The Theory of Evolution

[Phoenix]

I did not understand from your articles how new information is created. Can you dumb down the process, seeing as you have a degree in evolution.

I think this is the very nature of 'evolution', the 'evolution' occurs at the DNA level over millennia that there's no abrupt and defining point at which 'new' information is 'created'

[Vangelovski]

No, I can. Just not as well as many articles. So is this about me being able to explain it to you rather than that it is explained to you? Because if it isn't, there's better explanations than I can give, and I gave them to you. And I can give you more:

This one is quite technical, but the conclusion should provide you with a starting place.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2945180/

This one is dumbed down, but you'll say it doesn't do the job for you, and then I'll point you to the more technical studies, and you'll say you need it dumbed down...thus we'll go in a cycle, but here goes:

http://www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/where_do_genes_come_from

This one gives a dumbed-down specific example about what came first regarding the benefits and genes, but I'll refer to my above comment as to why you'll refute this one.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...is-scientists/

Its not about you being able to explain it, its about the production of new information being explained.

I didn't see new information being explained in the original set of articles. They only stated that new information is created, but did not provide an explanation of how new information that did not previously exist is produced. For evolution (molecules to man) to be true, brand new specified information needs to appear, integrated into the original and producing a novel, functional structure.

I will read your next set of articles and see what they say.

[vicsinad]

This should help too:

Claim CB102:
Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
Source:



Response:
1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

• increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
• increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
• novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
• novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.


2. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example: • Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
• RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
• Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.


3. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).


4. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

[Vangelovski]

I think this is the very nature of 'evolution', the 'evolution' occurs at the DNA level over millennia that there's no abrupt and defining point at which 'new' information is 'created'

I'm not asking that.

[Philosopher]

Interview with Stephen Meyer PhD from Cambridge University.

TT: Is the idea of an original human couple (Adam and Eve) in conflict with science? Does DNA tell us anything about the existence of Adam and Eve?

SM: Readers have probably heard that the 98 percent similarity of human DNA to chimp DNA establishes that humans and chimps had a common ancestor. Recent studies show that number dropping significantly. More important, it turns out that previous measures of human and chimp genetic similarity were based upon an analysis of only 2 to 3 percent of the genome, the small portion that codes for proteins. This limited comparison was justified based upon the assumption that the rest of the genome was non-functional “junk.” Since the publication of the results of something called the “Encode Project,” however, it has become clear that the noncoding regions of the genome perform many important functions and that, overall, the non-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer by regulating the timing and expression of the information stored in the “data files” or coding regions of the genome. Significantly, it has become increasingly clear that the non-coding regions, the crucial operating systems in effect, of the chimp and human genomes are species specific. That is, they are strikingly different in the two species. Yet, if alleged genetic similarity suggests common ancestry, then, by the same logic, this new evidence of significant genetic disparity suggests independent separate origins. For this reason, I see nothing from a genetic point of view that challenges the idea that humans originated independently from primates, possibly even from a single breeding pair.

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/scripture-and-science-in-conflict/

[Vangelovski]

No, I can. Just not as well as many articles. So is this about me being able to explain it to you rather than that it is explained to you? Because if it isn't, there's better explanations than I can give, and I gave them to you. And I can give you more:

This one is quite technical, but the conclusion should provide you with a starting place.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2945180/

This one is dumbed down, but you'll say it doesn't do the job for you, and then I'll point you to the more technical studies, and you'll say you need it dumbed down...thus we'll go in a cycle, but here goes:

http://www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/where_do_genes_come_from

This one gives a dumbed-down specific example about what came first regarding the benefits and genes, but I'll refer to my above comment as to why you'll refute this one.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...is-scientists/

This should help too:




http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Sorry Victor, I can't see anything about the production of new information here either. There is a lot about combinations, divisions and loss of existing information, but nothing about the production of new information.

So far, all you have given me (here's an attempt at a dumbed down example) is what I noted above - re-configurations of ABC, but nothing about how D could come into existence. This is what we would need to see for evolution (molecules to man) to be true.

For example, one could say "The dog jumped the fence". So far we have examples of re-configurations, such as "The dddogg jjumpped the feence" or "The fence jumped the dog", loss of information such as "The dog jumped", and re-combinations such as "the dog jumped the fence jumped" but nothing that would demonstrated new information such as "The dog jumped the fence and then barked". It is just a jumble of existing information. New information is what we need to get for molecules to man to be true.

[vicsinad]

For example, one could say "The dog jumped the fence". So far we have examples of re-configurations, such as "The dddogg jjumpped the feence" or "The fence jumped the dog", loss of information such as "The dog jumped", and re-combinations such as "the dog jumped the fence jumped" but nothing that would demonstrated new information such as "The dog jumped the fence and then barked". It is just a jumble of existing information. New information is what we need to get for molecules to man to be true.

You're description is quite simplistic and not quite related to genes and genetic information, but I'll utilize it for illustrative purposes:

"and then barked" is created because "a" "n" "d" "t" "h" "e" and "d" are already in the original code. "b" could come around from flipping the "d", "r" from a shortened "f" minus the "-", and "k" from a combination of "t" and "h" minus the hook on the h.

You're making leaps that evolution doesn't make, or need to make, to be true. You're basically want me to explain that something comes from nothing. That's not what evolution does. You won't accept that new information is created from old information.

Think of it as a musical scale. Given any 12 notes, you can make nearly an infinite number of patterns and combinations of varying lengths.

Genes work the same way. The same bases are always used. Endless combinations are made.

[George S.]

Things didnt evolve.they were created.why dont things evolve???

[George S.]

Each animal or plant was made after
Its own kind.there is such a thing as god
Intervening.

[Vangelovski]

You're description is quite simplistic and not quite related to genes and genetic information, but I'll utilize it for illustrative purposes:

"and then barked" is created because "a" "n" "d" "t" "h" "e" and "d" are already in the original code. "b" could come around from flipping the "d", "r" from a shortened "f" minus the "-", and "k" from a combination of "t" and "h" minus the hook on the h.

You're making leaps that evolution doesn't make, or need to make, to be true. You're basically want me to explain that something comes from nothing. That's not what evolution does. You won't accept that new information is created from old information.

Think of it as a musical scale. Given any 12 notes, you can make nearly an infinite number of patterns and combinations of varying lengths.

Genes work the same way. The same bases are always used. Endless combinations are made.

Combinations and losses only work when you have information to begin with (and by the way, the inverted d is disingenuous. An inverted d is a damaged d, not new information). But regardless, evolutionary theory postulates that something did come out of nothing and then continued to produce and accumulate new information.

You (and I mean evolutionists, not just you personally) still have not explained where the D comes from in the ABC example. Or, where the A, B or C came from to begin with?

I'm not doubting that given preexisting information, new combinations can be produced (though it would not be an "endless" amount as it would be limited to the amount of existing information), but that does not explain how the preexisting information was produced in the first place or how new information required for molecules to turn into man was produced.

[vicsinad]

But evolutionary theory postulates that something did come out of nothing

No it doesn't. Where have you seen an evolutionary scientist state this? I would like to see the evidence.

You still have not explained where the D comes from in the ABC example. Or, where the A, B or C came from to begin with? I'm not doubting that given preexisting information, new combinations can be produced,

If you're not doubting that, then there would have been no need for your fence/dog example. But, to go along with you example, "A" could have came from "-" or several "-"'s. "-" could have came from several "...." coming together. And this could go on and on until you get to the beginning of the universe, for which there are many theories. But evolution need not go this far back. The fact is that the information does exist.

Also, as in an article I posted, you're not clearly defining what you mean by information?

[vicsinad]

and by the way, the b is not an inverted d. An inverted d is a damaged d, not new information

An inverted d becomes a b. You can call it a damaged d, or a b, or a mutated d, but it becomes something different, and has a different meaning, than a d.

[Vangelovski]

No it doesn't. Where have you seen an evolutionary scientist state this? I would like to see the evidence.

It does and that is the entire foundation of evolution. Evolution tries to explain how the various life forms came into existence - but it can never explain the foundation of its theory - where the information came from. You can't just say new information appears out of old information without explaining where the original information came from. Nor does that explain new information - it only explains different combinations of existing information and losses of information.

If you're not doubting that, then there would have been no need for your fence/dog example. But, to go along with you example, "A" could have came from "-" or several "-"'s. "-" could have came from several "...." coming together. And this could go on and on until you get to the beginning of the universe, for which there are many theories. But evolution need not go this far back. The fact is that the information does exist.

Also, as in an article I posted, you're not clearly defining what you mean by information?

You are misconstruing my example. I'm using letters to represent the most basic unit of information. You can put down as many dots and dashes as you like, but if you are using them to represent the most basic units of information, they are still examples of combinations and losses of information and therefore it only shifts the problem of information, it does not explain it.

Information does indeed exist, but evolution fails to explain its existence.

[George S.]

God is the originator
Og life.life comes only
From life.THings didnt
Just evolve.

[vicsinad]

It does and that is the entire foundation of evolution. Evolution tries to explain how the various life forms came into existence - but it can never explain the foundation of its theory - where the information came from. You can't just say new information appears out of old information without explaining where the original information came from. But that also does not explain new information.

You are misconstruing my example. I'm using letters to symbolise the most basic unit of information. You can put down as many dots and dashes as you like, they are still examples of combinations and losses of information and therefore it only shifts the problem of information, it does not explain it.

Information does indeed exist, but evolution fails to explain its existence

.

Evolution doesn't seek to explain where the original information came from. Evolution acknowledges that the original information existed. It doesn't need to explain where that original information came from in order for evolutionary processes to be true.

What you're seeking is an answer to the origins of "stuff." There are other theories and beliefs that deal with that. Take it from me, and take it from evolutionary scientists: where that stuff came from and how it got here has no bearing on the validity of evolutionary processes. You want the evolutionary theory to say something that it doesn't say so you can deny it. But that's not how it works.

If God created stuff, then who created God? If God simply just is, then why can't stuff simply just be? Why do we need to point to its origins to say that our observations and tests have any validity?

You can extend this argument from evolution into chemistry. How do new chemicals arise? How did H2O come to be? I'll say from H and O. You'll say how did H and O come to be? We'll keep on going until you say that the theory of chemical reactions is not true because chemists can't describe where chemical information originated from.

Do you see the flaws?