Creation vs. Evolution

[Jose Fly]

No... Of course you don't.

Me? I told you...geneticists typically define "genetic information" as sequences of nucleotides, which means evolutionary mechanisms increasing genetic information is a repeatedly observed fact.

It's pretty easy to understand it decreases. Even evolutionists see that all the time.

It's equally easy to see it increase.

And..... No, of course mutations won't cause a gain of meaningful information in the genome.

Unless you have a different definition than geneticists, you're just plain wrong. You may as well be arguing that it doesn't rain.

 

[Derf]

Just this weekend one of my kids was excited about the James Webb Telescope and we looked through THIS PAGE together. If you notice, it's all about billions of years, the big bang, stellar and galactic evolution, etc. Notice anything missing? Not one thing in any of it about creationism in any way shape or form.

Hi Jose. Your post is ancient history by now, but I wanted to reply anyway.
I'm glad you are sharing with your children the wonderful and exciting things that show the handiwork of God. I'm sorry that you don't give Him any credit for what He has created.

I think you are wrong, though, that there is nothing about creationism on that site. That site, and indeed all astronomy is about what? Looking at light. For some reason, scientists seem to think that there is a source of every bit of light hitting our eyes or telescopes, and that we can discern information about the source by looking at its product. They know that all light has a source, a "creator", so to speak. And we can study the creator of each light particle/wave by looking at the characteristics of that particle/wave.

That is creationism. All of astronomy, and therefore all of that website you pointed to, is creationism--astronomers looking at the creature (light) to determine aspects of the creator (star).

 

[Jose Fly]

Hi Jose. Your post is ancient history by now, but I wanted to reply anyway.

No problem.

I'm glad you are sharing with your children the wonderful and exciting things that show the handiwork of God. I'm sorry that you don't give Him any credit for what He has created.

There are lots of ways to respond to that, so I'll just say I understand that's what you believe, but not everyone shares that belief.

I think you are wrong, though, that there is nothing about creationism on that site. That site, and indeed all astronomy is about what? Looking at light. For some reason, scientists seem to think that there is a source of every bit of light hitting our eyes or telescopes, and that we can discern information about the source by looking at its product. They know that all light has a source, a "creator", so to speak. And we can study the creator of each light particle/wave by looking at the characteristics of that particle/wave.

That is creationism. All of astronomy, and therefore all of that website you pointed to, is creationism--astronomers looking at the creature (light) to determine aspects of the creator (star).

That's a very unique way of thinking about a God/creator. Not sure I've ever seen it before, so I guess you get points for creativity. But when I say "creationism", I'm referring to the more common understanding of the term, which centers on belief in a supernatural deity.

 

[alwight]

Dear alwight,
God has passed on the information to a witness who shares his testimony with the rest of the people. You don't seem to realize that God is not going to pop out of the clouds and say "Hey alwight, I have come to speak to you because you don't even believe in Me." It isn't going to happen that way!

Michael

Neither are the fairies at the bottom of my garden Michael.

 

[Derf]

No problem.



There are lots of ways to respond to that, so I'll just say I understand that's what you believe, but not everyone shares that belief.

I hope you do some day, and can revel in the attention such a being, who made such a universe, would lavish on you to send His only son to die in your place.

That's a very unique way of thinking about a God/creator. Not sure I've ever seen it before, so I guess you get points for creativity. But when I say "creationism", I'm referring to the more common understanding of the term, which centers on belief in a supernatural deity.

I guess that's why I wanted to suggest it. When we see natural stuff that must have come from some source--as we understand that "stuff" doesn't come from "non-stuff"--we are in keeping with scientific laws, just as astronomy ("star law") demands. Big bang cosmology is an acknowledgement that stuff that appears to be moving in a particular direction (outward, in general), must have once been in a place that was not as far along in that direction as it is now, whether that "stuff" is physical material or space itself (though I admit a frailty in understanding the concept of "space" expanding unless "space" is somehow bound in the first place, and a "space" that is bound to a relative pinpoint along with all material is hardly "space", but I digress). And taking that back to a logical conclusion suggests to us that there was a starting point for the movement.

Even the theory of evolution acknowledges that genetic stuff comes from somewhere, a common ancestor that must have come from something prior to that which can't be called an ancestor. As a creationist, I feel I've been told truly where that stuff came from, and it influences how I look at things. As an evolutionist, you can merely observe and speculate, though it's an awesome thing to use that brain of yours to speculate on how that brain came to be. And your view influences how you look at things, too. Evolution might explain why some people are creationists and some evolutionists, but it doesn't explain the necessity of this forum, since one evolution-created brain's thoughts, made by random processes, must be just as valid as another evolution-created brain's.

My point, if I haven't lost you in my meanderings, is that science IS creationism--where we study the beginning of things, because we understand that things have a beginning. We just call a different god "creator".

 

[Yorzhik]

"Because that was his job" does not answer 'why'. It's re-stating the question again. Why was it his job?

I think I'll just gratuitously insult you instead

One couldn't expect any more from you.

Then stop asking me if they are the "same" unless you have some pre-described foundation for asking such an otherwise stupid and meaningless question.

It's a simple question. But it seems beyond you for some reason. If you answer "yes", then DNA-protein is a message and Shannon applies. If you answer "no", then you mark yourself as horribly uninformed and disqualify yourself to comment on the topic.

There is high fidelity because we are talking about a transcription system NOT a transmission system.

It doesn't matter to Shannon. Even a transcription system is just another way to send information from one place to another.

But beyond that, the DNA-protein system requires many error correction systems (even beyond DNA-mRNA) because it isn't a transcription system.

What do you mean by "noise"?

Errors that happen between DNA and the protein it makes.

Noise from where exactly?

From amino acids being inserted into the wrong place is one of many. Every process involved with DNA->protein is subject to error in the same way; it is quite a bit more complicated than the animations that have been posted show. And as you know, the more complicated things are, the more they are subject to error. Hence, the many correction systems.

"Noise" (interference) comes from outside it isn't a mysterious inherent characteristic.

Right. That's why you should stop fighting the idea that Shannon applies to all messages.

How is a genetic transcription system affected by "noise" given that it is a mechanical process?

Even electrical processes are subject to cause and effect. There is no difference to Shannon whether a message is transmitted electronically or mechanically. So genetic transcription is affected by noise because machines, especially very complicated ones like those in a cell, make mistakes. It's the same, in principle, as electronic transmission.

Just because you might choose to see a "message" makes no difference to a transcription system.

Just because you choose to call it a transcription system doesn't mean it isn't a message. DNA, a code, is still subject to noise in transmission, and decoding, to make a protein.

Seems to me Yorzhik that no one should have given you the Big Book Of Shannon Information since you want it to apply everywhere. Why can you not be more specific or is obfuscation all you actually have?

Shannon applies to every message according to Shannon.

Perhaps you could restate this, it is difficult to figure out the antecedent of "that" I think.

You are such a pompous dimwit Yorzhik.

I ask a sincere question in a nice way and this is how you respond.

 

[Yorzhik]

If you can't work out that Weaver was going beyond Shannon information to declare noise 'bad', then you have no more to contribute except for a buzzing background noise in this thread.

Weaver was going beyond Shannon you say. But then you contradict yourself in your next sentence:

The 'bad' idea comes purely from the assumption that in a comms setting what is 'wanted' by the receiver is an identical copy of the 'intended' transmission.

Would Shannon's theory exist if that were not the case?

I am still waiting for you to define how 'bad' is defined in a DNA evolution context, and who 'wants' that copy to be identical to the previous generation. Without that your comms analogy (ie use of Shannon) fails.

'Bad' is defined as errors that change what the DNA codes for when it is transmitted and decoded to make protein in our simple example, and then errors or mutations that happen in every other message in a cell. In a cell, the 'who' that 'wants' the correct message would be, in our example, the system that needs a protein in a certain shape to work, and then beyond that it would be every component in a cell that needs to work and uses messages directly or indirectly to do so.

Very similar to a comms system.

OK, here is a specific: Pandas are very poor at digesting bamboo given they have a carnivore digestive system. Imagine a mutation in an enzyme producing gene that would be deleterious in other bears by reducing their meat digestion, but that enzyme is slightly better for pandas as it enables them to digest plant material (a good thing). The differential here cannot be explained by your explanations unless you reject the possibility entirely.

That is not a specific example. A specific example is the message that makes that enzyme, and what noise was added to make it work better. There are simply too many unknowns to comment on how this could even be a part of an information-as-it-relates-to-common-descent discussion.

Supplementary question: why did your God make Pandas without a gene to digest their main foodstuff? They only digest 17% of what they eat - seems like in imperfect creation to me.

To see if you understand the argument you are making here, and since the bad design argument is an old one, tell us a general idea about the possible answers I might give.

 

[alwight]

One couldn't expect any more from you.

You're the only one I've called a moron recently.

Then stop asking me if they are the "same" unless you have some pre-described foundation for asking such an otherwise stupid and meaningless question.

It's a simple question. But it seems beyond you for some reason. If you answer "yes", then DNA-protein is a message and Shannon applies. If you answer "no", then you mark yourself as horribly uninformed and disqualify yourself to comment on the topic.

But Yorzhik the protein is transcribed directly from the information (DNA/RNA) by means of a direct mechanical/chemical transcription process. It is not about information being transferred/transmitted from one place to another with hopefully high fidelity, so trying to apply Shannon theory is imo nonsense. If the transcription system happened to be rubbish then the resulting protein would also be rubbish, so would it help to claim that Shannon could be applied to rubbish?
Iow, in practice the protein is constructed/transcribed accurately according to the associated information, but the protein and the information are nevertheless two very different things. On a transmission system however if the information at the distant end matched the original information then than we could call it the "same" and possibly Shannon theory may have had something to do with it.

There is high fidelity because we are talking about a transcription system NOT a transmission system.

It doesn't matter to Shannon. Even a transcription system is just another way to send information from one place to another.
But beyond that, the DNA-protein system requires many error correction systems (even beyond DNA-mRNA) because it isn't a transcription system.

Why do you persist in this nonsense? The original information is used to physically transcribe protein, it isn't about transmitting data from A to B with high fidelity.

What do you mean by "noise"?

Errors that happen between DNA and the protein it makes.

No, errors can happen by chance during genetic transcription as with any mechanical process and are just that, errors, as indeed you have shown me can be corrected as a part of the transcription process, but in a transmission system errors can be induced by interference/noise from outside. Noise is an external factor, not something inherent during transcription.

Noise from where exactly?

From amino acids being inserted into the wrong place is one of many. Every process involved with DNA->protein is subject to error in the same way; it is quite a bit more complicated than the animations that have been posted show. And as you know, the more complicated things are, the more they are subject to error. Hence, the many correction systems.

That is imo still errors caused by occasional specific, probably explainable, temporary reasons. Noise in a transmission system anyway is typically a constant induced background effect that has to be dealt with, say hello to Shannon. I at least wouldn't call it "noise" in a transcription system, but if you want to then that's up to you.

"Noise" (interference) comes from outside it isn't a mysterious inherent characteristic.

Right. That's why you should stop fighting the idea that Shannon applies to all messages.

I'm not, I'm saying that you can't meaningfully apply Shannon to genetic transcription.

How is a genetic transcription system affected by "noise" given that it is a mechanical process?

Even electrical processes are subject to cause and effect. There is no difference to Shannon whether a message is transmitted electronically or mechanically. So genetic transcription is affected by noise because machines, especially very complicated ones like those in a cell, make mistakes. It's the same, in principle, as electronic transmission.

Mistakes aren't noise, they're mistakes. Again we are not talking about transmitting messages we are concerned with transcription into protein. I know you desperately want to conflate to obfuscate but you really will have to demonstrate exactly how Shannon applies to genetic transcription.

Just because you might choose to see a "message" makes no difference to a transcription system.

Just because you choose to call it a transcription system doesn't mean it isn't a message. DNA, a code, is still subject to noise in transmission, and decoding, to make a protein.

I call it what it is, while you would like to present it as a messaging system for some reason. :think:

Seems to me Yorzhik that no one should have given you the Big Book Of Shannon Information since you want it to apply everywhere. Why can you not be more specific or is obfuscation all you actually have?

Shannon applies to every message according to Shannon.

OK then demonstrate how it usefully applies to genetic transcription.

You are such a pompous dimwit Yorzhik

I ask a sincere question in a nice way and this is how you respond.

I did put a nice smiley on it.

 

[gcthomas]

Weaver was going beyond Shannon you say. But then you contradict yourself in your next sentence:


Would Shannon's theory exist if that were not the case?

No, read it more carefully.

Shannon's information theory does not include any aspect of 'meaning', so it can only be used when meaning is irrelevent, or when meaning is defined by some other method. To say that Shannon Info 'assumes' no meaning, does not prove that there is no meaning. In the same way, when Shannon methods assume noise is 'bad', that does not prove that all noise is bad. It just means that a Shannon entropy method might not be sufficient to fully analyse a problem.

 

[Derf]

I did put a nice smiley on it.

:chuckle:

 

[6days]

I told you...geneticists typically define "genetic information" as sequences of nucleotides, which means evolutionary mechanisms increasing genetic information is a repeatedly observed fact.

Good grief Jose......
You couldn't be more wrong. Your link says genetic information is"The heritable biological information coded in the nucleotide sequences of dna or rna".

This isn't a newsflash..... biological information is stored on nucleotide sequences. A *longer sequence does not necessarily mean greater information.

Imagine it like this....Braille is an information system coded in sequences of raised bumps on a piece of paper. *It would be silly to count the raised bumps... or add more bumps and then claim more bumps equals more information. *Likewise with genetic info. A copying error error error error could add more bumps but that error may have corrupted biological information, not increased information. Stop counting the bumps.*

 

[Tyrathca]

Given I'm a bit late to this reply and the debate has moved on a tad I'm going to truncate your post and my replies.If I leave out something you still want to discuss feel free to bring it up again.

Then answer this: Why does Shannon make that assumption?

You ask this question multiple times in different ways. Shannon assumes that the original message is perfect an all changes to it are undesirable is because his methods were for use in human communication systems. In human communication systems the sender almost invariably wants their message sent as is and unedited and the recipient wants the same. That's simply how humans design and use their communication systems. Humans don't want any other information in the received message other than what was from the sender.

So Shannon made the assumption because it makes sense in the context of the problem he was addressing (making human communication systems work as intended more effectively). It was an appropriate assumption, so long as you are using it as he did.

Because there is good information and bad information according to Shannon.

Which is defined by the above assumption.

B And any example where information was increased by noise in a Shannon context, it turns out to be due to a broken part being repaired by a random mutation which is no information increase at all on the original message.

Since when is it appropriate to measure information over multiple transmissions? I've always thought that by transmission in inheritance you were meaning parent to offspring not great great great great grandparent to distant offspring multiple generations and millennia removed. But now that we are apparently measuring it over limitless generations and the measure of increase in information is by measuring against the earliest version.... Since increase of information between one generation (a "repairing" mutation if you will) doesn't count.

This is a tacit admission that you can't measure information with your method or compare information content of sequences..... ever! Since we don't know what the original sequences were and thus can never know if the genes we are looking at are filled with noise or not (we can't use function since noise can add or change function).

That isn't true. The random is controlled in genetic algorithms. It must stay within certain bounds, and it is never allowed to change the code that evaluates if the random change was good or bad. Shannon makes room for the controlled random because the code that creates those random messages always has more information than the upper bound of information that the random is allowed to be (for evaluation's sake). In this way genetic algorithms and the Monte Carlo method are the same... for the same reason.

your description of genetic algorithms sounds exactly like mutation and natural selection. Random is controlled within mutations (there are only a limited number of ways mutations change genetics) and these mutations never change how natural selection evaluates whether the mutation is good or bad. So isn't genetics another form of controlled random given your description?

This is the claim you have to support. This is what you have to demonstrate for common descent. Show us the evidence that noise is desirable and then we'll forget about Shannon and Weaver and use it in digital communications.

That's a stupid question given we are debating whether mutations are noise and whether Shannon and Weaver's methods are appropriate to apply in this context. You're essentially asking me to assume you are right then argue how you are still wrong (which in a way I've done above for other points but ASKING me to do it is just dumb)

 

[Tyrathca]

I get a couple hours before I go to bed to post here. Sometimes more, sometimes none.

Wow that's a lot of free time to spend each day on things like TOL.

Also, I went to your gov't. organization site and couldn't figure it out as far as giving me the info that I was seeking.

*Sigh* OK here is the direct link (the data was under Climatological Data -> Snow -> 6 inch or more snow storms at http://www.weather.gov/okx/centralparkhistorical but here is the direct link to the pdf

That is why I suggested going to the archives of the New York Post for March 4, 1978. It sounds pretty easy, but I am in the U.S. and you are in Australia, so I can now see why you hesitate. I will try 2nite or so to find out if I can find the original article in the NY Post. We'll have to go from there. Perhaps it is on your site after all. Who knows?

So far as I can tell there is no online way to access a copy of that edition of the New York Post. The only place I could find even a physical copy is on microfilm at the New York Public Library, not somewhere I'm likely to be any time soon.

This was after checking multiple sources including the New York Post themselves, the New York Public Library and the Library of Congress. If you find somewhere to check it let me know but as it stands I still think that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is a more reliable source regardless (weather is kind of their job).

You do not understand the 'gravity' of the story they would be writing. If the story were true, as I claim it, U.S. people and other countries also, would be thrown into panic and chaos; they might quit their jobs and just sit and wait, etc. They might try stocking up on food and water supplies which would not help them because stronger people with stronger weapons would just take away their stockpiles. It is all very Catch-22, to say the very least. You aren't seeing the picture behind the picture. You really have NO IDEA!!

You really think the world would be convinced by you predicting how much snow there would be, if the story were published?

I never knew the world held weathermen in such high esteem.....

Ty, it is not more than a decade, by far. I just used that to avoid telling you that it could be a matter of weeks, months or years. Like I said, 'No one knows except the Father in Heaven {God}' I won't guess the time again as a surety, for I see how that negates the Scriptures. It is more than soon. Does that do it for you.

I'll take that as a prediction that the apocalypse will happen sometime in the next decade. not exactly what I was expecting when you said extremely soon but I guess I can't expect too much of you given your poor record at sharing gods plans.


Michael something I've been wondering... You clearly have not been very successful as a prophet of your god, your message has not spread far and if the apocalypse does come I doubt many if any will even look back and realise you were right (assuming it happens in the next 10 years). You also blame the devil for giving you false messages or something for why you made you incorrect prediction before. Has it ever occurred to you that it was the devil all along who made you think you were a special and a prophet? You've already said you have a hard time telling the difference (given past false predictions). Not that I believe there is a devil to fool you but your single minded confidence in your anointed status in the face of decades of overwhelming failure is curious to say the least.

 

[Jose Fly]

I hope you do some day, and can revel in the attention such a being, who made such a universe, would lavish on you to send His only son to die in your place.

Ok.

As a creationist, I feel I've been told truly where that stuff came from, and it influences how I look at things.

I understand that.

As an evolutionist, you can merely observe and speculate

No. You make it sound like science is nothing more than scientists looking at things and making up stories. I hope you understand there's quite a bit more to it than that.

though it's an awesome thing to use that brain of yours to speculate on how that brain came to be. And your view influences how you look at things, too. Evolution might explain why some people are creationists and some evolutionists, but it doesn't explain the necessity of this forum, since one evolution-created brain's thoughts, made by random processes, must be just as valid as another evolution-created brain's.

Sorry, that doesn't really make sense. Given two thoughts about things, we can tell which is more accurate by testing them against reality.

My point, if I haven't lost you in my meanderings, is that science IS creationism--where we study the beginning of things, because we understand that things have a beginning. We just call a different god "creator".

IMO, that's such a loose definition of "creationism" as to render the term meaningless. It also kinda comes across as creationists trying to take credit for other people's work.

 

[Jose Fly]

Your link says genetic information is"The heritable biological information coded in the nucleotide sequences of dna or rna".

How is that different than "genetic information = nucleotide sequences"?

This isn't a newsflash..... biological information is stored on nucleotide sequences. A *longer sequence does not necessarily mean greater information.

Given that both you and Stripe have admitted that you have no idea how to measure "genetic information", your objections are meaningless.

Imagine it like this

The fact that creationists have to analogize is a good indication that you are unable to deal with the actual subject being discussed, i.e., genetics.

 

[Greg Jennings]

You have a great imagination Greg.
Maybe you could take solace in the point that size does not matter.

:devil:

Was there a point to you asking me whether a whisk fern or a human had more genetic information, or are you just a YEC doing YEC things?

 

[Derf]

Ok.
I understand that.

No. You make it sound like science is nothing more than scientists looking at things and making up stories. I hope you understand there's quite a bit more to it than that.

Of course there's more to science than that, but you have to admit there is a lot of that going on in "science".

Sorry, that doesn't really make sense. Given two thoughts about things, we can tell which is more accurate by testing them against reality.

...and interpreting the results with our evolution-organized brains.

IMO, that's such a loose definition of "creationism" as to render the term meaningless. It also kinda comes across as creationists trying to take credit for other people's work.

How do you define "creationism"?

 

[alwight]

Of course there's more to science than that, but you have to admit there is a lot of that going on in "science".

I suggest that you perhaps derive this opinion from popular science programs on TV, not the more academic peer reviewed science.

 

[Jose Fly]

Of course there's more to science than that, but you have to admit there is a lot of that going on in "science".

Before I admit to any such thing, you're going to have to present some specific examples.

...and interpreting the results with our evolution-organized brains.

Therefore......?

How do you define "creationism"?

Depends on the context of the discussion. In general, creationism refers to belief in supernatural creation of organisms and/or their biological features (e.g., genetic sequences, eyes). This encompasses a lot of different religious beliefs, such as young-earth creationism, old-earth creationism, intelligent design creationism, Hindu creationism, and even theistic evolution (in some cases).

In more specific discussions with conservative Christians, it refers to the specific belief in supernatural creation by the God of the Bible, typically less than 10,000 years ago (young-earth creationism).

 

[6days]

Your link says genetic information is"The heritable*biological information*coded in the nucleotide sequences of dna or rna"

.How is that different than "genetic information = nucleotide sequences"?

Simple... information is not material. Information is not the alphabet, but you can code information by using the various letters.In the case of DNA, the *information is a set of instructions. *Nucleotide sequence is a material thing. *It is sugar. Sugar contains no info. Ink contains no information. Chalk contains no information. But you can use those things to write a code and provide information / ideas / instructions.*Comparing nucleotide sequences to Morse code..... . There is information coded into the sugar, and the flashing light. But, it would be silly to claim that more sugar ( or light flashes) is more info. *Those are only the material things used by the code makers.*