Real Science Radio CRSQ (Vol 43, Num 1)

[Bob Enyart]

Johnny: "Evolution is not about 'an increase in information.'"

Johnny: "Evolution is not about 'an increase in information.'"

In case anybody missed it, Johnny recently wrote, and then stood by this 100%, and still refuses to retract it:

"Evolution is not about 'an increase in information.'" -Johnny

 

[Stratnerd]

In case anybody missed it, Johnny recently wrote, and then stood by this 100%, and still refuses to retract it:

Anyone that has followed the thread knows this isn't the case:

Fact is Johnny said

Indeed, and Bob should note that I am not saying that there hasn't been a trend towards increasing complexity or increasing organization (both of which might be defined as increases in information)--because there has been a strong trend in that direction

If that sounds like a 100% endorsement of no information increase in evolution then I have some sea front propert in Kansas I'd like to sell ya!

Confusion arose because BobE was using evolution in one context and Johnny in another and, in effect, talking past each other (again, just about anyone could see this).

BobE referring to evolution in the historical sense (bacterium to babe ruth) and Johnny in a different context (evolution happening here and now).

 

[Bob Enyart]

The context has been: whether evolution requires an increase in information!

The context has been: whether evolution requires an increase in information!

I wrote above that “evolution requires billions of instances of genetic information INCREASE” and I criticized evolutionists who “point to diseases caused by mutation as excellent examples of Darwinism.”

To that, Johnny responded: “sickle cell disease. That is evolution. Evolution is not about ‘an increase in information’. It's about reproductive advantage. … Evolution. This business about increasing information or loss of information is just creationist fodder…” (Emphasis mine, error his.)

Ha! Johnny should retract that also, that "This business about increasing information or loss of information is just creationist fodder…”

That's an absurdity, Stratnerd, and you're just an enabler if you let this substance abuse continue with your affirmation. Genetic information increase and decrease is just creationist fodder? Right. In fact, "Evolution is not about ‘an increase in information.'" -Johnny."

We all know the context, and Johnny should just retract his statement. It wasn't misunderstood. It was wrong.

I then challenged him: “Johnny, if you fully retract the claim you just made, I will stop quoting you in my signature. –BE”

To which Johnny replied: “Quote me if you like. I stand 100% by my statement.”

So Johnny doesn’t need to finesse this, he needs to retract it.

Hey, it’s not that hard to admit gross overstatement or outright error. Just ask Phy, he’s slammed me into admitting error from Orion’s Belt to the Dead Sea with a post titled, ThePhy's right again.

Johnny’s finessing is here: “Bob should note that I am not saying that there hasn't been a trend towards increasing complexity or increasing organization (both of which might be defined as increases in information)--because there has been a strong trend in that direction…”

No, Bob shouldn't note. Because that's a lie. That's EXACTLY what Johnny was saying. And you all know it, and you're covering for him.

That’s exactly what’s under debate in this thread, whether science can actually document “a trend towards increasing complexity… which might be defined as increases in information.” Which, I might add, is at the heart of the neo-darwinian claim of molecules to man evolution. So, therefore, Johnny needs to retract his statement that, “Evolution is not about ‘an increase in information.’” This was just an emotional taunt. It’s not worthy of defending.

It’s like arguing with someone who’s conquered Everest:
Johnny: “We’ll, during your seven-day ascent, didn’t you ever have to walk downward at times?”
Climber: “Well, of course, the trail goes uphill and downhill…”
Johnny: “AHA! That’s it. The truth is, ascending Everest HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CLIMBING!”
Climber: “… Huh? … Johnny, … what in the world are you talking about? What pickaxe do you have to grind…?”
...
[Later, Johnny's enabler friends come to his side...]
Stratnerd: (stroking Johnny's sweaty forehead) "Johnny was only talking about the parts of the trail that go downhill. Really. He's not emotional about this subject. He was only talking about the parts of the trail that go downhill. ... Of course he knows that to climb Everest, you have to go uphill, once in a while..."

When Johnny wrote “Evolution is not about ‘an increase in information,’ that’s not only a gross overstatement, it’s just flat out wrong, even more obvious by the context of our discussion which included my statement that: “it’s not true that insertions, substitutions, transpositions, etc., that break functionality are an increase in the genome.” That’s what he was replying to!

Here’s Johnny’s comment, in his original paragraph, is: “It's really simple, actually. The HbS allele confers malarial resistence to erythrocytes, thus providing a survival advantage for the population which carries the allele which would not normally exist if the population did not carry the allele. In short, more people survive to the age of reproduction with the HbS allele than would without it--even if we assume that one out of every four live births has sickle cell disease. That is evolution. Evolution is not about ‘an increase in information’. It's about reproductive advantage. An allele which reproduces itself more often than another allele will find its frequency in a population increased as a function of time. Evolution. This business about increasing information or loss of information is just creationist fodder--which we will see when you define an ‘increase in information’.” (Emphasis mine, error his.)

-Bob Enyart

[My wife's asking me what in the world I'm doing, rather than packing for our trip tomorrow. Yikes, I better get out of here... -Bob]

 

[Morphy]

Morphy, you quoted me saying: “There's a million species in the world. So even if significant evolution took 100,000 years within a single species,”

And then you in mid sentence, you interrupted and Morphy declared: “False thesis.”

Okaaay.

And your reason was: “See above.” Which I think referred to your immediately preceding comment that: “The bigger the organism the slower the evolution.”

But surely there is some time frame in which evolution claims that larger organisms experience significant evolution.

Well, actually what I said is not 100% true, it was a generalization since actually rate of evolution is strongly related with time needed for replication of a species: the longer the pregancy and immaturity of posterity the slower the evolution. I could have used such generalization since usually the bigger an organism the longer it takes for posterity to multiply. I hope it's understandable what I was trying to say.

Thus insects evolve much faster than the man (and that's the reason it's so difficult to avoid a gnat ), the man evolves faster than the whale and so on.

Human beings are larger than (what? I’m guessing) 99% of non-tree species. And yet, we supposedly evolved from Australopithecus to sapiens in just a few million years. A few percent genetic variation equals millions of base pair changes (the known genetic variation from primate has grown since a decade ago). So, the apostles of evolution have this massive tension that they seem to ignore, that evolution happens s-o s-l-o-w-l-y that we can’t see it (especially for big species like us), yet in only a few million years, millions of genetic changes occurred, with the vast majority of them propagated through virtually the entire population. So, significant evolution cannot happen slower that the 100,000 years I graciously allotted it, even for a relatively huge species like us. And thus, since we’re monitoring a million species a year, we should see frequent examples of significant evolution, across the kingdoms.

Well, if we say it takes 100.000 years for an animal which is able to reproduce after 15 years to turn into another species than we have enough time to turn from Australopithecus
to Homo sapiens in a few million years.

Anyhow, we cannot say that for every 100.000 years we have a new species it sometimes takes more, sometimes takes less, depending on enviroment the organism lives in.

And yet I think we can see how does the evolution works on humans: some Dutch migrated to the Republic of South Africa in 16th century (Boers) and throughout 400 years their skin somehow became darker (!). And even better example: compare Jews from Africa to those from Europe. They have the same fathers but because they live in different areas colour of their skin varies hugely. Thus we can see evolution even among Homo sapiens.

In case you ask why Australians aren't black my answer is simple: they migrated so recently the evolution hasn't had enough time to work and they'll probably never be blacks because of their good health care system: evolution is always about survival of the fittest - if whites use protective lotions and have skin cancers resected early their genes won't be wiped out.

I think I’ve sufficiently refuted your claim that we cannot see evolution happening annually anywhere but in microorganisms because of the size of the other organisms, I’ll now address your other, even less tenable excuse.

Not yet, dear Bob, not yet!

I don't feel like waving white flag!

Morphy: “We would [see annual examples of significant evolution throughout nature] but there is one problem: there are plenty of living organisms today and it is very difficult to find new food or shelter. When a major disaster happens (like 65 millions years ago) and 80-90% species will die out you will see HUGE eruption of new species. Evolution always thrives after massive catastrophes since it leaves vast areas to inhabit (Latin: natura horret vacuum )”

I know you’ve flown in airplanes. Have you observed the terrain beneath you? Have you ever flown over the Atlantic? The Pacific?

Both oceans are full of life. Even Mariana Trench where pressure is so huge we can barely get there is full of living creatures. Basically everywhere we went, sailed, flew or dove we found life.

Butterflies in the Amazon are not prevented from enjoying the glory of evolving new capabilities, let’s say, chameleon camouflage, just because there are too many lizards out to get them.

They have much better camouflages than chameleon. Just watch National Geographic channel and you'll see.

Remember evolution doesn't have an architect nor purpose. It simply happens wherever is something to eat.

And I thought that mankind was destroying the ecosystem at an unprecedented rate. Gone are the buffalo, the dodo birds, the condor, deforestation, and the loss of over a thousand species a day. Gee, you’d think mother nature would be begging for mutated offspring to jumpstart the next diversification wave.

I'm not a leftist - I think the man can barely scratch the ecosystem. Be sure, all those creatures are being replaced by others. They don't have to be similar in size or behaviour; If there is something to eat - be sure sooner or later there will be a consumer.

If you leave a slice of pizza in your fridge, you'll learn what bacteria can do and where they can manage to live.

Size isn’t the reason we don’t see many significant examples of evolution every year among plants and animals, since huge humans supposedly evolved very rapidly over just the last few million years (and we’re only one species among a million).

You're unfair again, Bob:
The man has changed the enviroment for barely 200 years on a microscale (look at Antarctida, Sahara, oceans and so on): you mentioned it took millions of years for us to evolve and expect new big species to appear in less than 200 years? That's unfair.

And lack of opportunity is not the reason those millions of species don’t evolve new abilities (as though overcrowding discourages the mushrooms in a meadow in Yellowstone from developing a new method of seed distribution). Morphy, these are not scientific explanations. Have you ever rigorously challenged these excuses you’ve heard? Because now, you repeat them without ever having attempted to falsify them, and that is not science, but public relations spin.

It's both lack of opportunity and time.

The example you gave means only one thing: the evolution hasn't found any better way so far EXCEPT those used by other plants.

Morphy, I have NOT done justice to your posts, because I don’t have the time to deal with all your interesting points.

The same problem

That's why I write 2 days after my last post.

But I’ll address this next one, which you’ve confused. Perhaps it’s because English is not your first language (although your mastery of it is better than many in Colorado ), but you misunderstood my point, turning it backwards. I did not mistakenly think that our immune system adjusts to varying threats by mutation. Rather, our system is designed to meet and adjust to varying threats, even ones never before seen. I am arguing that in various cases, pathogens seem to behave the same way, responding not by chance fortuitous mutation, but in a pre-programmed way to meet a new threat to its own existence.

So you wrote, “False again. Immunologic system can destroy new pathogens NOT because of spontanic mutations. It can because it is programmed to destroy every cell which doesn't have right peptides (a specific 'ID') exposed on a cell membrane. It has nothing to do with mutations.”

So my point still stands, unrefuted:


Morphy, if I use a wrong term, etc., I’d be thrilled if you corrected the term, but then still considered the argument. I’m not a scientist, nor a doctor, but just the pastor of a Bible church.

Bob, I don't know if you have noticed but you have unintentionally backed up evolution - the way information is stored in DNA means the evolution is possible and gene pool ALWAYS finds new ways to deal with different problems it is bothered by.

Basically your comparison of human immunologic system to the evolution isn't good simply because both work in a different way: the first one is designed to destroy everything what is not 'ours' while the other one doesn't have any purpose and wasn't programmed to do anything. It simply replies with plenty of mistakes. Positive mistakes have a tendency to multiply while negative ones usually disappear or are rare.

Thanks,

-Bob Enyart

My pleasure talking to you.

 

[Morphy]

Dear Bob,

One more question about the sickle cell anemia:
You used to work for Mc Donnel Douglas so it is an excellent example:

F-15 as a regular hemoglobine

F-117 Stealth as a hemoglobine S

There are no doubts:

F-117 is slower than F-15, carries less weapon, will loose a direct dogfight, is much more difficult to flight and costs muuuuuch more.

Regular hemoglobine is better than hemoglobine S (sickle cell anemia).

There is only one improvement of F-117 in comparison to F-15: it is a stealth "invisible" airplane. All other specifics are either worse or much worse than F-15.

There is just one improvement of Hb S in comparison to regular hemoglobine: it is "invisible" to malaria.

According to Bob Enyart, Hb S is broken. Sir, do you also think F-117 is broken and doesn't work? Maybe USAF shouldn't buy any more F-117s and turn to F-15s again?



BTW: you didn't respond to my argument:
It is the very nature (or God if you wish) which decided wheter Hbs is an improvement or not: if it wasn't an improvement it would be as rare as it is in Europe. Since it is relatively common in Africa it gives some advantage thus IT IS AN IMPROVEMENT. Just like F-117 is an improvement in comparison to F-15, although all specifics are worse instead of "invisibility" to the enemy (BTW: HbS is also invisible to the enemy - plasmodium).

Bob, I'm still waiting for your response to the above argument.

Are you going to be consistent with your thesis on sickle cell anemia and say F-117 is broken?

And what do you think of judging our dispute by the fair judge- the nature: if HbS was an illness without any positive features it would as rare in Africa as it is in Europe.

 

[Turbo]

Bob, I'm still waiting for your response to the above argument.

Expect to wait at least until next month. Bob is on vacation with his family.

 

[badp]

"Debate is not about 'winning an argument.'" -Johnny arty:

(Just kidding)

 

[aharvey]

Real Science Friday CRSQ (Vol 43, Num 1)
Friday August 11, 2006. This is show #160.

Summary:
* Two Creationists Summarize the Latest Journal: Fred Williams, webmaster for the Creation Research Society (nice website!), and Bob Enyart talk through the articles in CRSQ, a peer-reviewed scientific journal. For example, in The Fossil Cliffs of Joggins, Nova Scotia, readers learn about dozens of polystrate fossils such as trees spanning many strata that disprove million-year deposition rates!

I wish people would think about this, for just one or two lousy seconds. Your average tree, alive today, has roots that penetrate down to about five meters (16 feet). That means the plant itself, being alive today, by definition "belongs" in the very top strata, but also that that same individual can be found spanning many strata. Do you not understand how this happened? You know, the seed fell on the surface (so all the earlier layers were ALREADY IN PLACE!), germinated, and grew, and as it did, its roots extended deeper and deeper, into those earlier layers. What is so mysterious about that? How on earth can you conclude that since a tree's roots span several stratigraphic layers that those layers must all have been laid down during that tree's lifetime?!?

(Sorry, not trying to change the subject; I didn't really get past the original post, and now I see that there's been a lively exchange on other aspects!)

 

[Yorzhik]

Wow, aharvey, no-one has ever thought of that. Brilliant!

 

[aharvey]

Wow, aharvey, no-one has ever thought of that. Brilliant!

Assuming that's sarcasm I hear, I'm relieved to hear it! It's not always clear where, or that, creationists draw the line between "That's an attack on evolutionists, so it's good enough for me" and "That's an attack on evolution that makes no sense whatsoever, so let's not go there." For example, the creationist polystrate literature's incessant insistence that evolutionists, being uniformitarians, categorically reject the possibility that thick layers of sediment could ever be deposited rapidly due to a catastrophe. I don't know any biologist or geologist who doubts that this could or has happened.

 

[aharvey]

Okay, now I've caught up on this thread (wish I'd done this sooner). And after the dozens of nearly information-free posts about information, I think I see the problem (I'm sure I'm not the only one).

Johnny: “Evolution is not about ‘an increase in information.’”
Bob: "You liar. Evolution is all about an increase in information, and you know it."
Johnny, Strat, and everyone else who has ever given two seconds thought to evolutionary theory and has the faintest awareness that the genome size of bacteria is very much smaller than that of modern prokaryotes: "Well, genetic information has increased from the root of the phylogenetic tree of life to today."
Bob: "Aha! See, evolution is all about increasing information. Liars!"

Sorry, Bob, your Everest analogy is clever but inappropriate. A better analogy:

It’s like arguing with someone who’s coming back from the grocery store:
Shopper: "Bob, buying food is not all about generating trash!"
Bob: “Well, when you use those groceries you buy, don't you generate garbage?”
Shopper: “Well, of course, the more food we buy, the more trash we end up throwing away...”
Bob: “AHA! You liar! Buying food is all about generating garbage, and this discussion is over until you retract your lies!”
Shopper: “… Huh? … Bob, … what in the world are you talking about? What carving knife do you have to grind…?”

Not nearly as clever as Everest, but more to the point at hand. The fact that genetic information, however undefined you want to leave it, has experienced a net increase over the history of life does not make "evolution all about increasing information" any more than an increase in trash production as one continues to shop for one's family makes "buying food all about generating garbage."

 

[bob b]

Okay, now I've caught up on this thread (wish I'd done this sooner). And after the dozens of nearly information-free posts about information, I think I see the problem (I'm sure I'm not the only one).

Johnny: “Evolution is not about ‘an increase in information.’”
Bob: "You liar. Evolution is all about an increase in information, and you know it."
Johnny, Strat, and everyone else who has ever given two seconds thought to evolutionary theory and has the faintest awareness that the genome size of bacteria is very much smaller than that of modern prokaryotes: "Well, genetic information has increased from the root of the phylogenetic tree of life to today."
Bob: "Aha! See, evolution is all about increasing information. Liars!"

Sorry, Bob, your Everest analogy is clever but inappropriate. A better analogy:

It’s like arguing with someone who’s coming back from the grocery store:
Shopper: "Bob, buying food is not all about generating trash!"
Bob: “Well, when you use those groceries you buy, don't you generate garbage?”
Shopper: “Well, of course, the more food we buy, the more trash we end up throwing away...”
Bob: “AHA! You liar! Buying food is all about generating garbage, and this discussion is over until you retract your lies!”
Shopper: “… Huh? … Bob, … what in the world are you talking about? What carving knife do you have to grind…?”

Not nearly as clever as Everest, but more to the point at hand. The fact that genetic information, however undefined you want to leave it, has experienced a net increase over the history of life does not make "evolution all about increasing information" any more than an increase in trash production as one continues to shop for one's family makes "buying food all about generating garbage."

I've heard some pretty dumb analogies before (some coming from aharvey), but this one wins the prize for the dumbest so far.

 

[bob b]

I wish people would think about this, for just one or two lousy seconds. Your average tree, alive today, has roots that penetrate down to about five meters (16 feet). That means the plant itself, being alive today, by definition "belongs" in the very top strata, but also that that same individual can be found spanning many strata. Do you not understand how this happened? You know, the seed fell on the surface (so all the earlier layers were ALREADY IN PLACE!), germinated, and grew, and as it did, its roots extended deeper and deeper, into those earlier layers. What is so mysterious about that? How on earth can you conclude that since a tree's roots span several stratigraphic layers that those layers must all have been laid down during that tree's lifetime?!?

(Sorry, not trying to change the subject; I didn't really get past the original post, and now I see that there's been a lively exchange on other aspects!)

A couple of comments are in order here.

1) Apparently the argument at talk.origins is that some if not many of the upright trees have at least some of their root systems intact, and since the roots of this type of tree sometimes go down 16 feet we can safety assume that ALL the trees were deposited in situ instead of having washed into place by flowing water.

2) the sources given at talk.origins were from the 19th century. This was justified on the grounds that the theory that all the trees were deposited in situ had been firmly established and thus there was no further need to consider alternatives.

3) the sources given in the ICR paper were more recent and clearly indicated that they were referring only to those polystrate trees which had no evidence of root systems, and hence presumably had their root systems broken off prior to deposition. Certainly a tree with root systems relatively intact could be either an "in situ" or "washed into place later by flowing water" case, but one with root systems not intact seems to favor the "later deposition" concept.

 

[aharvey]

I've heard some pretty dumb analogies before (some coming from aharvey), but this one wins the prize for the dumbest so far.

Thanks, bob, coming from you that's quite an honor. Perhaps you fail to understand the relevant aspect of the analogy (you know, the part that makes it an analogy). So let me expand on it just a bit: just because 'genetic information,' whatever you happen to mean by that, happens to increase from early ancestors to recent descendants, doesn't mean that "evolution is all about an increase information," any more than the fact that total trash generation tends to increase with increased food purchases means that "buying food is all about an increase in trash generation."

Maybe you'd be more comfortable pointing out the fatal defect in Bob E's analogy instead. No? Here, let me do it for you, then.

It’s like arguing with someone who’s conquered Everest:
Johnny: “We’ll, during your seven-day ascent, didn’t you ever have to walk downward at times?”
Climber: “Well, of course, the trail goes uphill and downhill…”
Johnny: “AHA! That’s it. The truth is, ascending Everest HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CLIMBING!”
Climber: “… Huh? … Johnny, … what in the world are you talking about? What pickaxe do you have to grind…?”

Climbing, by definition, requires changes in height, so it would be nonsensical to argue that changes in height were irrelevant to climbing. Evolution, by definition, requires changes in the genetic composition of a population. "Information," however you define it, is not part of the definition of evolution, much less a specified direction of change in information. If natural selection favors the evolution of increased "information" content, fine, but that would just make information one of many possible attributes upon which selection can operate.

 

[bob b]

Thanks, bob, coming from you that's quite an honor. Perhaps you fail to understand the relevant aspect of the analogy (you know, the part that makes it an analogy). So let me expand on it just a bit: just because 'genetic information,' whatever you happen to mean by that, happens to increase from early ancestors to recent descendants, doesn't mean that "evolution is all about an increase information," any more than the fact that total trash generation tends to increase with increased food purchases means that "buying food is all about an increase in trash generation."

Maybe you'd be more comfortable pointing out the fatal defect in Bob E's analogy instead. No? Here, let me do it for you, then.

It’s like arguing with someone who’s conquered Everest:
Johnny: “We’ll, during your seven-day ascent, didn’t you ever have to walk downward at times?”
Climber: “Well, of course, the trail goes uphill and downhill…”
Johnny: “AHA! That’s it. The truth is, ascending Everest HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CLIMBING!”
Climber: “… Huh? … Johnny, … what in the world are you talking about? What pickaxe do you have to grind…?”

Climbing, by definition, requires changes in height, so it would be nonsensical to argue that changes in height were irrelevant to climbing. Evolution, by definition, requires changes in the genetic composition of a population. "Information," however you define it, is not part of the definition of evolution, much less a specified direction of change in information. If natural selection favors the evolution of increased "information" content, fine, but that would just make information one of many possible attributes upon which selection can operate.

"Since biologists deal constantly in analogies, they are easily misled by them."

 

[aharvey]

"Since biologists deal constantly in analogies, they are easily misled by them."

Let's see, who was the first one to toss out a misleading analogy?...

 

[bob b]

Let's see, who was the first one to toss out a misleading analogy?...

You are a biologist and hence easily misled. Whether the analogy was misleading is another question.

 

[Morphy]

Expect to wait at least until next month. Bob is on vacation with his family.

Then I shall wait impatiently...

 

[Morphy]

Guys, Yorzhik, Johnny, BobB or AHarvey:

How about one of you answers for creationists side:

F-15 as a regular hemoglobine

F-117 Stealth as a hemoglobine S

There are no doubts:

F-117 is slower than F-15, carries less weapon, will loose a direct dogfight, is much more difficult to flight and costs muuuuuch more.

Regular hemoglobine is better than hemoglobine S (sickle cell anemia).

There is only one improvement of F-117 in comparison to F-15: it is a stealth "invisible" airplane. All other specifics are either worse or much worse than F-15.

There is just one improvement of Hb S in comparison to regular hemoglobine: it is "invisible" to malaria.

According to Bob Enyart, Hb S is broken. Sir, do you also think F-117 is broken and doesn't work? Maybe USAF shouldn't buy any more F-117s and turn to F-15s again?



BTW: you didn't respond to my argument:
It is the very nature (or God if you wish) which decided wheter Hbs is an improvement or not: if it wasn't an improvement it would be as rare as it is in Europe. Since it is relatively common in Africa it gives some advantage thus IT IS AN IMPROVEMENT. Just like F-117 is an improvement in comparison to F-15, although all specifics are worse instead of "invisibility" to the enemy (BTW: HbS is also invisible to the enemy - plasmodium).

 

[aharvey]

Guys, Yorzhik, Johnny, BobB or AHarvey:

How about one of you answers for creationists side:

Sorry, Morphy, my status as professional evolutionary biology suggests that I probably shouldn't speak for the creationist side (not that creationists are at all shy about putting words in the mouths of evolutionists!).