evolution question

by outsmartthesystem 165 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  bohm

  gubberningbody:

  This is a topic which i find very interesting, but also one where the discussion is very easily confused. I hope it is okay we try to spend some time making sure we speak the same language.

  I want to address this claim:

  Bohm, I'd love to see how information is generated via natural selection and mutation, however I haven't found any literature which shows how this is possible.

  in the light of the sentence-example.

  First off, any theory in science is about explaining observations. We can observe a string of DNA and ask ourself how it got to look that way, and ultimately that is all evolution is about, and the sort of question evolution biologists should ask themselves (and try to find answers to).

  When you put the question as this: "how information is generated", you are not directly asking about a string of DNA but a quantity you call "information". It is up to you to make sure that question is formulated so well we can answer it; for instance, we should quantitatively be able to say when something has no information or when something has information.

  For instance, if i asked: "I dont see how beauty generated in evolution" that is clearly not a very good way to phrase the question, it is much better to ask: "How did the butterfly get its colors".

  I am not trying to put you down on a technicality or make it into a philosophical quest for definitions. The problem is that with all common definitions of information or complexity i know of, from information theory to physics, the question become trivial in the sence it is asked, because information is unrelated to function. That is not to say information theory cannot be used to analyze problems in evolution, for instance it can be used to predict most of our DNA does not have pattern-specific use (it is "junk"). Please dont quote Dembski here because he fall very short of solving that problem.

  Amongst adults this is not that big of a problem, provided we can agree on "information" meaning (roughly) "parts of DNA which does stuff, for instance make proteins which we use". I hope we can agree on that phrasing, otherwise correct me and write exactly what you mean.

  The problem is that when put this way, i simply see an abundance of examples where evolution (selection+mutation) make "information". For instance the example of the nylon-eating bacteria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria where the genomen changed (by mutation) and the bacteria was able to do something new and usefull (information) which was selected for.

  I dont see how one can avoid this example without resorting to say it is simply not that impressive; but then the problem is not if information can be made, it is related to time and quantity.

  The example with the sentence is excellent to illustrate several effects in evolution: Basically we have a population of 1, a genotype which equal the phenotype and a very poor choice of code. If you do not find this convincing we can discuss it at length (i suggest reading about genetic algorithms), but here is a good reason why:

  I hope we agree that life is able to reproduce and function without a continious miracle. In other words, any simulation of evolution should choose an enviroment, a score function and a code in such a way the "life" does not become worse and worse and die out in the end. In the example that is allways the case, since allmost all mutations are leathal and there is a population of one.
• 

  Qcmbr

  Hi gubber how about this rather simple set of changes.

  Initial Form - .the cat chased the bat.

  - copy error duplication no net impact negative or positive - retained

  nth - .the cat chased the bat..the cat chased the bat.

  - copy error word replace new functionality added may provide some local benefit

  nth .the cat chased the rat..the cat chased the bat.

  - copy error word replace but retained in isolated population since initial part still producing sense

  nth .the cat chased the rat..the cat chased the heat.

  - copy error word replace new sense (beneficial funtionality added) retained and improves fitness now in competition with .the cat chased the rat..the cat chased the bat.

  nth .the cat chased the rat..the cat liked the heat.
• 

  cofty

  binadud - I asked you what books you have studied on evolution and you replied that you own a book by Stephen Jay Gould.

  I mean no disrespect but, why do people think it's reasonable to argue about something they don't understand? Why not make it a project over a number of years to study some really good books on the subject? I listed 6 good examples earlier in the thread. By "study" I mean read each section more than once and think about how you would explain it in your own words. It is painfully obvious from what you have written that you know absolutely nothing about the subject yet. I promise you will not regret investing real effort to understand it properly.

  Just a couple of points to illustrate what I mean...

  Stephen JG believes in evolution. He just raised a new hypothesis about the pace of change.

  You recommend Francis Collins - why? He believes in unguided evolution, he despises "Intelligent Design" and is one of the movement's greatest enemies.

  Why are you talking about early civilisations? Please tell us you are not thinking modern humans are only a few thousand years old?

  We already know we don't descend from Neaderthals - what's your point?

  As somebody already asked, what is macro evolution?

  Intelligent Design is not a theory - it is simply a modern spin on Paley's Watch. It has not content, it simply says "x is very complex therefore goddidit. "x" used to be things like the human eye, now its things like the blood clotting cascade and the bacterial flagellum. Same story, same answer. If you google "Kitzmiller" you will find loads of interesting information. It is creationism in a new guise.
• 

  gubberningbody

  bohm, it's true that it's useful to clarify usage in discussion.

  In this case "information" is a function of observed response by a "mind". DNA is essentially inert. DNA doesn't "read itself", the DNA is "read" by RNA in response to activities perceived in the environment.

  It can, as in the case of detections of damage to the message, intelligently respond by way of substitution, or the DNA itself can be resequenced in response to the "percieved needs".

  The "information" isn't the sequence of DNA read, but rather the "minds" of the intercellular processes as these respond after having read different sequences and interpreting the coding as requiring certain actions.

  The "information" I'm referring to which has limitation in its production is/are the codes being interpreted.

  In the case you mentioned: "The problem is that when put this way, i simply see an abundance of examples where evolution (selection+mutation) make "information". For instance the example of the nylon-eating bacteria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria where the genomen changed (by mutation) and the bacteria was able to do something new and usefull (information) which was selected for."

  These did "make" information in the sense of rearranging the codes and reading these with its "mind" and responding differently, however it was limited to the codes present.

  Simple rearrangements need to use the codes these have at their disposal. If certain codes which might be interpreted differently if these were actually present simply cannot just miraculously appear by any random walk.

  My point is that evolution is a non-random directed process which has within it the capacity to learn and grow and that "random mutations" are simply not up to the task of generating the new codes.

  The result of all this is that we see "mind" as a necessary component of life, and that "mind" communicates with codes to itself as regards its own differentiation.

  "Minds", as far as we know, and "Codes" such as the aperiodic source we see in DNA or even in the coding of 1's and 0's which are "read" by the "minds" of computers allow us to communicate and these things simply don't spontaneously appear. We just never observe this occuring. Never.

  "Minds" are needed for "Information" to exist.

  "Mind" in my view must be a necessary, but undiscovered and not fully understood principle behind our reality, this including space, time, matter and this universe or multiverse.

  Having said this, the idea of evolution is not what I'm arguing against, but rather the mechanisms by which it progresses.
• 

  NewChapter

  I'm going to give this a try, but am concerned I can't properly express my idea. There is a flaw in the sentence reasoning. It's too tidy. It suggests that all material present is used to complete the whole. It does not take into account all of the junk that remains pretty much neutral. So one of those neat sentences may actually look llike this:

  The cat chased the bat, looks like:

  "Taddhdfeoipe kjewoickjoeiadjoeitadjfeo cdfjoeihadskjfeoakjdskdjfeoekldsjoedkel tkdjfeohkdfjoeedkjeo bdkfjeoasdkfjotkdjfoe"

  Another possibility is proteins can be pulled in, completely changing the coding of a segment of DNA. So t may not merge with a, but pull just a small element from it, which in turn changes t into something completely new that doesn't look like t or a---information gained. You are not giving the option of changing just part of one letter to come up with a completely, and previously unknown and non-existent, letter.

  Also, all of those noncoding letters (dna) can be undergoing fission and fusion and transposing proteins and such.

  Ugh. I'm going to post this and hope I made some kind of sense. But my main point is that you are arguing that new information cannot be gained. You use a sentence to illustrate your point. Your illustration is too simple to consider all of the possiblities. It assumes that the finished product will be completely functional and recognizable. It ignores all of the junk. And it ignores the fact that those letters themselves are made up of separate components that can be recruited without the rest of the letter. It also assumes that the resulting letter will be something that we recognize and that will fit into the sentence. But NEW information wouldn't fit in so neatly. A new letter would not fit this sentence----but the sentence would evolve into something we've never seen.

  NC
• 

  gubberningbody

  Newchapter, but you still need a "mind" to interpret and decide that any sequence "means" something new. In and of itself the coding "means" nothing any more than the chemicals making up ink on paper "mean" anything. "Mind" is an inescapable element to the equation.
• 

  cofty

  gubberingbody I am struggling to understand your point. What has mind got to do with anything?

  DNA codes for amino acids that join in ways determined by physical properties to form protein molecules that build bodies. All this talk about "information" is a red herring.
• 

  TD

  I believe the source of the word-transformation / mutation analogy is Michael Denton.

  The purpose is to show that a series of single letter substitutions cannot change a sentence or even a single word in a sentence to something else that's meaningful without passing through a series of meaningless intermediates.

  Denton's logical corollary is that two higher taxa in the natural world can only be connected via a sequence that contains non-functional intermediates, and therefore evolutionary theory fails.

  Of course this analogy only holds water if the information in DNA is expressed in as restrictive a format as written language is. For example, adding a single letter to the end of most English words usually destroys the functionality of the word. "Boy" is a functional word. "Boyx" is not.

  DNA as far as we know does not work this way. The DNA of any given creature has unused segments and even portions that are believed to be junk. Chickens for example, carry the DNA to grow reptilian teeth. Yet chickens don't normally have teeth at all

  In the word transformation analogy, this would amount to entire pages in a book that either either belong to some other book or are simply gibberish and by the self-same argument, would render the work nonfunctional.

  So I honestly think the analogy fails. We know that unused and junk DNA does not render an animal nonfunctional.
• 

  NewChapter

  Newchapter, but you still need a "mind" to interpret and decide that any sequence "means" something new. In and of itself the coding "means" nothing any more than the chemicals making up ink on paper "mean" anything. "Mind" is an inescapable element to the equation.

  The new mutation will either have a neutral, beneficial, or negative effect. If it works, something new will happen. If it doesn't than either nothing will happen, or the individual will die. You are wrong to suggest that something greater needs to read and interpret the results. Mutations happen all the time. How that translates into life or change is not "decided", it simply is. Can an individual live and suceed with the new changes to pass them on to offspring, or can they not.

  NC
• 

  gubberningbody

  Newchapter - I think you're not getting the fact that the coding will only make "sense" to a "mind" which interprets the change in sequences to mean "do this and not that", without that all you have is inert chemistry.

  DNA is not active. It's passive in the same way as a book is passive.

  Some "mind" has to read the book and decide to do something else.