e. nothing at all. lain:

Go talk to a molecular biologist and tell him there is no information transmission and no error correction in a cell. I'm sure they'll thank you for finally solving that mystery.

 

[Yorzhik]

Two things, Yorz.

First is that you have quote-mined the source (standard YEC deceit tactic). From Weaver's article,

The word information, in this theory, is used in a special sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning.

... which is exactly what I said.

The beginning of the paragraph you quoted from has this:

It is generally true that when there is noise, the received signal exhibits greater information - or better, the received signal is selected out of a more varied set than is the transmitted signal. This is a situation which beautifully illustrates the semantic trap into which one can fall if he does not remember that "information" is used here with a special meaning that measures freedom of choice and hence uncertainty as to what choice has been made. It is therefore possible for the word information to have either good or bad connotations.

So, unless you think that Weaver doesn't understand Shannon, then 'noise is information', and 'information can have good or bad connotations'.

YOU assume that all noise (mutation) is bad, whereas the knowledge that genomes are not the perfect and environments are not static tells us that there are mutations (new information) that could be beneficial.

Definition of quote-mining: a common descentist doesn't like a quote even when it is in context.

There is no doubt that Shannon cannot quantify meaning, and that's what he meant when they repeatedly said the theory did not include meaning. They also felt they didn't need to state that obvious, that noise could not add information to the message - but Weaver thought to mention it anyway. Thus, the quotation is not out of context which means I didn't quote mine.

Second: I keep asking, but you continually avoid answering clearly, where do you think you are going with this? What is it that you think Shannon Information Theory does to damage evolutionary theory? Without that information, this whole discussion is pointless.

I've answered it clearly 2 times. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean I haven't answered. Somehow some primitive protocell, the LUCA, had added to the information in it's genome (and other epigenetic information) all the information for all the diversity of life on earth today. You can claim its true, but you have to do so knowing that Shannon applies to messages in a cell just like every other message. And then you also have to give us evidence how adding noise to a message doesn't lower the information in the result.

 

[Yorzhik]

Actually you're wrong. The host of heaven in Genesis is simply referring to the stars and what have you. Angels were around for millions of years prior to the creation of man and the recreation of the earth in Genesis 1:2. There is an unknown length of time between verse 1 and 2 in Genesis. Dinosaurs existed when Satan ruled on the earth before humans were created.

Do you have something to back up your interpretation of the bible on this topic?

Science says, and also agrees with a biblical interpretation that the solar system and the earth were created in 6 24 hour days.

 

[Jonahdog]

Do you have something to back up your interpretation of the bible on this topic?

Science says, and also agrees with a biblical interpretation that the solar system and the earth were created in 6 24 hour days.

Science says? Who is getting the Nobel for that one?

 

[Jose Fly]

Somehow some primitive protocell, the LUCA, had added to the information in it's genome (and other epigenetic information) all the information for all the diversity of life on earth today.

More claims about additions of "genetic information", yet you still can't provide a means by which we can tell which of two genomes has more "genetic information".

We can even start with a specific example. The domestic onion has a genome of about 16 billion base pairs. The human genome has about 3 billion base pairs.

How do we tell which of the two has more "genetic information"?

Science says, and also agrees with a biblical interpretation that the solar system and the earth were created in 6 24 hour days.

"Science says"? How are you determining what science does or doesn't "say"?

 

[6days]

Actually you're wrong. The host of heaven in Genesis is simply referring to the stars and what have you. Angels were around for millions of years prior to the creation of man and the recreation of the earth in Genesis 1:2. There is an unknown length of time between verse 1 and 2 in Genesis. Dinosaurs existed when Satan ruled on the earth before humans were created.

Ex. 20:11 suggests otherwise. Nothing in therw about angels existing before creation.

 

[alwight]

LOL. That's why you are so fun to talk with. Tell a molecular biologist that DNA doesn't use an actual transmission system :darwinsm:

Obviously then you anyway certainly can't explain to me how genetic direct transcription might qualify as a transmission system and as something Shannon might have been involved with.

Really? No correction process? You're just too much. If there actually were a correction process, would you even be the tiniest bit swayed that perhaps your rock-solid confidence in common descent might not be quite as sure as you think?

So why don't you explain this correction process to me if you think there is one, but then again you don't seem too sure yourself here?

Common descent as we know is an evidentially supportable rational scientific conclusion, but I'd consider something else if it doesn't depend on evidence free miraculous creationism based on adherence to an ancient scripture.

Beyond that... there need not be a correction process in place for Shannon to apply.

Good, your equivocation rather suggests that perhaps we do agree that actually there isn't a correction process involved here despite all your waffling.

Go talk to a molecular biologist and tell him there is no information transmission and no error correction in a cell. I'm sure they'll thank you for finally solving that mystery.

I'm rather sure they already know there is no transmission system or error correction already Yorzhik even if you don't, else you surely would have pointed it out by now and I would have learnt something from these exchanges for a change.

 

[6days]

Isaiah 14.. Satan was on earth before humans... He wanted to rise above the clouds ...

Ok???

But how do you figure that supports your claim that angels were around for millions of years?

God's Word tells us that angels are created beings and that "in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them" Ex.20:11

BTW... Welcome to TOL!*

 

[Yorzhik]

Obviously then you anyway certainly can't explain to me how genetic direct transcription might qualify as a transmission system and as something Shannon might have been involved with.

I don't think you realize that all communication use a physical cause-and-effect system. Or perhaps you need to look up the definition of "system" and watch this video. And then come back and tell us how that is NOT a system.

So why don't you explain this correction process to me if you think there is one, but then again you don't seem too sure yourself here?

You first tell me if there is a correction system that you'd be a little moved to consider that Shannon might apply. It's not too hard, just answer "if there was a correction process, that would mean ___"

Common descent as we know is an evidentially supportable rational scientific conclusion, but I'd consider something else if it doesn't depend on evidence free miraculous creationism based on adherence to an ancient scripture.

You don't know there is any evidence. All you know is that there is consensus.

Truth be told, there is very little evidence for common descent. And there is obvious and solid evidence that mutation+NS is wrong. Please note that you wouldn't have to adhere to YEC just because that is true.

Good, your equivocation rather suggests that perhaps we do agree that actually there isn't a correction process involved here despite all your waffling.

Don't take answering your post directly and also as if you were hypothetically correct on a point as equivocation or waffling.

It's a reading comprehension thing.

I'm rather sure they already know there is no transmission system or error correction already Yorzhik even if you don't, else you surely would have pointed it out by now and I would have learnt something from these exchanges for a change.

Ok lazy bones. Don't ask.

Don't learn anything either. It's up to you.

 

[gcthomas]

And then you also have to give us evidence how adding noise to a message doesn't lower the information in the result.

Sheesh. Your source, Weaver, said clearly that noise ADDs Shannon information. To claim otherwise is thoroughly dishonest now, so it's time to back away from your claim that mutations cannot add information to the genome.

For instance, suppose a hypothetical cell had one gene coding for a single simple protein. One day during division, a cell ends up with two copies of that gene through a mistake on the process. A duplication represents more information - to specify the genome you need to detail the original gene then specify that a duplication happened. That is more information. Exactly one 'bit' of Shannon information.

Now come the mutations. Since these will only affect one of the copies at a time, they will diverge. You need extra information to describe their contents, needing one bit for the duplication, and further bits to specify the differences one by one. (Think about a version control system that keeps track of code revisions.) By this time the organism will be producing two different proteins. And evolution continues, with a longer genome with more information.

Please, Yorzhik, explain if you can why this sequence of events doesn't increase the Shannon information content as Weaver said it could.

 

[alwight]

I don't think you realize that all communication use a physical cause-and-effect system. Or perhaps you need to look up the definition of "system" and watch this video. And then come back and tell us how that is NOT a system.

Firstly that video is one of several, one of which I posted earlier if you check. Then I notice that my "transmission system" has now suddenly become only a "system" and thus something I wasn't denying. I have in fact tried to make it clear that a "transmission system" is what I am talking about, while this however is imo a transcription system, see the video. But by all means do show me the "transmission system" if you can.
The difference may not be what you'd rather have me as saying, but nice try anyway Yorzhik. It seems you need to be very careful with YECs else things tend to be conveniently misconstrued.

You first tell me if there is a correction system that you'd be a little moved to consider that Shannon might apply. It's not too hard, just answer "if there was a correction process, that would mean ___"

Why would I do that? It isn't even a rational hypothetical question, there clearly is no correction system and you know it.
If indeed there were such a correction system then that might even be something that could perhaps be considered to be irreducibly complex, first show it to me then I'll reconsider one or two things.

You don't know there is any evidence. All you know is that there is consensus.

Yorzhik apparently knows better than the current scientific consensus again, I am not worthy etc.... :yawn:

Truth be told, there is very little evidence for common descent. And there is obvious and solid evidence that mutation+NS is wrong. Please note that you wouldn't have to adhere to YEC just because that is true.

A YEC such as you is of course compelled to believe in a supernatural creation, so in your mind such a naturalistic explanation, however well supported by evidence, rationality and yes scientific consensus, has nevertheless always to be pre-concluded as wrong regardless because an ancient scripture says so.

Don't take answering your post directly and also as if you were hypothetically correct on a point as equivocation or waffling.

It's a reading comprehension thing.


Ok lazy bones. Don't ask.

Don't learn anything either. It's up to you.

Your equivocation is obvious because all you can say is "if" while you cannot even show the possibility of any correction system applying to genetic transcription because it doesn't happen.

 

[MichaelCadry]

I'll be very surprised?

Imagine both our surprise when we find out "he" is actually Vishnu :think:

Yes, Tyrathca, you will be very surprised and extremely sorrowful because of the way you depict Him, without any reverence at all. Also, He is not Vishnu, or any Hindu God and you know it. He is Jehovah, Yahweh, Father, God, I Am. These are the names that He goes by. Not Vishnu.

I still find it perplexing how you don't understand why people don't just believe you. It's like you think that just telling people something is true should be enough for them. Never mind how ignorant you are about the nature of the world around you.

6days believes me. He knows about God and you do NOT! That is the difference. We believe in Him by FAITH. I believed in Him so strongly by faith, that He revealed Himself to me. There are many others who believe me and my friend Salli knows that I'm telling the truth because she was there with me in New York City {on Staten Island} when the 7 inches of snow fell and the reporter kept calling for me all evening after the snow had accumulated to 7 inches and stopped snowing. {The Lord told me to write to the reporter and tell Him that He would send 7 inches of snow upon his newspaper building so that he would know that the things I were speaking were of God, and that He was with me}.[/quote]

Have you heard the phrase "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"? That summarises my thought on your claims.

I don't expect any reward, though I would also be surprised if an all powerful being of the universe were so petty as to be insulted by my lack of belief. I don't get insulted when people don't believe I exist...

No, I haven't heard of that phrase, but it doesn't apply here. God gave His evidence to me through His Promise of 7 inches of snow. You are insulting God and His Intelligence because of the way you speak about Him. Heck, you can't even spell the word 'summarizes,' much less fess up to other mistakes of your beliefs that you think you are right about. In other words, you make mistakes in life and you not believing in God is one of the bigger mistakes that you make. With ALL of the information you have about God in this world, you still don't want to believe in Him is your BIG problem. So yes, you reap what you sow.

And I know you claim that I wont die, but what I've never understood is why god in your stories doesn't let them die. Excuse the pun but it would be more "humane". Yeah no, still don't see how it is fair. It's not like I'm hurting anyone. What twisted morality is it that someone else experiencing eternal torment is your reward for making sacrifices? Can't you just get rewarded and me not? Inflicting the worst punishment imaginable on me because I didn't know to make a certain sacrifice you did is just sadistic. How is my treatment of him so bad? Seriously what is so bad about what I do?

Ty, only God knows whether you will die or not. My guess is that you will go to Hell and suffer there, but not eternally. That is my wisest guess. You say you're not hurting anyone, but the beliefs you purport can influence others around you and are also irreverent. There are many paths, but only one leads to God. You are on the Wrong path. Now I could be wrong about my guess, for I am not God. Perhaps you will go to sleep for 1,000 years and then live another life and see how you do with that life: whether you will acknowledge God in that life, or you won't. It is written, "and the rest of the dead did not live again until the 1,000 years were finished" {see Rev. 20:5KJV}.

OK I will if I see him. Personally I think it's a pretty good excuse and a super intelligent master of the universe would probably see that too and laugh at your bronze age mythology about it.
Awwwww thanks.... that's so sweet of you
Wow, you hate me that much don't you?
Nah there is so much more fun to be had, most of it has nothing to do with your god though

My 'mythology' does not exist. I don't believe in a myth. You just wish that I did. I believe in the Truth. When Jesus Returns and you see Him with your own eyes, you will feel drained, to say the least. You will be terribly remorseful and afraid. You like to use the phrase, 'bronze age.' That doesn't apply to me. It is just some words you like to use to express towards me, even though you are wrong.

I don't hate you. I feel very sorry for you, is all. I do hate the ways you keep and some of the things you say. God only knows if you will go to Hell for a while or not. I am not the Judge, God is. But you are so bogus to God, that nothing would surprise me. Enough said. You are going to believe what you want no matter what I write to you.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Clearly some people have spent a lot of this life believing in a supernatural Christian God for whatever reasons. Had they been born into a different culture then I have no doubt at all that they would have spent the same time believing in the god(s) and religiosity of that particular culture.
I understand that those who are sceptical of all such religious beliefs, not just your one, who worry your faith by their criticism of it, are probably very unlikely to be welcomed. Accepting that long held beliefs may not be particularly valid beliefs after all are clearly not something that you at least would ever want to contemplate now.

Oh, alwight. They believe in God because they believe He exists. Your atheism is like a grain of sand in a world of believers in God and Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. You are in quite a minority. Those who believe in God are blessed and lucky!! They believe correctly instead of incorrectly. Alwight, I might choose to believe any of those ideas you've mentioned, but I chose to have faith enough in that I knew God and Jesus existed without question. I've had the Lord God visit me, and speak to me. I've been visited by angels and they help me every single day of the year{s}. So why would I entertain other beliefs than my own? You forget that I do have evidence concerning that God is with me, by the 7 inches of snow that fell for the reporter to believe me. He was terrified and I got a 3-hour interview. I can send a copy of the dated letter than I sent to him and the newspaper article which confirmed how much snow fell. How can I give you this evidence? You have not offered me an address to mail this to you. I do not have your home address.

Non-believers here have explained to you many times that they don't believe in your God because they don't think that evidentially there is any justification for such belief, not that they somehow spurn or wilfully reject your God.
You however continue on your merry way blithely assuming that threats of awful eternal dire consequences will result, and almost delighting in it, are an actual fact that requires nothing but your say so to verify its truth.

Of course, they spurn and willfully reject my God. What do you think they say? Of course they willfully reject Him.

I don't delight in it, alwight. I believe with all of the mistakes you've made in your post here that you are definitely able to make mistakes. So if you make mistakes with that, you certainly can make mistakes about God. You need not believe what I say. Just hearing what I have to say will do. When He reveals Himself to you, you will remember what I've told you here. You and Tyrathca will get down on your knees when you see Him coming with the clouds of Heaven.

If your God was in fact true then such a god would indeed be terrifying and awful, not content with a measured response to what may or may not be "sins" in this life, but a god who would inflict eternal agony for it.

Well, it simply doesn't matter what nonsense you personally believe, your belief isn't evidence of anything imo other than that you probably believe in nonsense. If your God exists then hiding away intangibly and then being all surprised and deeply hurt that some people don't happen to believe He actually exists is the biggest nonsense of all.

Alwight, I am exhausted. It is over 6pm here tonight. I can barely keep my eyes open. I hope that what I posted/wrote to Tyrathca will answer a lot of your questions. Got to run!!

Much Love And Warmest Wishes,

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

Yes, Tyrathca, you will be very surprised and extremely sorrowful because of the way you depict Him, without any reverence at all. Also, He is not Vishnu, or any Hindu God and you know it. He is Jehovah, Yahweh, Father, God, I Am. These are the names that He goes by. Not Vishnu.

Which is why you'll be surprised when it turns out to be Vishnu, duh! :chuckle:

There are many others who believe me and my friend Salli knows that I'm telling the truth because she was there with me in New York City {on Staten Island} when the 7 inches of snow fell and the reporter kept calling for me all evening after the snow had accumulated to 7 inches and stopped snowing. {The Lord told me to write to the reporter and tell Him that He would send 7 inches of snow upon his newspaper building so that he would know that the things I were speaking were of God, and that He was with me}.

I'm not familiar with this story of yours but it sounds stupid.

Are you claiming you are right about this because you predicted 7 inches of snow and it snowed? (amount of snow may or may not have been 7 inches) I assume I'm meant to ignore every time you have predicted things incorrectly so that it doesn't look like luck (assuming this prediction did occur and turn it to be somewhat right, which I doubt)

I can imagine the headlines now "guy guesses weather once, world in awe. Weather men out of business"

Heck, you can't even spell the word 'summarizes,' much less fess up to other mistakes of your beliefs that you think you are right about.

I'm fairly sure I've told you this before, but don't act smug about things you know little about. In this case English and the fact that summarises is a perfectly acceptable spelling in English English (or in my case Australian English, which is practically the same thing) rather than your American English.

I'm meant to just believe you about the nature of the universe when you don't even understand the nature of your own language?

You are going to believe what you want no matter what I write to you.

Michael

Michael all you write are proclamations about how you are right, of course no one is going to believe you unless they already believed it before they met you (eg 6days, who I bet believes less of what you say than you think anyway)

 

[alwight]

Oh, alwight. They believe in God because they believe He exists. Your atheism is like a grain of sand in a world of believers in God and Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. You are in quite a minority. Those who believe in God are blessed and lucky!! They believe correctly instead of incorrectly. Alwight, I might choose to believe any of those ideas you've mentioned, but I chose to have faith enough in that I knew God and Jesus existed without question. I've had the Lord God visit me, and speak to me. I've been visited by angels and they help me every single day of the year{s}. So why would I entertain other beliefs than my own? You forget that I do have evidence concerning that God is with me, by the 7 inches of snow that fell for the reporter to believe me. He was terrified and I got a 3-hour interview. I can send a copy of the dated letter than I sent to him and the newspaper article which confirmed how much snow fell. How can I give you this evidence? You have not offered me an address to mail this to you. I do not have your home address.

Sorry Michael none of your assertions is at all convincing to me. You don't need my address because it really doesn't matter how much snow happened to fall because I will believe you on that, but snow falling in New York isn't exactly remarkable. Snow in the middle of summer in New York City might give me some pause for thought, but I don't think that has ever happened right?

Of course, they spurn and willfully reject my God. What do you think they say? Of course they willfully reject Him.

That's not true Michael since it's only people's ideas of gods that are spurned or rejected, not the supposed entity itself.

I don't delight in it, alwight. I believe with all of the mistakes you've made in your post here that you are definitely able to make mistakes. So if you make mistakes with that, you certainly can make mistakes about God. You need not believe what I say. Just hearing what I have to say will do. When He reveals Himself to you, you will remember what I've told you here. You and Tyrathca will get down on your knees when you see Him coming with the clouds of Heaven.

The OT idea of god is such an awful and tyrannical notion which I reject completely, but not any real personal divine entity.
To believe that any real divine entity would be an unknown, as I do, is not a mistake and you are not the arbiter of any such mistake simply by your evidence-free assertions.
I really don't know why you hold these rather quaint Biblically inspired stereotypical heavenly images. If I were in an aircraft above the clouds what would I see I wonder? :think:

Alwight, I am exhausted. It is over 6pm here tonight. I can barely keep my eyes open. I hope that what I posted/wrote to Tyrathca will answer a lot of your questions. Got to run!!

Much Love And Warmest Wishes,

Michael

OK Michael, just try to understand that your beliefs are not evidence, it's just what you happen to believe and typically both I and Tyrathca honestly believe something else and not your idea of God..

 

[Yorzhik]

Firstly that video is one of several, one of which I posted earlier if you check.

I know. That's how I could be sure you endorsed it.

Then I notice that my "transmission system" has now suddenly become only a "system" and thus something I wasn't denying. I have in fact tried to make it clear that a "transmission system" is what I am talking about, while this however is imo a transcription system, see the video. But by all means do show me the "transmission system" if you can.

Ah, it's a system but not a transmission system. Oh, I mean it's a transcription system but not a transmission system. Guess you got me.

Oh, one thing before I go to your next quote. Is DNA and the protein it makes the same thing?

Why would I do that?

It's a way of telling if you are interested in truth or not.

If indeed there were such a correction system then that might even be something that could perhaps be considered to be irreducibly complex, first show it to me then I'll reconsider one or two things.

Sure. "Biological cell function crucially relies on the accuracy of RNA sequences, transcribed from the DNA genetic code. To ensure sufficiently high fidelity in the face of high spontaneous error rates during transcription, error correction mechanisms must play an important role. A particular mechanism of transcriptional error correction involves backtracking of the RNA polymerase and RNA cleavage. Motivated by recent single molecule experiments characterizing the dynamics of backtracking, we present a microscopic model of this editing process. We show that such a mechanism can yield error frequencies that are in agreement with in vivo observations."

And that is just 1 of the many error correcting systems. There are others that handle errors beyond RNA on to transmission of the information to a protein.

You don't know there is any evidence. All you know is that there is consensus.

Yorzhik apparently knows better than the current scientific consensus again, I am not worthy etc.... :yawn:

Ummm... thanks... I guess.

Truth be told, there is very little evidence for common descent. And there is obvious and solid evidence that mutation+NS is wrong. Please note that you wouldn't have to adhere to YEC just because that is true.

A YEC such as you is of course compelled to believe in a supernatural creation, so in your mind such a naturalistic explanation, however well supported by evidence, rationality and yes scientific consensus, has nevertheless always to be pre-concluded as wrong regardless because an ancient scripture says so.

Maybe it isn't pure terror; Maybe it's pure hatred of some supreme being that turns you into a babbling fool? You aren't even responding to what I said because I added a trigger word to my quote.

Na, you're deathly afraid. If it were hatred you wouldn't be so consistently funny.

Your equivocation is obvious because all you can say is "if" while you cannot even show the possibility of any correction system applying to genetic transcription because it doesn't happen.

Oh, right, the correction system that isn't there. Did you read the abstract? Do you think they didn't use the abstract to describe what they actually wrote about?

 

[Yorzhik]

Sheesh. Your source, Weaver, said clearly that noise ADDs Shannon information.

Hence why he calls people that say information is added by noise jokers.

To claim otherwise is thoroughly dishonest now, so it's time to back away from your claim that mutations cannot add information to the genome.

And likewise noise adds information to any message. Or are you going to deny that?

For instance, suppose a hypothetical cell had one gene coding for a single simple protein. One day during division, a cell ends up with two copies of that gene through a mistake on the process. A duplication represents more information - to specify the genome you need to detail the original gene then specify that a duplication happened. That is more information. Exactly one 'bit' of Shannon information.

Sure. Now just provide the evidence this is the normal way that new features are added and you've got yourself a theory. Until then, your speculation and stories that it is a normal occurrence are outweighed by Shannon's theory that says you can't.

Now come the mutations. Since these will only affect one of the copies at a time, they will diverge. You need extra information to describe their contents, needing one bit for the duplication, and further bits to specify the differences one by one. (Think about a version control system that keeps track of code revisions.) By this time the organism will be producing two different proteins. And evolution continues, with a longer genome with more information.

If you say so. And so now you have to add to the evidence of normal occurrences where information to make new features happens from noise but without the benefit of Natural Selection.

Please, Yorzhik, explain if you can why this sequence of events doesn't increase the Shannon information content as Weaver said it could.

Of course noise adds information. Read Weaver's quote again:

It is generally true that when there is noise, the received signal exhibits greater information - or better, the received signal is selected out of a more varied set than is the transmitted signal. This is a situation which beautifully illustrates the semantic trap into which one can fall if he does not remember that "information" is used here with a special meaning that measures freedom of choice and hence uncertainty as to what choice has been made. It is therefore possible for the word information to have either good or bad connotations. Uncertainty which arises by virtue of freedom of choice on the part of the sender is desirable uncertainty. Uncertainty which arises because of errors or because of the influence of noise is undesirable uncertainty. It is thus clear where the joker is in saying that the received signal has more information. Some of this information is spurious and undesirable and has been introduced via the noise. To get the useful information in the received signal we must subtract out this spurious portion.

And yet, somehow they didn't the extra information from the noise. Why?

 

[Tyrathca]

Of course noise adds information. Read Weaver's quote again:

It is generally true that when there is noise, the received signal exhibits greater information - or better, the received signal is selected out of a more varied set than is the transmitted signal. This is a situation which beautifully illustrates the semantic trap into which one can fall if he does not remember that "information" is used here with a special meaning that measures freedom of choice and hence uncertainty as to what choice has been made. It is therefore possible for the word information to have either good or bad connotations. Uncertainty which arises by virtue of freedom of choice on the part of the sender is desirable uncertainty. Uncertainty which arises because of errors or because of the influence of noise is undesirable uncertainty. It is thus clear where the joker is in saying that the received signal has more information. Some of this information is spurious and undesirable and has been introduced via the noise. To get the useful information in the received signal we must subtract out this spurious portion.

And yet, somehow they didn't the extra information from the noise. Why?

Wow so we're finally all in agreement that information can increase!

Given this agreement by your own logic and previous arguments this must also apply to mutations and DNA. Now all you have left is quibbling over the equivocation of "good" and "bad" information (I assume that's you next angle given what you included in your quote).